Law Discussion: Tip Tackle Debate
On Monday in the wake of three red cards at Craven week which in effect destroyed the chances of three teams, we discussed the possibility of allowing a team to replace a player sent off while he is subject to disciplinary procedures afterwards. Now readers have their say.
It has been a good debate and probably worthwhile. We give readers' views, pro and con allowing a substitute.
The issue arose from a decision that at Craven Week a player guilty of a tip tackle receive an automatic red card. "Tip tackle" is a verbal shortcut to refer to a dangerous tackle, defined under Law 10 as: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground first is dangerous play.
The term bandied about before that had been the spear tackle which had no definition in law.
Pro
1. Henri Burger: He made several points:
a. Craven Week is a rugby festival, not a competition. That implies that it should bring joy and appreciation to all involved, for the sake of rugby. I cannot imagine that a team enjoy playing with 14 men, and neither can I imagine that a team will take much pride in playing and winning against 14 men. Also important, I can personally testify that it does not bring much joy to the spectators - the match as a contest loses its glitter instantly.
b. I've been to schools' festivals where they apply a different ruling where red cards are issued - after 10 minutes that player may be replaced by a different player, and he receives an automatic one match ban. It makes a lot more sense.
c. Players, coaches and unions have pride. Teams are ranked for the next Craven Week on the basis of how they performed in the previous one, and that determines who your opponents will be. Some of the smaller unions have worked damn hard to improve their rankings. It might not be obvious, but Limpopo has put in a lot of effort to bring black players into the game and up to standard. We have reached the point where we could do without the compulsory quota, which I'm sure will happen next year. But our ranking has suffered (as has Boland's) because of an arbitrary unjust ruling.
d. It turned out that after Limpopo's brave 14 men defensive effort against the Leopards, they were decimated with injuries. The reason for the injuries to two of our centres in the Leopard match is quite obvious - the Leopards No.8 had to play in the backline because of the schoolboys' ruling, and they used him continuously as a battering ram in midfield. Apart from that everyone else had to do a lot more on defence and I have it on good account that the injuries were almost all shoulder related.
This therefore raises another issue - that the depleted team runs a higher risk of players being injured because of the extra defensive effort. These guys are not professional players and one cannot expect their conditioning to be at a professional level.
I therefore argue that from a medical point of view the ruling of a red card without a replacement should be scrapped in favour of the safety of the remaining players.
2. Butch Deuchar: I believe your thinking is correct but would add that the replacement player should only come on after 10 minutes of playing time. Otherwise a red card offence would be less onerous than a yellow card offence.
I believe that referees are reluctant to issue red cards because of the great impact it has on the game as you so described. Yet there have been many cases when a player should have been red carded.
3. Steve La Marque: I see the logic in your proposal and truly hope that some of the brains trust of rugby see it that way too. I am a coach of junior rugby and have to spend vast amount of time trying to convince these kids that the senior players (their role models) are not beyond the law.
The purpose of not issuing red cards at provincial level probably has to do with television and viewers. In Europe they have a similar rule in water polo which has a huge viewers. Players excluded for brutality are permitted a replacement with the exception of the 4th quarter. The reason is that with a man down the offending team is guaranteed a loss and viewers stop watching.
4. Cliff Bamber: I too, was rather concerned about the effect of the red card on the games themselves (in Craven Week). I like your suggestion about the guilty player being sent off for the remainder of the game, with the possibility of further hearings and sanctions, etc. to follow, and the idea of a reserve player being able to come on as a replacement for him.
However, I feel that this substitute should come on only after a 10 minute period. The reason I say this, is because I have a concern that some teams may field a player in their starting line-up who might be used in a "hit man" role, whose job is to target a key player (e.g. the flyhalf, or another playmaker) in the opposition line up (i.e. injure him so he has to go off). This "hit man" might not normally be a first choice player, with the thinking that once he has "taken out" the key opposition player, and that if he is sent off permanently, it is no problem because the 'real player' can then be substituted on in his place! It would be a happy sacrifice, because the opposition team will lose their key player, and once the "hit man" has been sent off, the better player takes his place on the field.
So to counter this, a 10 minute period with only 14 players would be a suitable punishment for the offending team, rather than for the whole game.
4. Conrad Breytenbach: I totally agree with the idea of sending on a replacement. It is such a blow for a team to play without a player for 10 minutes, let alone for 40 minutes or more.
I think the whole red card issue should be looked at, not just for spear tackles. Punish the player, not the team should be the right way.
Players that repeatedly make themselves guilty of spear tackles or foul play should be banned for extended periods and their pay docked. This way players will realise that there is serious consequences to stupidity on the playing field.
Rugby is and always will be a contact sport, but playing hard and playing dirty is two different things. I played rugby for 17 years and only once was one of my teammates send of the field. I think that the opposing side gain to much of an advantage when a team loses a player, even just for a yellow card. Maybe they should adopt the soccer way where you get sent off after 2 yellow cards in a match. This way, once a player receives a yellow, he knows he must be careful or the coach must substitute him before he gets another yellow. Just an idea
5. Dieter Meyer: I agree with your sentiment however specifically at Under-19 level or lower . At senior club and higher the Law must stay as it is.
Con
1. Gordon Haas (Canada): "Why should the team be punished as well?'
Why? Because it's a team game and a major component is discipline. It's up to the team leadership to ensure discipline so yes, for indiscipline on the part of one player the team should be punished and for something as serious as a spear tackle the team should be punished severely! As well, the player should end up being suspended for a very long time.
And where does the line get drawn - what about kicking your opponent? stamping on their head? punching? Your position in fact offers a reward for indiscipline.
