[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Sun, 09 September 07 17:18 GMT
|
"Restricted to internationals, premiership and 1st Div games do you honestly think this would deliberately take place?"
Errr... yes.
didds
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Sat, 08 September 07 12:33 GMT
|
OB I've just typed a scathing critique of you and other learned replies to my 'RC Replacement' suggestion.
When I hit the 'Post Message' button I had a red rejection warning for using a word likely to offend.
And the word ? I referred to that old 1950's gem 'The Art of Co*rse Rugby' which still influences your arguments on Replacements for RC's.
I feel there must be a Freudian link somewhere, as I have now lost all my typing and intensive thought processes because of some prissy and misguided
computer programmer! Enjoy the WC and I hope it won't be spoiled (except for England of course!) by any RC's.
|
|
|
ob
|
Sat, 08 September 07 00:14 GMT
|
chopper15 - red cards are rare. You are overhypintg the downside. The upside is that we would have many more red cards under your scheme.
South Africans may well have thought that Labuschagne's red card for his attack on Wilkinson spoiled the game, but I doubt if many England supporters thought so.
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Fri, 07 September 07 22:54 GMT
|
ref. Didds: 'I stand by earlier claim that it would be a charter for teams to target opposition key players.'
Restricted to internationals, premiership and 1st Div games do you honestly think this would deliberately take place?
This would also be noted by the disciplinary committee and woe betide any club, let alone player, or players as you seem to think, if there's even a whiff of it taking place. I think your being much to cynical.
And please don't forget what was my sole reason for raising the issue of a replacement for a red card in my original thread. So's the game is not spoiled for the hundreds/thousands and now millions of spectators by a thug!
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Fri, 31 August 07 12:56 GMT
|
a (I hope) sensible answer to the question...
because the laws have to apply to ALL grades of rugby, not just the elite end.
Such a law would have the effect of benefiting clubs that are able to supply a bench at ALL levels (1st/2nd/3rd/4th etc XV). The end result undoubtedly at the lowest levels is that SOME teams would have a replacement for their red carded players, whilst others wouldn't - which is hardly equitable.
I stand by earlier claim that it would be a charter for teams to target opposition key players.
didds
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Wed, 29 August 07 11:52 GMT
|
Exactly! My sentiments entirely. So why don't all affiliated clubs subscribe to this policy then we could go ahead and introduce replacements for red-carded players and no longer spoil the game for us all!
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Tue, 28 August 07 15:49 GMT
|
"As a coach if I had a player that persistantly committed offences of foul play & took no heed of advice given, they would not be selected"
That rather assumes the coach has a veto on selection of course.
didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Fri, 24 August 07 17:53 GMT
|
"thousands of spectators".
Obviously this is counting separately all the fleas on the dog (and the one man).
The Laws apply to ALL matches, not just those on TV.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Fri, 24 August 07 08:18 GMT
|
What a great question! Especially after Woodward got together with Nike to create the abomination now masquerading as an England shirt.
I've put it up as a separate thread - it deserves a run on its own! paste this link into your browser: http://tinyurl.com/2pwfko
This message edited on Fri, 24 August 07 by the whistleblower
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
chopper15
|
Thu, 23 August 07 22:16 GMT
|
Time really must lend imagination wings.
From all the correspondence against me I suppose I must accept that substitution for a red card isn't going to succeed and that millions of spectators over the coming weeks possibly/probably are going to be annoyed that a few thugs are going to ruin the game for us ....perhaps that should read most of us? Never-the-less, I thank you for your comments they were much appreciated irrespective!.
Now on to my next subject.
Why do professional coaches still turn out their teams wearing 'tackle-friendly' shorts?
|
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 23 August 07 20:06 GMT
|
The only international player sent off in the 1950s and 1960s was Colin Meads, 1967, Scotland v New Zealand. The referee, Kevin Kelleher, was Irish.
No New Zealander has ever been sent off in a match against Wales - indeed no New Zealander at all since Meads.
Are you remembering the Ringer incident in 1980 at Twickenham? Or perhaps the match that Wales lost to New Zealand by a late penalty (no sending off) in 1978? Haden took a dive from a lineout, but Quittenton, the English referee, always claimed he had penalised Wheel for holding down Oliver. Quittenton continued refereeing and was in action in the inaugural World Cup finals in 1987.
Rugby Union introduced yellow cards in 1995, but the sin bin only arrived in 1999. Part of the argument for them was that it would give referees a half-way house between a penalty and a sending-off. 8 players were sent off in 1999, including 4 in the RWC final stages, and there has been at least one in internationals every year since.
From discussions at Society meetings you would think it is the paperwork that puts referees off. However the County disciplinary records suggest that nobody is really ducking the issue.
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Wed, 22 August 07 22:41 GMT
|
PS Why not ask a few Refs ?
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Wed, 22 August 07 22:38 GMT
|
Evidence? Now in my 70's I still recall a much awaited game at Cardiff Arms Park between Wales and the All Blacks, possibly late 50's early 60's. Then, Wales were also formidable. It was to decide which team was the best. I think it was in the first quarter an All Black forward was sent off, no yellow cards then. The game was a huge disappointment to us all. The referee, a much respected Englishman, never refereed an international ever again. Details ,no doubt can be obtained from the WRU archives, if not the RFU.
