Replacements for yellow & red cards

[DavidM]

Haven’t heard of this but dont like the  idea . A yellow/red  card is a punishment for a player and a team and should be , thats the point . In quite a few instances the foul play takes an opponent out of the game . Im not in favour of changing this just for the spectacle of the game . Its meant to be a deterrent and punishment 

[Dave T]

29 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Haven’t heard of this but dont like the  idea . A yellow/red  card is a punishment for a player and a team and should be , thats the point . In quite a few instances the foul play takes an opponent out of the game . Im not in favour of changing this just for the spectacle of the game . Its meant to be a deterrent and punishment 

We make all sorts of rules for the benefit of the spectacle, and playing with 12 is a real challenge. 

I'd support using a replacement if it went hand in hand with more liberal use of the red card for foul play. If we maybe go stricter with head contact, it is a way of keeping it more balanced. 

[Damien]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We make all sorts of rules for the benefit of the spectacle, and playing with 12 is a real challenge. 

I'd support using a replacement if it went hand in hand with more liberal use of the red card for foul play. If we maybe go stricter with head contact, it is a way of keeping it more balanced. 

But some games with 12 can be really enjoyable too and add a different element. Can the team hold on and claim an unlikely win against all odds? The Leeds v Warrington game was a little like that and was warmly applauded. As was the Wigan v Saints Grand Final. Then we obviously get famous wins like GB v Australia. 

Games like the Hull FC one are a really bad example (and I know you didn't mention it) when it comes to wanting rule changes for the spectacle. Lets face it Hull FC we're a shambles and the game was gone long before the sending off. Hull FC being down to 12 made no difference to how that game panned out and a rule such as this would have made no difference either. 

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

But some games with 12 can be really enjoyable too and add a different element. Can the team hold on and claim an unlikely win against all odds? The Leeds v Warrington game was a little like that and was warmly applauded. As was the Wigan v Saints Grand Final. Then we obviously get famous wins like GB v Australia. 

Games like the Hull FC one are a really bad example (and I know you didn't mention it) when it comes to wanting rule changes for the spectacle. Lets face it Hull FC we're a shambles and the game was gone long before the sending off. Hull FC being down to 12 made no difference to how that game panned out and a rule such as this would have made no difference either. 

Yeah, I don't disagree with that, and I am thinking more for the future that if we start to be harsher on head contact we may be in a position where more people get sent from the field for the rest of the game, but to reduce the impact (I. E. Reducing to 11 or fewer) it could be done with a replacement after 10 minutes. 

[Dunbar]

So, I said I would add my thoughts.

One thing I agree with is that foul play should be punished and intuitively allowing a replacement for a yellow or red feels like we are letting the offending team get away with something. 

But I think two things are inevitable as we continue through this season and coming seasons.

1. We will get stricter with any contact with the head and punishment will be dealt out on the field with sin binning and send offs.

2. The outcome of games will be increasingly effected by this.

Now, if we are OK wiith that then fine. But I think we may be able to find a balance.  Eject a player from the game (and potentially increase the length of bans as an increased deterrent) while allowing teams to replace them.  They are one man down in the 17 (for either 10 minutes or the rest of the game) and they are forced to use an interchange. 

There are plenty of sports that eject players but carry on with the same team numbers. I don't think it is too outrageous and should be considered. 

[Dave T]

Just now, Dunbar said:

So, I said I would add my thoughts.

One thing I agree with is that foul play should be punished and intuitively allowing a replacement for a yellow or red feels like we are letting the offending team get away with something. 

But I think two things are inevitable as we continue through this season and coming seasons.

1. We will get stricter with any contact with the head and punishment will be dealt out on the field with sin binning and send offs.

2. The outcome of games will be increasingly effected by this.

Now, if we are OK wiith that then fine. But I think we may be able to find a balance.  Eject a player from the game (and potentially increase the length of bans as an increased deterrent) while allowing teams to replace them.  They are one man down in the 17 (for either 10 minutes or the rest of the game) and they are forced to use an interchange. 

There are plenty of sports that eject players but carry on with the same team numbers. I don't think it is too outrageous and should be considered. 

Pretty much my thoughts exactly summed up there, good post. 

[Griff]

5 hours ago, Damien said:

This is similar to the black card which is used in GAA for professional fouls. In that a player is sent off for the full game but can be replaced by a substitute. They still have yellow and red cards too though.

Black card is like our sin bin now. It changed for the 2021 season if I remember right.

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So, I said I would add my thoughts.

One thing I agree with is that foul play should be punished and intuitively allowing a replacement for a yellow or red feels like we are letting the offending team get away with something. 

Here's the key point. Are we punishing the player or the team?

The problem with punishing the team is that you'll need to accept that foul play early in the game is less likely to result in a sending off. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

Here's the key point. Are we punishing the player or the team?

The problem with punishing the team is that you'll need to accept that foul play early in the game is less likely to result in a sending off. 

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

Black card is like our sin bin now. It changed for the 2021 season if I remember right.

Yes it indeed changed last year. It's still only professional fouls though, not dirty play as such.

[Barry Badrinath]

I could get with this idea, if the replacement player was from a pool of really bad players.

Either play with 12 players or have luke gale replaced by say, Karl pryce or someone like that. (Using yesterday as an example) 

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Referees are more reluctant to send players off early. Steve Ganson excepted, obviously.