2. Liam Byrne (Ireland): Just read your piece on Craven week and the impact that three red cards had on the respective games. I have to say that I disagree with your premise that teams should not be punished for the reckless action of one of their members. Rugby is the ultimate team game. It is played by all shapes and sizes and it is the team aspect and team spirit of the game that makes it so attractive for those of us who support and volunteer.
We already have the concept of a team penalty when persistent penalty offences lead to a yellow card. This has done a lot to cut down on cynical and persistent offending. Equally consistent red cards together with appropriate bans for serious and dangerous play would pressurize players to change their behaviour.
Coaches are already reluctant to select players that are deemed to be penalty machines. They would quickly eliminate serial red card offenders from their squads.
Three red cards in one tournament for the same offence!. Can I respectively suggest that IQ tests would be more appropriate than changing the laws.
3. Paul McKay (Australia): For many years the Australian Rugby Union did have the policy in under age (Under-19) games of replacing sin-binned or sent off players. However, as time wore on, savvy coaches started to exploit the ruling if they were slightly ahead in a game, and time was running short.
I myself officiated a schools 1st XV semifinal, where the coach of Team A who were ahead instructed his team to deliberately infringe. Consequently a player was cautioned (yellow card), and the coach slowed the game down whilst we awaited the replacement for the yellow card. This replacement player was also clearly instructed to misbehave, as consequently he infringed repeatedly and was cautioned (yellow card).
I did have (and continue to) have a good relationship with the coach of the team that deliberately infringed. I asked him about the acts during that game some weeks later and he bluntly told me that it was a matter of understanding the situation, and the laws he could exploit to win that game. He told me his strategy worked, as there was no reduction in number of players, and also the strategy ran down the clock.
My advice from experience, be very careful in implementing such a change as you have suggested in your article. Whilst the intentions of such a change are admirable, sometimes the ramifications are not.
The ARU has now reverted to the IRB regulations, that players are not to be replaced.
4. Kevin White (Scotland): With regards to the type of sanction that should be imposed on the player or the team, I believe that this is an issue that should be discussed and debated by the higher powers-that-be in the rugby world. At the same time I do believe that it is also up to the coaches of these players to ensure that an acceptable level of discipline is instilled into their team. The offending player has let his/her team down. Regardless of whether he/she is the teams best player or not, he/she must be dealt with accordingly and made to realise that his/her behaviour was unacceptable. Unfortunately the team will be made to suffer for the rest of the game, but I'm sure that the rest of the players in the team (who are there to play rugby) will make sure that this type of incident will not happen again. Rugby is a team sport and should be played accordingly. If a player does not abide by this simple philosophy they should not be on the field. At the same time, the referee should also manage the game in a way that will aid in preventing silly incidents like this from taking place.
5. Bob Rees (Scotland): I would hesitate ever to disagree with you, but my reaction would be - yes, but where do you stop?
- a high tackle, varying in degrees of danger to the recipient, is an individual act. A red card would also affect the team.
- a trip, also potentially dangerous, is an individual act. Deserving at times of a red card, that too would affect the team.
- is punching any worse than a spear tackle? Again an individual act.
My fear is that it would make an already hard task almost impossible for referees if they had to differentiate between a red card offence that would allow a replacement and one which would not. The inconsistencies could be immeasurable.
6. Paul Worsley (Australia): Red Card replacements is certainly an interesting concept, but I'm not sure it should or could work….
My thoughts would be that by bringing in a replacement policy this would reduce the collective responsibility of the team to control its individuals. The team would know that if an individual strayed outside of the laws then he gets dealt with (Red Card/Yellow Card etc) but the team can replace so moves on and does not unduly suffer. Generally there is always at least one 'hothead" in a side that is controlled by the captain/leaders of the team. If this player could be replaced they may allow the hothead free reign which can have a significantly destabilising effect on the overall game.
Whilst I acknowledge that losing a player to a Red Card is a huge team penalty and as demonstrated in your examples led to thumping results, no team likes losing and the likely discussions/recriminations in the team after the match are exactly the collective responsibility which we would never want to discourage and should be enough to reduce the numbers of such events. If it is enough such that coaches re-coach tackling techniques to avoid such incidences then all the better.
Out of the IRB directives on dangerous tackles, in Sydney our latest July education meetings ran presentations from senior referees on examples of different offences and with what gravity they should be considered and judged. It was clear from these discussions that in between reminders and discussions about these offences that referees gradually get softer and take the Yellow Card option rather than the Red Card. In the week following the presentations the referee coordinator noted a dramatic rise in Red Cards issued than had been normal in the weeks leading up to the presentations. Over the following weeks, the examples were set and teams now re-understand what's acceptable and what's not and the numbers of Red Cards reduce accordingly.
My view would be not to invoke a replacement policy, leave the responsibility as a teams collective responsibility to ensure an individual doesn't commit a Red Card offence.
Despite all that further thoughts if such a policy were to exist….
Under a Yellow Card the offending team plays with one fewer man for 10 minutes. This is accepted by everyone that the collective team cops 10 minutes for team and individual offences. Under a Red Card replacement policy a team would not suffer the 10 minutes with one man down. I suggest that any replacement policy would include a 10 minute period playing with one man down or maybe even a longer period due to the gravity (say 15 minutes)
The key grey area to a replacement policy for me arises out of the effect of the offence on the innocent player. If this player is diminished in his playing capacity or injured such that he cannot continue playing arguably the non-offending team have suffered loss of a front line player. How could this team be compensated for such a loss? Imagine if this was their star player. You could hypothesise a situation where a team sent out a "thug" to deliberately injure the star player knowing a red card for them but the team can replace. If the game was important enough they probably wouldn't care about the lengthy suspension afterwards.