When did rugby stop being a contest? Or why do we have laws in place to effectively end a contest between two teams where the spectators and fans feel the effect of a yellow or red card more than the players?
I heard an interesting remark yesterday and it got me thinking… When a player transgresses on the field of play and receives a card, who are we (read officials) effectively punishing, the team losing the player, or the spectators watching the game?
First off don’t get me wrong, ill-disciplined or foul play should be dealt with and the transgressors punished – but as things stand currently the way we go about this seems to punish the viewing audience more than it actually does the team…
Rugby is essentially a game where 15 guys on the field of play competes with 15 other guys or opposing players to see who is the best.
Officials, laws and interpretations of laws are there to ensure the contest is fair and that the team who eventually leaves the field as the winners, has done so being better than their opponents.
Laws are constantly tweaked in the game of union to ensure the contest between two sides are fair, and this in essence is what we as supporters or the viewing audience would like to see.
Rugby is also a professional sport, reliant on these factors to ensure they deliver a product to its viewing audience that is of the highest quality, but more essentially, a contest that is fair.
Under the current laws if a player transgresses through repeated, cynical or foul play offenses they run the risk of being carded. Yellow they are sent off for 10 minutes, red they miss the entire match.
The question then remains, if we alter the contest to such an extent that the one team has such a significant advantage over another team, is it still a contest and essentially, what is the point then?
When you alter the playing numbers on any side the contest disappears almost completely. It is unlikely a team reduced to 14 or less men will dominate or be able to compete against a team of 15 men. Strategies, game plans and tactics are completely altered in the team whose playing numbers were reduced not to mention the highly likely scenario that they will concede points in that period thanks to a disadvantage in player numbers.
Also, the point is really to punish the offending player is it not?
How much punishment is really given to such a player if he only takes a 10 minute break? If he is not cited in addition to being punished on the field that player is available for selection the very next week.
So who is really getting punished? The player, or the viewing audience?
Firstly, I do not want to see the game or rugby union end up as a lob-sided affair where there is no fair contest and secondly, if we are to punish offending players let’s do a proper job of it and really punish them by hitting them where it hurts most – their pockets…
Would it not make more sense if we are to keep a record of incidents in the game of rugby which is only reviewed post-match with sanctions being handed out there? These sanctions can include suspensions and even fines imposed on players and teams depending on the severity of the incident. We can still punish serious offenses on the field of play if the transgressions were clear to all on-field officials, but what I would like to see eliminated is the guess-work that goes into the current procedure practiced where on-field officials are not afforded television replays to assist them in making decisions which alters the outcome of a match drastically, or as mentioned, effectively ends it as a contest.
Post match reviews are also done with much less emotion, and more time to evaluate a possible transgression by individuals who are not influenced by in-game scenarios such as home crowds (dare I say big screen repeats) as referees are being subjected to currently. It might also just elminate the complexity of the sentence handed down where we can get greater consistency.
The dynamics of on-field sanctions can also be altered to be more severe without ending the contest. For instance for foul play, no matter where on the field, the team or player concedes a penalty on their 22-meter line. For deliberate and repeated or cynical foul play by the offending team in the red-zone the on-field officials can decide to award a non-goalable try (5 points only) or the option to the opposing team of a penalty in the center of the 22-meter line or where the offence took place in the red-zone.
But essentially, no team is put at the disadvantage of inferior player numbers and the viewing audience can still look forward to a fair contest.
Subsequent to the match decisions are reviewed post-match as it is currently done and if further sanctions can be imposed on the player, or even the team through fines and suspensions, it is done here. Teams will not only feel the effects of foul play much worse than is currently the case by losing the services of the player(s) in question, but both team and player will also suffer financially through a fine-based system imposed on either with the player also losing out of any future match fees.
The point of laws and sanctioning players is to clean up the game of rugby and I agree with this 100%, but let’s raise the stakes for teams and players without putting the viewing (and paying) audience at a disadvantage by ending the game as a contest.
