Steve Borthwick and red cards

[Old Hob]

In the Times today, Steve Borthwick gives a robust defence of the current system believing it to be a "progressive stance" towards reducing the risk of brain injuries.
"He has no truck with the halfway house idea where the offending team can go back to 15 players after 20 minutes. "my view is that a red card is a red card. There are clear protocols set out", Borthwick said".

"Although frustrated by the outcome of the Porter case , Borthwick believes the red card has to apply to both accidental and malicious incidents."

Alex Lowe, The Times Tue 19/04/22

The article also points out the contradiction of the choke tackle where tacklers are encouraged to be upright; and the problem of the southern hemisphere not applying the law as rigorously as the North

[CJ]

Interesting article in the Times colour magazine on Saturday about Steve Thompson. Having read that, I am more in favour of the red cards than I might have been. But it is still the inconsistency that is an issue.

[wigworth]

I would be more inclined to agree with him if the consistency around the cards and citing's was much better but I cannot fathom some of the logic used in some of these decisions, never mind the very obvious disparity between how such things are reffed in different parts of the world.

While it might seem somewhat cold World Rugby also has to be cognisant of how the game is view by those who tune in to watch the matches on the various platforms. Without knowing the figures it would be interesting to see if there is a red card in a match if the viewership decreases. I would imagine that a situation like in the Ireland Italy game this year must scare World Rugby as if that situation were to occur in a high profile match such as the world cup final that would be a terrible look for rugby as a whole. I know that this is obviously a very occurrence but under the current rules one that can occur. As the situation stands currently it does not seem tenable to continue on with the current system where one of the main talking points each week on the various rugby media outlets are discussions about red cards and the impact they have on a game.

[Old Hob]

You mean, Wigworth, like the time when WG Grace was clearly out, lbw very early in his innings and the umpire shouted "Not out". The umpire later said, "I couldn't; full house, sixpenny crowd, I just couldn't"

[Tiglon]

Yes there needs to be much more consistency, I think most of us would be a lot happier with the Porter red if the likes of Gibson-Park and the Stade player were given similar sanctions.

World Rugby's opinion on it is that if they don't take this course of action then they will have an even bigger problem - no one playing the sport. I have no doubt we will see more and more evidence of long term head injuries with players from the professional era getting older and experiencing problems.

Players simply have to go lower, and that scenario of going down to 13/14 in a RWC final should be more motivation for them than for anyone else.

Borthwick is right (obviously, he's always right).

[Scott1]

My only worry is as we go lower we get more head injuries off hips and knees and we are back to square one.

[Big Dai]

My only worry is as we go lower we get more head injuries off hips and knees and we are back to square one.

Yup....I believe we need an upper and lower limit. Ban the choke and the chop. The choke is only aimed at getting a maul called, then collapse it to get the turn over, which is a dull law anyway.

Knees hurt. I've kneed my own nose when hooking. Our second asked me "I say, David old chap, was that their 4 who did that?"

I was too embarrassed to admit to incompetence so just grunted at which point our second row hit theirs. Now that would be a red card now.

The half way house could get rid of inconsistencies IF applied to all head on head. Incidents and IF citing panels and disciplinary panels could be trusted to view evidence objectively. The judgement on force, mitigation and all the associated rigmarole is not sir's to ponder. Just was there head contact? Off you go. Don't come back until you've learned to tackle properly.

Then would we have attacking players running in a bizarre stooped position to draw cards. I don't know. I honestly don't.

The only way to stop head injuries ever causing harm is to stop playing the game!

Borthwick has to agree with the status quo or us he not in bother for criticising the refs? (Cynical? Moi.)

[Pellsey]

My only worry is as we go lower we get more head injuries off hips and knees and we are back to square one.

Agreed!

I am all for less head injuries, of course. But I personally don't believe red cards are working as a deterrent. I just think we will be playing with less players at the end of the games and less people to select from, which let's face it, nobody wants.

[ay2oh]

Whilst I agree with red cards for foul play rugby incidents like Porter’s is another matter. Rugby is a physical game and that is one of the attractions for me so let’s not tinker with the laws too much.

[Scott1]

Whilst I agree with red cards for foul play rugby incidents like Porter’s is another matter. Rugby is a physical game and that is one of the attractions for me so let’s not tinker with the laws too much.

This! I’ve punted the idea of keeping reds for foul play and putting players on report for incidents like Porters and letting the citing panel deal with it. Ok there’s a chance they still get it wrong and ban the player but at least he gets the chance to finish the match. I don’t think it’s very difficult to tell the difference between obvious dangerous/foul play and a rugby incident. That or we just give automatic red cards for ANY head contact ,that way we do away with inconsistencies and let the citing panel deal with every one of them.

[OakhamTiger32]

My only worry is as we go lower we get more head injuries off hips and knees and we are back to square one.

Knees hurt. I've kneed my own nose when hooking. Our second asked me "I say, David old chap, was that their 4 who did that?"

I was too embarrassed to admit to incompetence so just grunted at which point our second row hit theirs. Now that would be a red card now.

This made me chuckle, thanks for sharing Big Dai

[Tiglon]

The law already states that red cards are for foul play - the referee decided that Porter did commit an act of foul play.

[Pellsey]

The law already states that red cards are for foul play - the referee decided that Porter did commit an act of foul play.

This is what was so shameful about it! IMHO

[Scott1]

The law already states that red cards are for foul play - the referee decided that Porter did commit an act of foul play.

Didn’t Rugbygramps bring up another law that had nothing to do with foul play?

[Scott1]

Yes 9:11 says reckless and dangerous,doesn’t mention foul play at all. So that can mean anything the officials or citing commission want it to mean!