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 22 August 07 21:37 GMT
|
chopper15 - "Red cards are rare for the simple reason referees in top class games are reluctant to give them for fear of spoiling the game for thousands of spectators."
Do you claim to have any evidence at all to suport this claim?
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Wed, 22 August 07 19:43 GMT
|
Red cards are rare for the simple reason referees in top class games are reluctant to give them for fear of spoiling the game for thousands of spectators. Allowed a replacement they wouldn't pussyfoot around nearly as much, and with the support of the disciplinary officials bearing down heavily on both miscreant/s and club/s we the spectators can enjoy a competitive game not spoiled by thugs.
Haven't I got any allies out there?
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Wed, 22 August 07 13:31 GMT
|
>One of the great things about team sports is collective responsibility.
I'll say.
I probably don't get my cards out enough but towards the end of last season the home team had a "lippy" back and about half way through the first half I changed a scrum decision to a penalty against them for dissent and then marched them back 10 for a repeat of the dissent.
There was no second repeat - the home captain ordered him off the pitch before he could open his mouth again and I didn't even have to even think about going for a yellow.
That's the way I'd like it handled all the time!
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
northl1
|
Wed, 22 August 07 11:43 GMT
|
One of the great things about team sports is collective responsibility. If a team knows that a player sent off can be replaced after 10 minutes there is no additional incentive to attempt to control or prevent illegal actions.
On the occasions I have seen red cards given in amateur rugby they have been well and truly deserved. If it is isolated and unforseen the reaction of his team mates and spectators will usually prevent recurrence.
However there are certain players that have repeatedly been awarded red cards, and certain clubs that have a reputation for general violent conduct. In these situations the club/team should be penalised for failing to adequately deal with the conduct of their players.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Wed, 22 August 07 11:41 GMT
|
seems a charter to permit up to 5 thugs on a starting line up whose sole job is to target key opposition players.
didds
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 22 August 07 10:17 GMT
|
I understood the point perfectly. Let me spell out my reply more clearly.
If a player were red carded, then the team would be short of a player for 10 minutes. They could then bring on a replacement. The first player would be regarded as expendable, having done his job.
That is the extreme case, but it shades down into less concern about getting a red card. (No, I am not forgetting about disciplinary proceedings.)
Overall the standard would be expected to go down, so that the spectators enjoyment would be reduced all round.
Red cards are rare. Let's keep it that way.
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Wed, 22 August 07 09:54 GMT
|
Still my fault in not making my point clear.
The red carded player is sent off for the duration of the game as is now. A REPLACEMENT is sent on after 10 mins. I'm not in no way equating this with a yellow card misdemeanour but he most certainly shouldn't be replaced immediately. And so as not to lose the focus of my argument I reiterate, 'Why should the enjoyment of thousands in a highly competitive game (same for soccer) be sacrificed just because of a stupid miscreant (to put it more politely!) In effect without giving this issue in-depth consideration we're being punished along with the thug/s.
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 22 August 07 01:31 GMT
|
A cynic would suggest that it might be worthwhile sacrificing a player for 10 minutes in order to get rid of a dangerous opponent. (Labuschagne on Wilkinson?)
You don't need to go that far to see that players would be much happier to risk a red card to stop a score under your proposal.
A red card may spoil the current game to some extent (but by no means always), but it has a calming effect for other games.
|
|
|
chopper15
|
Tue, 21 August 07 22:19 GMT
|
I'm sorry my letter, I'm afraid, wasn't clear. The red carded player is REPLACED after 10 minutes so's not to spoil the competitiveness and spectacle of the game. What purpose is served by not allowing a replacement. As I mentioned Why punish the rest of us? Thanks anyway for replying.
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 21 August 07 15:51 GMT
|
The red card really is the nuclear option for very severe offending. Before that comes penalties, warnings and yellow cards. I have not issued a red card in the previous two seasons.
Your suggestion implies that there is no real purpose to the red card other than to get the miscreant off the pitch. I think that the threat of red as a disadvantage to the entire team is also a huge disincentive to bad behaviour. If you take that away and treat the sanction as effectively the same as a yellow, then the professional foul become much more of a realistic option - among pro players, to be weighed against the upside and adopted when advantageous. At present, that will rarely happen.
You mention the possibility of a life ban. A red is far more likely to lead to a ban of a few games. I am afraid that rugby has already suffered far too much by pandering to the "needs" of the paying public (refs keeping the game flowing by not penalising illegal play). This flows down very quickly into course rugby. I'd be against it.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
chopper15
|
Tue, 21 August 07 12:01 GMT
|
Red card send-offs can and will ruin the game for thousands of spectators, millions when TV is involved, aswell as both participating teams. The miscreant will get his comeuppence(which can be a life ban or civil prosecution in severe cases)so why punish the rest of us?
Bearing this in mind, why not allow a replacement after the mandatory 10 minutes?
Whenever I raise this old chestnut with my contemporaries, I'm in my 70's, past images of 'course (sic, was not allowed to use the correct spelling as the last four letters were considered offensive by the censor)rugby'(played mostly by unfit middle-aged men fuelled with pasties and beer and was then called called 'junior rugby') would spring to mind and the knee-jerk reaction was to shout me down 'cause the other team and their supporters, mostly mothers,wives,girlfriends and daughters, deserved it'!.
|
|
|
|
|
|
