20 Minute Red Card Law GOOD or BAD for Rugby? | The Big Jim Show
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 жов 2024
- After the announcement of some new laws being trialed at the upcoming Autumn Nation series, Jim dives into the 20 minute red card law. Is it good or bad for the game... what do you think?
Share your thoughts, and subscribe to the channel for regular video podcasts with Rugby, and other sporting names!
Disagree with it. What happens when a player is red carded and is off for the rest of the match but the opposing player on the receiving end of the dangerous tackle gets injured and also can’t come on again. Both players cant come back on. Where’s the punishment? An extra 10mins?? Yeah naw, that ain’t right. Refs gotta do better differentiating yellows/reds with consistency before we start changing the rules
Agreed. See my comment as well. Such a badly thought-out change.
Absolute nonsense. 20 minutes with a man down is 100% fair. You’re talking utter BS. That’s a heavy penalty.
France have had very significant red cards in recent years. And they are against lightening punishment. One or two countries who are for the change just haven't improved their technique. So fuck em.
And WR, do they want to prioritise safety or speed? This bollox. Red is red.
No its not. Freddy Steward vs Ireland in the Six Nations vs Ireland in 2022 and Same Cane in the RWC final in 2023 are two classic examples of vital matches being completely ruined through rash decisions. I am South African and felt it was totally unfair for NZ not to have had 15 players in the RWC final and an "Orange" Card would have worked well. What are Ireland and France scared of? The full red still stays.
@@bunnychowmuncherto be fair, the Freddie Stewart incident was hardly a game changer. Also, he made headlines contact. The rule is clear.
Same Kane one was correct too but a little harsh given the flow of the game and similar incidents by the opposition.
Nonsense. No team wants to get a 20 minute red. This idea that it affects player safety is completely ridiculous. Great rule change.
@jameswyatt4443 it's not about teams wanting a red. It's about them deserving a red. And the non fouling team being compensated for it.
@@fergalbannon4614 20 minutes is compensation.
My main worry is that if there's a yellow for 10, red for 20, and a red for the whole game, we will see a lot more yellows upgraded to red for 20.
I'm against the 20min red card for one reason, easy to manipulate this to my advantage.
I would send out one player to "take out" the opposition 10 (Johnny Sexton) and swing the odds in my favour.
Also, Toulouse still won that game Jim. Not a good argument from your side.
If you take out the opposing no 10 that is cynical and is still a full red so not too sure what you are going on about. You've been watching too many Alpacino and DeNiro movies.
This is designed for borderline decisions where they realised they made a mistake because they were pressed for time to make a decision so the game could carry on and it ruined the spectacle for everyone.
Nonsense. Then why don’t teams do it in the last 20 minutes of games, with full reds already in force. No single player potentially (there’s no guarantee) getting injured is worth being a man down for 20 minutes. By your logic DuPint should be getting taken out in the 60 minute mark every game.
I find it difficult to decide how I feel about this. Blatant foul play should be a full red card. Deliberate stiff arm tackles, punching, treading on, fingers in the eyes etc.
Head tead tackles for the most part is a timing issue, or technique issue, but I don't think it is foul play, so maybe twenty for that is fair. But what happens to the yellow? Deliberate knock ons and repeated penalties?
I agree with the principle but I think, as per usual, Rugby is making it exceedingly complicated for no reason. Why introduce a new card rule when you can just re-classify what constitutes a yellow verses red. I'm a Bok fan and I think Sam Kane's tackle should have been a yellow. Just make head contact, that sits within the "rugby incident" category i.e. no malice, with mitigation - A YELLOW! Simple.
I agree that it should have been a yellow in normal circumstances, but the way it was being policed at the world cup, it was definitely a red. They definitely need to re-classify it though.
Either that, or they need to go absolute zero-tolerance on head contact and make it a full red. At the moment they're trying to half-arse it in order to appease the bleeding hearts in New Zealand.
