THE IRFU SAYS it is against the permanent adoption of a 20-minute red card amid World Rugby’s law trials.
However, the IRFU welcomed the variation to the new rule for the Autumn Nations Series which sees referees retaining the ability to award a permanent red card for deliberate and dangerous offences.
It means referees will have the option to award a 20-minute red card for technical offences.
That will encompass acts of foul play that are neither deliberate nor intentional. In these circumstances, the player will be removed from the field of play for the remainder of the game, with the offending team able to replace that player after 20 minutes, with one of their available replacements taking the team back to 15 players.
A Six Nations Rugby statement said: “The red-card variation ensures that players deemed to commit deliberate and dangerous offences receive the full sanctioning, and subsequent disciplinary process, with the team being reduced to 14 men for the remainder of the game”.
A statement from Irish Rugby’s governing body said: “The IRFU does not support the permanent adoption of a 20-minute red card.
“Player welfare and safety are paramount to the core values of the game and the option of a permanent red card for deliberate and intentional acts of foul play supports those values and protects the integrity of the game.
“The IRFU welcomes the variation to World Rugby’s closed law trial, which will be adopted in the upcoming Autumn Nations Series, whereby match officials will retain the ability to award a permanent red card for acts of foul play which are deemed deliberate and dangerous.”
Other trials will see scrum and lineout countdown clocks and referees going ‘on mic’ to explain decisions for fans. The instrumented mouthguard will also be in place for the November fixtures.
Makes totally sense we’d be against this. This favours pacific island nations and new zealand who tend to go for absolutely reckless tackles on the opposition. I remember a time when the All Blacks were never red carded. There’s certain French players too who could cause serious harm with this mitigation.
@Sam Bingham: Its for technical offences as opposed to taking someones head clean off.
@Ray Ridge: Not the way the NZ guys have applied it to date.
@Sam Bingham: they need to careful how to apply this. As you say, a full red card with permanent reduction of team to 14 should be the sanction for any deliberate and reckless challenge like the type beloved of the AB’s and French down the years.
This 20min ref should only be for those ones which are borderline yellow/red. In fact, it might mean certain refs end up giving more reds due to it being less harmful to the spectacle. Unintended consequences
@Sam Bingham: It’s confusing. A red is you are off, and the team is down to 14. Nobody wants a game 14 v 15.
A red should be only for a serious offence, which it is. The proposal is for two yellows to be a 20-minute red and they should change the colour to orange. Imagine you are in the stadium and see the ref produce a red. Is it a red red or a 20 min red?
The only situation in which I would be in favour of a 20 minute red, is in the case of a 2nd yellow. Reckless or dangerous foul play needs to be stamped out accidental or otherwise. The accidental stuff is still reckless because the player has not tried hard enough to adapt their techique. A careless high tackle is more dangerous than a deliberate high tackle because tbe chance of repeat offences is higher. A stick is required in this case, not a carrot.
It’s like getting a get out of jail free card in Monopoly. Some of the tackles I have seen from Southern Hemesphere teams, the offenders should have been jailed rather than given a red card. Twenty minutes is only a quarter of a game and gives the offending side ample time to get back into the game!!!
The 20 min red card totally undermines the concept of a red card. It’s meant to be a punishment for the team for the actions of one of their players.
Getting banned is the punishment for the individual, but if you making a wreckless tackle costs your team the game, that’s more reason not to do it. By removing the on pitch cost for a team, lads are going to be way less cautious when it comes to discipline.
The piece that a lot of “reds ruin games” commenters seem to forget… red cards aren’t random. They are a consequence for a known behaviour. Some teams train to avoid that behaviour, take fewer red cards, and win more games.
Other teams bitch and moan about why they get so many red cards and that the ref is responsible for their World Cup Final loss.
@Rua Rogan: I see your point but there are red cards that are harsh. Just think of the red for Freddie Steward on Keenan. The ref had no choice under rules to give a red but it was an instinctive reaction from steward, there was neither malaxe or reckless intentions. If the 20min red is for those situations, I’d be a fan of it but if it’s going to used widely even for deliberately dangerous play, then it deserves to be opposed
I’ve heard a number of coaches and ex-coaches talk about changing training from hit them in the chest to drive them back and stop the offload, to don’t risk that as much anymore as red cards became more common; that was a good change resulting in more attacking rugby and a safer game that parents would be more inclined to let their children play. This would reverse that trend
@Andrew Slazenger: good point. And you do notice that certain teams get far more reds than others and that’s probably a result of how they’re being told to tackle and the reps they do in training.
@Michael Corkery: Exactly, it’s a gamble from coaches, hit them high and you dominate the tackle and stop the offload but you risk yellow and reds
@Andrew Slazenger:
I see shoulder high tackle bags in regular training use .surely this is a disaster for match play .
Restrict the training tackle height first and see how it plays out .
So the message here is if you’re going to be reckless make sure it’s in the first half of the game…. just saying like.
The red card with the current sanctions is important, I think it’s confusing and odd to have a full red and a 20 minute red – if they must having something between a yellow and a red, an orange card meaning 20 mins off makes the most sense
Yeah agree, not for the 20 minute red card…a red is a red and a yellow is a yellow and it’s clear what each represents ..like some pundits have mentioned, maybe introduce an orange if they want something in between but a red for me is off the park and sanctioned ..
@Stuart: Do you think the Boks have benefited from their franchise teams playing up north it terms of safer tackling technique and stricter refereeing? Does it have an knock-on to the international game?
@Neil “Montyman65” Montgomery: I think adapting to NH referring has been a massive learning curve especially in that first URC season and let’s just say the sides are a hell of a lot more familiar now. You can clearly see a massive improvement in overall discipline at provincial club level right up the the boks. (Because we’ve had to adapt quickly) With the boks employing Jaco peyper fulltime also shows the willingness to keep up with the rules and ensure an immaculate discipline record which the boks are trying to do . The URC standard of referring is poor by general standards so it’s even more difficult to adapt to POOR whistle happy NH refs….the style of play in the north being to quick tempo , breakdown workrate stuff are areas the saffas have had to learn quickly to compete …
@Stuart: on tackle technique or any other new laws the SA sides are adapting , and all the pundits or coaches I listen to are happy to do so …
Why don’t they have a 20 min orange card, keep the red card for serious offences, like with a yellow, the TMO has 20 mins to review and decide to upgrade it to a red.
The 20 minute red card is a backward step.
There are relatively few “deliberate” head shots in my view. Most head contacts are the result of poor technique – the tackler staying too upright – rather than an intention to hit the opponent in the head.
Surely the only criterion to judge whether the 20 minute card is a good idea is whether it will make rugby safer. By reducing the punishment for high tackles, it will do the opposite, if anything -reduce the punishment, and players will be more willing to take risks