[ELBOWSEYE]

Let's leave it alone and put the onus on clubs and coaches to train out the poor technique that results in officials having to issue cards. Its not the rules/laws, its not the officials, its the players who commit these offences. All this will do is make the game more difficult to understand and follow and that is not a good way of attracting new fans in person or on TV. 

[Dunbar]

5 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Let's leave it alone and put the onus on clubs and coaches to train out the poor technique that results in officials having to issue cards. Its not the rules/laws, its not the officials, its the players who commit these offences. All this will do is make the game more difficult to understand and follow and that is not a good way of attracting new fans in person or on TV. 

I'm happy enough with the first part of that... it is absolutely the players, and by extension, the coaches responsibility to stay within the laws of the game.  I do feel that we will see more cards than ever despite this.

I don't agree with the second part though.  Ejecting a player from the game for a foul is hardly complex... it certainly isn't the most complex part of Basketball, Baseball or American Football to follow.

[GUBRATS]

If it isn't broken , don't fix it 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If it isn't broken , don't fix it 

This is fair enough. But I fully expect more cards in games moving forward.

Even if players tidy up their act, head contact is inevitable with such a fast moving collision sport.  As such more games will be influenced by cards.

[GUBRATS]

30 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is fair enough. But I fully expect more cards in games moving forward.

Even if players tidy up their act, head contact is inevitable with such a fast moving collision sport.  As such more games will be influenced by cards.

Then players will have to learn , maybe while we're at it , we can ask the refs to stop ' coaching ' and do more refereeing , these are proffessional players , not under 6s 

[daz39]

What a load of tosh, if a player does something so bad to warrant being sent off then surely his punishment is that it then makes it harder for his team?

What's to stop teams using it as an advantage towards the end of a game to get a 'free sub'

surely the OP isn't being serious?

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, daz39 said:

What a load of tosh, if a player does something so bad to warrant being sent off then surely his punishment is that it then makes it harder for his team?

What's to stop teams using it as an advantage towards the end of a game to get a 'free sub'

surely the OP isn't being serious?

Just looking to have an interesting discussion on something I saw in the NRL trials this morning.

We don't always have to jump to 'tosh', it is possible to just have a chat about pro's and con's.

[daz39]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Just looking to have an interesting discussion on something I saw in the NRL trials this morning.

We don't always have to jump to 'tosh', it is possible to just have a chat about pro's and con's.

I meant in my opinion.

Something like that would be way too easy misuse, ie:

A game is really close so coach tells a couple of his players to 'take out' the oppositions best 2, those 2 then get sent off but they get to bring another 2 on who's 'freshness' and opponents lack of players helps them win the game.

or

Player is absolute knacked and the team have run out of subs, coach tells him to plant one on the next guy at the tackle, he gets sent off, fresher player comes on and helps win the game.

 

You'd be opening up what should be a punishment to become a possible advantage to a side instead, coaches will always find ways to bend rules, and then you're gonna get all the debate about was it done on purpose etc.

 

Silly idea that needs leaving well alone in my view.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, daz39 said:

I meant in my opinion.

Something like that would be way too easy misuse, ie:

A game is really close so coach tells a couple of his players to 'take out' the oppositions best 2, those 2 then get sent off but they get to bring another 2 on who's 'freshness' and opponents lack of players helps them win the game.

or

Player is absolute knacked and the team have run out of subs, coach tells him to plant one on the next guy at the tackle, he gets sent off, fresher player comes on and helps win the game.

 

You'd be opening up what should be a punishment to become a possible advantage to a side instead, coaches will always find ways to bend rules, and then you're gonna get all the debate about was it done on purpose etc.

 

Silly idea that needs leaving well alone in my view.

As mentioned earlier.  If the replacements were part of the normal interchanges, when a team runs out of interchanges then they can't bring on a replacement for a carded player.

A coach has to manage 17 players and 12 interchanges during a game, I can't see him encouraging a couple of players using up interchanges and leaving the team down to 15.

It may not be a goer but we see plenty of US sports, excludung players for the rest of the game while still allowing teams to field a full complement is possible.

I am not advocating for it.  Just saying it isn't a crazy idea.

[daz39]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As mentioned earlier.  If the replacements were part of the normal interchanges, when a team runs out of interchanges then they can't bring on a replacement for a carded player.

A coach has to manage 17 players and 12 interchanges during a game, I can't see him encouraging a couple of players using up interchanges and leaving the team down to 15.

It may not be a goer but we see plenty of US sports, excludung players for the rest of the game while still allowing teams to field a full complement is possible.

I am not advocating for it.  Just saying it isn't a crazy idea.

Fair enough but we're not the US and their sports are bab!

And i think it is !

[Griff]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

A coach has to manage 17 players and 12 interchanges during a game, I can't see him encouraging a couple of players using up interchanges and leaving the team down to 15.

Only 8 interchanges these days. 

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, Griff said:

Only 8 interchanges these days. 

Indeed. I was 99% sure it was 8 but I thought I would check on the RFL site and naively assumed that they would have tye right information.  They have 12 so I put that.

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

17 hours ago, Dave T said:

I am a fan of trialling this for red cards. 

4 interchanges and 1 sub on the bench.

The sub us used for a player who gets a red yellow card?

Or they are down to three interchanges , which although 13 on the field there's only 3 on the bench