I think the rule should be simple - If a player is injured as a result of foul play. RED. I think it should have been yellow on the basis that Kriel stayed on the field and didn't even have a HIA. How can it be with force, if the injured party is not injured in any way. Bok fan here too (btw). If Kriel had been injured, then no question RED. In fact, Shannon Frizzel should have had red with what he did to Bongi's knee. He injured the player with foul play. The injured player could not continue. It was not an accident. RED. If you are taken out in the air and you land on your head, you should be taken off for a HIA, and it is RED for the other player. If you land and brace with your arms and then on your back, it is YELLOW as it is governed today.
If a RED card becomes more lenient or for a better word less harsh, there WILL BE MORE of them handed out. The 50/50 yellow to red will lean to the red side if it's only a 20 min instead of for eg. an hour. For as long as they do not clearly define the difference (between, A] cynical play, B] foul play, C] repeated offences for the same player, D] poor tackling technique, E] accidental/collision incidents f] cards for team warnings especially for players already on a yellow and copping one for the team now,) it will always divide people.
It seems that the biggest whiners about red cards are those who just refuse to bring down their tackle heights.
Shocker.
Like who?
@@jameswyatt4443 The Kiwis.
I like this idea. Orange cards for incidents with no malice. Ewels & Steward V Ireland and Curry V Argentina in the RWC are all further examples of unnecessary red cards.
Well said!
My 2cents
Concept/purpose = good
Execution = bad
Why not scrap the nonsensical 2 yellows equal a red considering card rules so very differently to soccer.
Have 3 clearly different types of infractions:
Single yellow infraction (current yellow card)
Players sinbinned for 10minutes.
Double yellow infraction (20 minute red card)
Players sinbinned for 20minutes.
Red infraction (original old school red card purpose, stamp out egrenious foul play, thuggery etc)
Players sent off rest of game.
With the rule about 2 yellows equals red changed to two yellows (either 2nd single yellow infraction or 1st double yellow infraction) means cannot return to play and must be replaced after sinbin served.
Simple, easily followed by fans, intuitive, logic and we keep the core of discipline, the likes France concerned about, while adding a much needed layer with all the new rules, laws geared towards safety etc etc and fixing the nonsensical two yellows equal a full red when system so different to rugby and rules for cards so different.
orange card where it would be red but mitigated down to orange, not yellow?
Millimeters? Sam Kane was so high his shoulder almost decapitated Kriel.
I believe it was easily warranted. Hell I believe 100% they targeted Bongi early on to injure him and got away with it.
So was kolisi. If not worse
@@alexball7024You need to check your eyesight. Top of Kolisi's afro barely touch him. Nice try.
@@jamesw5713 you should of gone to spec savers then. Nice try 😂
I have no issues, red card the ref and video ref for making a decision to send a player off. Create a new rugby body and comp that does not involve world rugby, similar to UFC
@@alexball7024, there’s no comparison between those two. So different, hence the different cards..
Simple solution: yellow card = 10 minutes ( 2 or 3 yellow cards do not get upgraded, Yellow is yellow )
Orange card = 20 minutes for Foul play, Player may not return after time elapses ( Poor technique, accidental high hits )
Red Card = Remainder of the game, Deliberate foul play ( Biting, stomping, dangerous tip tackles etc. )
*For Orange or red cards players will be suspended after the game. Suspensions will be longer than previous years.
Done, everybody wins. Players with poor tackle technique will face lengthy suspensions and will become better tacklers.
Red card off the field for the rest of the game!!!!!! 20 min red card is an insult to what the point of the red card is.
I still don't feel it's the answer. I can also see teams putting some of their best players on the bench - like the Boks already do currently - and then the starting players can afford to be more reckless without too much risk. Imagine France starting their second choice scrumhalf every match and tell him, go all in - not maliciously, just 2004-06 Schalk Burger style - and get a 20 minute red card after 10 minutes, and then Dupont comes on. It's a win-win, because if he doesn't get sent off, they replace him with Dupont anyway.
