20-minute red card confirmed as part of law trials for Rugby Championship

Wed, 11/08/2021, 07:42 am
Nathan Williamson


The 20-minute red card and the 50-22 will be amongst the new law trials implemented ahead of the Rugby Championship.

The decision to implement the red card changes comes after World Rugby approved a SANZAAR request after it was initially left out of the global trials.

It initially came into effect for the Bledisloe series, which kicked off last week, and will see a player replaced after 20 minutes by another player if they have been red-carded.

A player who been tactically replaced is able to return to the field to replace a red-carded player, however, teams must have had used their allocated substitutes.

The decision comes after wide-ranging discussions surrounding a crack-down on high tackles and foul-play to ensure player safety.

It was brought further into the spotlight when Marika Koroibete was red-carded for a high tackle, which was eventually overturned, forcing the Wallabies to play with 14 men for 75 minutes before pulling off a famous win over France.

The 50-22 kick has also been adopted into International games, which will see teams rewarded with the throw-in if they manage to find touch inside an opposition's 22 from their own half.

This rule has been trialled across Super Rugby AU, with World Rugby set to make a decision on including it permanently into the rule book.

They have also opted to include the goal-line dropout, which sees the defending team kick the ball back to the opposition from their goal-line if a player is held up or the ball travels into the try area.

Along with this, there have been tweaks surrounding the ruck, which will see further emphasis placed on sanctioning cleanouts which target or drop their weight onto the lower limbs.

https://www.rugby.com.au/news/rugby-...-union-2021810

I don't believe that the Red (replace after 20 minutes) is the right way to go.

A Red Card now becomes a much easier Penalty for a Referee to deliver as it doesn't have the same impact on the game as the old Red Card did. As we saw in SuperRugby AU. IT was almost a Red Card every game.

I think that the better option would be to keep the absolute heinous crimes to remain a Red Card but for there to be a middle ground option of a Yellow and a Yellow Plus where the foul play is reported to the judiciary.

I remember reading in late 2019 or early 2020 that World Rugby wanted to trial a system where every card would be yellow but potentially upgraded to a Red upon review of the TMO.

I guess that got swept away with the Covid fuss last year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .X.

I don't believe that the Red (replace after 20 minutes) is the right way to go.

A Red Card now becomes a much easier Penalty for a Referee to deliver as it doesn't have the same impact on the game as the old Red Card did. As we saw in SuperRugby AU. IT was almost a Red Card every game.

I think that the better option would be to keep the absolute heinous crimes to remain a Red Card but for there to be a middle ground option of a Yellow and a Yellow Plus where the foul play is reported to the judiciary.

---

I get what you're saying X, and I was of the same opinion in the beginning, but after doing some research into the head contact protocols it appears to me that there'll be a flurry of red cards regardless until certain players either relearn muscle memory or leave the game.

It's much better to think that the incredibly rigorous standard results in 20 minutes for the team and the player takes no part (let's not discount the impact this will have on the reserves bench and the general fatigue of the team) rather than playing 1 down for 75 minutes based upon an error.

Let's also not forget that Koroibete's card could have easily been upheld, since there was head contact, the tackle was high and the player didn't dip significantly until after contact was made. The difference was more interpretation and semantics than being anything that is clearly within or without the laws of the game.

I was against them initially, but remember thinking "if that's the standard then I'm glad that they've added the 20 minute red card to go with it.

The Kiwi refs them proved it wasn't the standard by letting Damien McKenzie get away with several high, direct contacts even saying once "he's done nothing wrong" so with the vast gulf in interpretation of this law, I for one am glad that they've taken the common sense step of enabling the carded player to be replaced, otherwise we'll see a lot more 13 v 13 matches and any good rugby man could want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .X.

I don't believe that the Red (replace after 20 minutes) is the right way to go.