@ grootblousmile:
GBS…ek was slim. Die dag toe ons intree moes ons kies watse sport ons wou doen. Ek het hengel gekies. Lekker gesit en visvan tyrwyl al die ouenes afk@k onder die army rugby afrigters..kannie dink dit was fun om deur jou kaptein of luitenant afgerig te word.
bos otter, 3 van ons en omtrent 68 van hulle, het nou nie juis getel nie, die oormag was groot en ons het elke meter nodig gehad om weg te kom, so kon nie stop om te tel nie.
29@ biltongbek:
Jan 1984 tot Des 1985… en so klompie kampe daarna ook.
Ek wassie uit die States nie, het weer op my beurt opleiding gegee.
Maar ek wassie in die Army se Lugafweer nie, was in die enigste gevegseenheid in die Lugmag, by Lugverdedigingsartilleriegoep naby Hammanskraal… of “Die Plaas” soos ons dit genoem het. Benewens die Pilots, was daar net 1 grondmag in die Lugmag, ons…. die res was fokken doggy-handlers en in die bystandsmagte en “sekuriteit”.
Het as deel van ons opleiding ook so bietjie Fighter Control en Lugverkeerbeheer gedoen.
Wapens was die Cactus Missielstelsels, Hilda Missielstelsels en die 23mm kanonne….. o en klomp Gary-mounted .50 Brownings.
@ biltongbek: 🙂 ek is bevrees daar was maar n paar groot bekkie in die bats.
My biggest bug bear is not so much the yellow card dished out, but the reffing inconsistencies. Pocock killed the ball so many times, but was never penalised,but BJ did it once and was sin binned.
Also there is too much “interpretation” allowed. For example one ref will let play run for a couple of minutes after an offence, and finally call play back, where another will let the play go for only a few seconds and bring the play back.
The rules should be such that there is very little room for interpration, but rather implementation.
@ Lion4ever:
It has become clear that we will never be able to remove the human element of referees in union, for that very reason we will always have inconsistent decisions made by officials. The easiest or most logical solution is to remove that responsibility from the referee who only has one shot at viewing an incident and making a call – in essence removing what is largely guesswork from the officials. Guesswork which can and does influence the outcome of a match and a contest.
bos otter, weet nie of dit de ewige geval uit die lug was nie, maar die flokkers kon nie juis hardloop nie.
was julle ook gepot met die omdop van die beret en dan suiker hy neer grond toe met so n’ gesweef soos n’ veer wat aarde toe trek?
@ biltongbek: ons is baie gespot…ons is vleisbomme genoem
Morne, I accept that refs are human and will make mistakes, and some decisions can influence the outcome of a game, but the rules need to be more clear cut, to take some the guess work out. Its highly frustrating for us spectators, but must be even more so for the players, thats why players take the law into their own hands.
And while I agree that a yellow card can result in points, more and more teams play that much harder when 14 men down.
@ Lion4ever:
Teams winning (or playing better) as a result of having a player sent off are exceptions, not the rule.
Anycase gents, off soon so hope you all have a good weekend.
bosotter, ek is seker daarvan dat jy darem nie letsels op jou siel het daaroor nie.
Vleisbom, fweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
splat!
@ biltongbek: lol…nee darem nie. Ons het seker gemaak ons kry hulle terug. Ek het van beret van omtrent elke eenheid gehad om my boots mee te polish 🙂 Net sommige van die ouens hhet dit kop toe gevat….vir die res van ons was dit net vriendelike banter 🙂
Maybe send the offender off for the rest of the match to be replaced by a sub. That way you do not neccesarily hamper the team with 14 men but the gameplan must adjust and would be punishment too.
BOYS, WEET NIE OF JULLE AL HIERNA GEKYK HET NIE, MAAR IS DIE MOEITE WERD.
45@ biltongbek:
Dis baie goed, daai video.
Somehow kry McCaw die Ref aan sy kant…. en kom dan met moord weg.
@ biltongbek:
You suggest that players get reviewed after the test.
Lets look at a World Cup final last 10 minutes and a team that is ahead by 10 points …they start transgressing as they have wortked out that is going to win the game and they are not going to be sent off.
It dont work.
Users Online
Total 311 users including 0 member, 311 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,819,180 Page Impressions
_