Also, what do you do with 2 yellow cards in different categories? Does it result in a 20 minute red card if one was a deliberate knockdown which clearly wasn't deliberate and the other was a yellow card high tackle that was of lower severity?
The referees are gonna be way too busy IMO - they already are. And the shambles at club/school level without TMO replays etc. It's gonna become a joke.
I think if you were as fascinated by the word "mitigation" as you are by "egregious", you'd feel differently about the rule, Jim.
If ALL OF THE OFFICIALS who called the incident up on the screen to begin with, review the slow-motion clip, etc, discuss and agree/conclude that there was "a high degree of danger with no mitigating circumstances", then the red card and its effects make all the sense they need to🤷🏾♂. Debate the officials regarding what constitutes mitigation 🤷🏾♂. You can explain to them how fast-paced the game is and how millimeters are moving all over the show 😄! Was there really "NO MITIGATION"? perhaps there was, perhaps there wasn't but that should be the conversation, in my opinion. I think undermining the sight of a red card does the game more harm than good...
Thanks for a brilliant channel and the opportunity to RANT 😆
Much love from South Africa💋😉
Good for rugby because not every red is a red and worthy of a team having 14 players on the field and it ruins games. The full red for cynical behaviour still stays so I am not too sure why some people are getting upset. See it as an Orange Card to managed genuine errors.
They should let tournaments decide what they want and have it as an option by the teams voting each year so if France and Ireland don't want it then No for the Six Nations if the other countries agree but yes for the Rugby Championship.
A red card is intended as a deterrent, a 20 minute red is less of a deterrent. Imaging the scenario where team A gets a 20 minute red in the first half for very dangerous and intentional foul play that takes a team B star player out of the game. Later in the second half team B takes a yellow for repeated infringements. How will everyone feel about team A having a man advantage?
Why not make a yellow card 10-20 minutes. You need a red card !
Agreed. Make an orange one or something.
@@AndrewShingange in field hockey you get a green triangle.
Hey Jim,
I appreciate your thoughts on improving the pace of rugby, but I believe we need to focus on enhancing the game without compromising its integrity.
First, red cards should be strictly about safety and should not disrupt the flow of the match. We want to maintain the spirit of the game while prioritizing player welfare, and red cards can significantly impact team performance in a way that detracts from the excitement of the match.
To genuinely speed up rugby and encourage more thrilling action, I suggest we consider increasing the points awarded for tries. Here’s a potential scoring structure:
Win = 4 points
4 tries = extra point
6 tries = extra point
8 tries = extra point
10 tries = extra point
This system incentivizes attacking play and motivates teams to score more tries, leading to a more dynamic game. It encourages teams to adopt a more offensive strategy while reducing the focus on scrums and penalties.
Rugby is begging for more points, and this approach could enhance engagement for both players and fans, making every match more exciting without complicating the rules. Let’s keep the focus on what makes rugby enjoyable for everyone involved!
It’s a great rule change. All this talk about player safety, nonsense, this rule has been trialled in many games already, no one wants a 20 minute red, no one.
Anyone who thinks it will cause teams to intentionally try to injure players, I ask you, then why don’t we see that same intention to injure in the last 20 minutes of games as they are? Let’s just take Handre Pollard out on the 60 minute mark after the Springboks clear their whole bench, injure him and they won’t even have a sub. It doesn’t happen. A 20 minute red has no effect on player safety, because no team wants to be a man down for 20 minutes, no single player being injured is worth 14 men for 20 minutes.
In modern rugby we are seeing red cards for last second, unavoidable, natural rugby collisions with head contact, at a certain point it’s more dangerous to drop your height then stay upright, it’s a high speed game. You know what causes the most head injuries and concussions in rugby, tackling too low, and the tackler getting a leg or knee to the face, should we ban that as well? At a certain point the ball carrier should take some responsibility. We are ruining games for unavoidable accidents, a 20 minute red is a great rule.