A Red Card now becomes a much easier Penalty for a Referee to deliver as it doesn't have the same impact on the game as the old Red Card did. As we saw in SuperRugby AU. IT was almost a Red Card every game.

I think that the better option would be to keep the absolute heinous crimes to remain a Red Card but for there to be a middle ground option of a Yellow and a Yellow Plus where the foul play is reported to the judiciary.

---

I disagree X I think at least the game can be played out without being a farce which has unfortunately happed more times than not.
Not one guys red eye moment should kill x amount of fans wanting to or possibly turning off, that’s a big audience. If the perpetrator is found guilty after the game and cops 3-6 weeks fair enough but found innocent and game was lost after Four officious twats hold a game up for 5 mins so grandma can hear them is a no no!
How are you doing “Brother?”

Article from more than a decade ago...

https://www.fih.ch/news/hockey-has-best-card-system/

Hockey has best card system
April 20, 2009

I've said it before and I'll say it again! Hockey has the best card system in the world of sport. The option of the green-yellow-red 3 card system provides the umpires with the tools to administer the appropriate penalty or reprimand at any stage of the match.

By Steve Jaspan

In soccer the two card (yellow/red) system creates gaps in the ability to sanction players which also sees inconsistencies in decisions early or late in games, as well as decisions that can irreversibly change the course of a game.

This is often based on an interpretation of a tackle or professional foul. In rugby the same criticism applies as soccer except that the ten minute sin bin is sensible and similar to the hockey situation. However, there is no middle path between a warning with no card and a 10 minute sin bin situation.

Whilst I believe an umpire or referee should not always have to resort to cards if he or she is really in control of the situation, cards are a useful tool or weapon in the referee/umpire's armoury.

The next subject where I believe hockey has a better approach than rugby or soccer is substitutions. The rolling substitution can provide a coach with many more tactical options.

In rugby the substitution situation has improved, especially with blood bin injuries (so teams are not left with less players). In soccer, I believe they really need to review things. Early injuries to, for example, the goalkeeper can leave a coach with limited options.

It happened to Arsenal in their Champions League quarter final with Villarreal. Alumina (the goalkeeper), and Gallas (central defender) were injured early in the game which left Arsene Wenger with few options. Is this fair and reasonable? I think not!

Regarding the rules or laws (as Rugby calls them) it's interesting that hockey has eliminated off-side but soccer has not. Rugby's laws are far too complex as were hockey's rules but these have been vastly improved in recent years.

Rugby, hockey and cricket all have access to video umpires to verify crucial decisions but soccer resolutely refuses to do so!

Video umpiring decisions and the delays that some time ensue is certainly an issue but this can be managed. The basic idea is to ensure the correct decision is reached reasonably quickly!

The Laws/Rules should be geared to ensuring the game is fair, safe, free flowing (as few stoppages as possible) easily understood/interpreted and improves the game as a visual spectacle.

A fair bit of good in that dinosaur TIF, but I'm not a fan of allowing rolling substitutions, the game is getting so fast and brutal that we need to keep a lid on the impacts, fatigue is one of the ways this is being managed at the moment, so increasing the number of substitutions will certainly produce an unintended consequence.

Substitutions for Rugby in the early '90s were only allowed if the player going off was legitimately injured and a Referee could say no to a replacement coming on to the field if they felt that the player leaving the field wasn't injured.

It ain't the early 90's anymore

That the same player can't return after 20 is, I think, the big issue coaches will have to contend with. For the most part, the player sent off will be in the run on team. So who do they replace them with after 20?

Obviously if Swinton in is the run on team you can name a reserve who plays in that exact same position (same with Butch James back in the day) but otherwise it provides for tactics consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecky

Obviously if Swinton in is the run on team you can name a reserve who plays in that exact same position (same with Butch James back in the day) but otherwise it provides for tactics consideration.

---

You'd pretty much have to wouldn't you?

I see they've named Valetini at 8 and Wilson on the bench, so I believe there's some disaster management planning going on