Super Rugby Law Changes

[DingDong]

With the SH red card law in place, Italy would still have had a slim chance against Ireland last weekend for example, rather than no chance after 20 mins as was the case!

...or they could tackle low and have more than a slim chance. Players/coaches need top stop blaming the system and instead change mindsets. His choice to go high.

[Crofty]

With the SH red card law in place, Italy would still have had a slim chance against Ireland last weekend for example, rather than no chance after 20 mins as was the case!

...or they could tackle low and have more than a slim chance. Players/coaches need top stop blaming the system and instead change mindsets. His choice to go high.

This, so much this!

I do wonder how the proponents of the 20 min red card will react if some goon does a Calum Clark inside, say, the first 5 minutes of a knockout game and his side go on to win the match...

[chris111]

My biggest concern with the introduction of an ‘orange card option’ is the further license it would give to those who appear to watch rugby solely in order to moan about refereeing decisions!

[tjs10inOz]

With the SH red card law in place, Italy would still have had a slim chance against Ireland last weekend for example, rather than no chance after 20 mins as was the case!

...or they could tackle low and have more than a slim chance. Players/coaches need top stop blaming the system and instead change mindsets. His choice to go high.

This, so much this!

I do wonder how the proponents of the 20 min red card will react if some goon does a Calum Clark inside, say, the first 5 minutes of a knockout game and his side go on to win the match...

That's precisely the point of trialing law variations.

I remember that many people were 100% against the 50:22 law variation, but now plenty of successful teams (including Tigers) appear to be using it to their advantage, and the much-feared move towards an increased reliance on kicking long has not materialised. In fact, from what I have seen at least, the law variation has done what it intended to do, and encourage teams to leave an extra defender deep, creating more space in the midfield for the attacking side to run into, thus encouraging more open, running rugby!

For every Calum Clark incident (which itself is a rare occurrence), there are probably just as many "weak" red cards that have killed the game as a contest far too early.
I highly doubt any player will now go for the "Calum Clark" option because they think it will only affect the team for 20 minutes. If they did, the team shouldn't be selecting them in the first place, as that is almost certainly against their game strategy! Plus, the offending player is still off for the rest of the game (even if someone else replaces them after 20) and will face a post-match sanction for the card, so the penalty is still much more than just a "double sin bin".


Some trials work, some don't.
The point of trialing them is to find out what does and what doesn't, to hopefully improve the game for players & spectators.

[DingDong]

Personally i've never met anyone against the 50:22 before or after it became a welcome law change. It was trialled because it made sense.

This red card trial simply doesn't make sense because the issue is not to just punish but also be a deterrent, so the more we soften the laws the less chance players will change their mindsets.

The game is ruined not by the laws but by individuals 'choosing' to make wrong choices. Currently most scrums are a mess for this exact reason, the front row get away with far too much because they are not reffed anywhere near strictly enough. World Rugby keep tweaking the laws but to no effect in the front row mindset.

[Tiglon]

But that is the point, often players are now being red carded not for a conscious choice, but for an error.

Leibenbergs red card last season where he was judged to have taken the player out in the air would be an excellent example.

It seems that every coach is desperate to avoid penalties, especially ones that are needless and as a result of foul play, let alone yellow cards, so the deterrent is still there. What player would make a conscious choice to perform a head tackle because he'll only get 20 minute sin bin then replaced? There's still a good chance he has cost his team the game and he's still getting a good rollicking on Monday morning.

[Crofty]

...or they could tackle low and have more than a slim chance. Players/coaches need top stop blaming the system and instead change mindsets. His choice to go high.

This, so much this!

I do wonder how the proponents of the 20 min red card will react if some goon does a Calum Clark inside, say, the first 5 minutes of a knockout game and his side go on to win the match...

That's precisely the point of trialing law variations.

I remember that many people were 100% against the 50:22 law variation, but now plenty of successful teams (including Tigers) appear to be using it to their advantage, and the much-feared move towards an increased reliance on kicking long has not materialised. In fact, from what I have seen at least, the law variation has done what it intended to do, and encourage teams to leave an extra defender deep, creating more space in the midfield for the attacking side to run into, thus encouraging more open, running rugby!

For every Calum Clark incident (which itself is a rare occurrence), there are probably just as many "weak" red cards that have killed the game as a contest far too early.
I highly doubt any player will now go for the "Calum Clark" option because they think it will only affect the team for 20 minutes. If they did, the team shouldn't be selecting them in the first place, as that is almost certainly against their game strategy! Plus, the offending player is still off for the rest of the game (even if someone else replaces them after 20) and will face a post-match sanction for the card, so the penalty is still much more than just a "double sin bin".


Some trials work, some don't.
The point of trialing them is to find out what does and what doesn't, to hopefully improve the game for players & spectators.

DingDong covers the deterrence and false equivalency elements well, all I'd add is, in the balance, how many "ruined games" saved would be the fair price for a career finished early, or a case of CTE that wouldn't have happened?

[Crofty]

But that is the point, often players are now being red carded not for a conscious choice, but for an error.

Leibenbergs red card last season where he was judged to have taken the player out in the air would be an excellent example.

It seems that every coach is desperate to avoid penalties, especially ones that are needless and as a result of foul play, let alone yellow cards, so the deterrent is still there. What player would make a conscious choice to perform a head tackle because he'll only get 20 minute sin bin then replaced? There's still a good chance he has cost his team the game and he's still getting a good rollicking on Monday morning.

It's not about consciously going for the head, that's the whole point of the harsh punishment, it's about getting the tackle height down, aiming for the waist or hips rather than going for the "dominant tackle" at the chest unless you are absolutely certain you won't get it wrong.

[Tiglon]

But that is the point, often players are now being red carded not for a conscious choice, but for an error.

Leibenbergs red card last season where he was judged to have taken the player out in the air would be an excellent example.

It seems that every coach is desperate to avoid penalties, especially ones that are needless and as a result of foul play, let alone yellow cards, so the deterrent is still there. What player would make a conscious choice to perform a head tackle because he'll only get 20 minute sin bin then replaced? There's still a good chance he has cost his team the game and he's still getting a good rollicking on Monday morning.

It's not about consciously going for the head, that's the whole point of the harsh punishment, it's about getting the tackle height down, aiming for the waist or hips rather than going for the "dominant tackle" at the chest unless you are absolutely certain you won't get it wrong.

You can introduce a 12 month prison term for high tackles, but they will still happen, because rugby is played by humans and humans make mistakes.

[tjs10inOz]

Personally i've never met anyone against the 50:22 before or after it became a welcome law change. It was trialled because it made sense.

You may not have personally met someone who was against it, but the general view on here and other NH forums at the time was that it wasn't going to be a good change.

One example of that is below, and there were others:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46103&p=722135

[jgriffin]

Personally i've never met anyone against the 50:22 before or after it became a welcome law change. It was trialled because it made sense.

You may not have personally met someone who was against it, but the general view on here and other NH forums at the time was that it wasn't going to be a good change.

One example of that is below, and there were others:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46103&p=722135

Your prediction of it being used far less than expected has turned out accurate AFAIK. Introduces a bit more 'chess', contrary to my expectations TBH

[Tiglon]

I thought the 50:22 was a stupid rule, but I was wrong! Very clever addition to the game that I didn't fully understand to begin with.

[Rugbygramps]

I thought the 50:22 was a stupid rule, but I was wrong! Very clever addition to the game that I didn't fully understand to begin with.

Totally agree I think very few of us could see the wider aspects of the rule change, such as it meaning more space on the wide outside as wingers are having to defend a little deeper