As a paying spectator, I want 30 players on the field at all times, even after a 'dog shot'. Send the offending player off by all means, fine him, ban him a couple of weeks depending on the offence. I just don't want games spoiled by cards.
So he sets up a gofundme page to offset the punishment for his foul play. A red doesn't make the game worse.
And your dumb fuck idea that you want to watch 30 players over players safety is fucking moronic.
Is it possible to have 2 different degrees of red card or is that just too impossible for referees and players to correctly work to. It seems some red cards are given for things that are debatable as yellow or red and are decided more on the letter of the law than common sense. This could be the 20 minute red card. I think this would be good if it is viable for referees to implement for these types of decision
Ohhh the humanity!! Why can't they just leave this nonsense alone, and fix things that need actual fixing (enforcing of existing rules). No need for this 20min nonsense which we know will be manipulated to no end! Head contact? Tackle lower, push the coaches to train the players to do so (they aren't). Head contact? Whats the level or force (easily measured now), mitigation etc...decide if red or yellow. Red is off, and I completely disagree that it 'ruins the game' total bs, with no data to back up that narrative. If someone does something that warrants a red, its bloody serious, and the penalty (weakened team) should match, or else we will literally have people taking players out with no major consequence, while their team gets to potentially progress and win a trophy...a fair fair trade. The bigger issue here is, incorrect decisions for red and yellow cards, sort that out and we dont need to talk about this nonsense. Stop this orange card crap...why are we trying to make it even more complicated 😂
Every year when New Zealand moans about something the law changes 😂
Too much tinkering., so on the same came card, it was technically a bad tackle and a lazy tackle, to the neck and face.
So how do you decide consistently that that should be 20 vs permanent. Game is opening up itself to more scrutiny.
Some will deserve a full red, but given 20 min or vice versa.. so this will just add more debate..
And frustration.
I get what they want but you will get cynical people coaching target certain players first half and first 10 of second half.
I disagree. It puts massive pressure on the refs who are already abused. You mention a "grey area", how much controversy will this cause when 20mins is dished out early on and the team goes on to win having come back to 15vs15 ? I would like a bench of 10 but only 5 available for use! It's not an open conversation teams that get red and loose say its ruined the game, teams that have trailed this and lost because a fresh player has come back really cant complain because it looks like sour grapes. It doesn't need fixing red is red. Try and get the ball straight into a scrum first or perhaps a massive player safety issue is players screening the ball whilst a back jumps to catch it. ban jumping instead in H&S is an real issue! only joking a little
Jim Get off it. SAM kanes was just as bad. He was always going to make contact to the head with force. He continuously finds himself in those situations because his technique is atrocious and he never learns
Interesting point - yes, these things happen but he's a professional repeat offender.
What Force? Kriel didn't even go off for a HIA. Nah - both can't be true - he is either hit with FORCE to the head, or ruled out of the game. Or it was a small knock, and therefore without FORCE. That means it gets mitigated down. YELLOW. Frizzel on the other hand is RED for Bongi's knee.
The Sam Cane one would have been a perfect 20min card.
Is that because Springboks won the World Cup?? If so ...we had 2 yellow cards in that game and our top scruming specialists injured with (3 mins.)into the game🤗🤗🤐
@@ianjacobs2998 nah its because the single most important game in that 4 year period was played with 29 players on the field - in a game where the world is watching and we have a chance to bring in new fans to the sport, we dont need that.
whats worse for the game is South African fans, you guys dont have the ability to banter so any conversation about rugby with you guys just ends in the same obnoxious, pick me, playing the victim bs
@@mitchclark.designthey are by far the most insecure childish fans online in world rugby.
Hard to phathom the insecurity with all the success and dominance they have had in recent years.
It should have been yellow. Bok fan here. Kriel didn't even get assessed for a HIA, how can it be RED when the injured player was not injured in ANY way - isn't the criteria...it has to be with force, else it is mitigation to YELLOW. How can there be force if he not taken off for a HIA. Shannon Frizzel on the other hand should have been RED. foul play resulted in injuring Bongi, who could no longer play. Sam Cane one feels get a bit screwed, because refs didn't want to make call on Frizzel (there only 20 seconds left before the bunker ruled Frizzel to remain a YELLOW - they were trying their best to keep 15 on the field).
@@mitchclark.designBok fans are alwsys playing victim. They are double world Champs but still take this personally because they know Cane sending off changed the game and even then still just won. AB were the better team
No issues with it as a fan, if I'm paying $200 bucks for a ticket I want to see 15 on 15. Don't think the players are going out with intent to injure others... and takes a bit of pressure off the video ref who 9 times out of 10 has no experience as a referee. And also takes a bit of pressure off the ref. They should also implement a captains challenge like the NRL
The issue is not the red card. the issue is NZ not being able to not cheat in everygame
I tend to agree with this line of thinking. But it remains to be seen, if the 20min will result in more NOT less head contact. The upright tackle exists in part to stop the attacking player from offloading. If you hinge, the offload is MUCH easier. Now there is a trade-off - and you may be willing to potentially play the odds if the punishment is only 20min in an unfortunately head on head collision. It is no longer unintentional, it is now part of the defensive strategy. So no intention to hurt. But every intention of being upright and therefore increase the odds of an injury.
You can see 15 on 15 if teams bring down their tackle heights and stop getting players sent off. Some teams have, others are still whining that red cards ruin games.
NZ still do not accept they need to change behaviour and still have this macho attitude from the 70's & 80's. They do not prioritise player safety!
This is a ludicrous decision and your entire clip Jim is a contradiction. Go back and review the clip but argue you disagree and keep your exact same words. In other words theres no solid argument for this.
Not just the A B's dickhead
Just because that dummy Sam Kane doesn't know how to tackle after 100 tests, ABs moaning as usual results in rule changes.
Springbok supporter here to the EXTREME! The Sam Cane Never was a red. Not even a yellow.
In that game who Actually deserved a red was Savea with the knee on Bongi's leg!!!!
Now let's talk Owen Farrel...!!!!😅😅😅
dirtyiest scumbag out there, ghreetings from Wales, hope your enjoyin the URC, and if you can smash the english this Autum, your spring, that would be great. 🤣
It was clearly a red, according to the rules as they were being policed at the time - and it was consistent with the majority of decisions during that world cup.
@Ho3n3r The rules don't mean JS!!! A hundred years ago the law said I could beat my wife either a mop handle. Doesn't make the law Right!
@@Ho3n3r No way. Bok fan here too. If there is no Force, then there is mitigation. Kriel remained on the field, and didn't even go for a HIA. Both can't be true - it was either with FORCE or it was NOT. If he remained on the field, then it was NOT and that is mitigation. And that was the ruling at the time!!
I think it was Shannon Frizzel not Savea. And 100% agree - that was RED. Sam Cane was YELLOW.
Bad,bad,bad, it will be abused against the better teams to appease the crowd ! You’ll see it in the November tours !
What prevents players then from deliberately inflicting injuries on key opposition players with a croc roll for instance? Nope this new 'All Blacks red card' does not work.
It’s absolutely a good idea. Your team won’t be complaining if it happens to them.
Then still for 20minutes it is 15 v 14. Not good enough. Not fair against teammates, coaches and fans. Game can swing in 20minutes.
The Red Carded player must be off for the rest of the game and be replaced immediately.
Red Carded player appear before panel. Eather cleared, fined, weeks banned or more.
Disagree, know exactly where you’re coming from, but rugby is a team sport and as such ill discipline from one player should effect the rest of the team. It’s not about fairness, if you don’t want to let down the team, don’t get sent off. I will mention that I also don’t like the “soft” red cards we’ve been seeing where it’s clearly not intentional. In that aspect the 20 minute red could have a place.
I support your view 100% Jim!