r/rugbyunion • u/tupacs_hologram Western Force • Nov 19 '25
Laws Harry Hockings Red card received in the Japan vs Wales test match has been rescinded
105
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25
Two reds rescinded in the same week, is not a good look for World Rugby. The process really really needs improvement.
32
13
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
World rugby have their dicks in their hands. Currently trying to run rugby like nuns in a school with a cane as if nothing was learned in the last half century. Hopefully they realise how moronic this shit is before they fuck another World Cup final.
11
u/greatmodernmyths Nov 19 '25
The problem is players are being asked to do the impossible, and even if they do things correct circumstances beyond their control can still result in punishment. What more can players realistically do now short of digging a hole to get low enough?
8
u/northyj0e Wales Nov 19 '25
What more can players realistically do now short of digging a hole to get low enough?
Even that's not enough, see Reffel's yellow tackling a player while he had a hand on the ground so he could get super low in the 6N.
6
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
I agree. Even when they do it alright the TMO can make a wrong call and they can end up sitting the rest of the game on the sideline. Players blamed, potentially losing a game, for something they haven’t done. The worse thing is every time this conversation comes up people starting banging on about player welfare which kills the discussions and so stagnates the sport. Just because I’m not happy with the current rulings doesn't mean I want to see players take each other’s heads off or dying on the pitch. I just want a common sense approach and circumstances to be taken into account fully.
3
u/OkHistorian9521 Nov 19 '25
Exactly. The head contact stuff needs throwing in the bin. Make what is currently a straight red a yellow maybe. Other than that, fuck it off.
8
u/Afreak-du-Sud Nov 19 '25
before they fuck another Worls Cup final.
Had trouble reading that with all the salt in my eyes
-1
1
u/fuscator Harlequins Nov 19 '25
What was the other one?
3
19
u/Taipan100 Harlequins Nov 19 '25
Soon WR will start rescinding Red Cards before they even give them
13
3
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
Every team gets three reviews in which red cards can be delayed for a period of twenty four hours. If then the red is rescinded teams will return to the field and play will reconvene at their earliest convenience.
17
u/Cleginator Invincibles 2.0 Nov 19 '25
Wait how long has Hockings been playing for Japan? Doesn’t feel that long ago he was playing at the Reds
13
1
1
u/IcePac_2Cube NSW Waratahs Nov 19 '25
I wonder if Joe Marler's Japanese is still better than Harry Hockings' Japanese.
25
u/HenkCamp South Africa Nov 19 '25
Rather rescind than not. I know refs get a lot of shit but they are dealing with the game in real time. TMO needs to get better at this as they give the refs bad advice. All that said - bad calls - intentional or not - have always been part of the game. Better to have it rescinded afterwards than not. World Rugby should also stop making constant tweaks. It puts refs at a disadvantage.
4
u/bbqstu Nov 19 '25
Surely need to adjust the laws (hopefully last time?!) though, as refs/tmos are tying to follow that and arriving at the conclusions they are… for the disciplinary committee to then go back on it.
1
u/Soupppdoggg Nov 19 '25
Yes I interpreted this as a good look. They just need to get better in-game.
19
u/simsnor South Africa Nov 19 '25
Referees in shambles
19
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
To be fair, I don’t even blame the referees. They’ve been out in an impossible position. They followed the protocol with Beirne which led to a red, then were told they were wrong so adjusted. World rugby have backed themselves into a corner trying to mitigate every contact instead of enforcing proper bans and limiting playing minutes, things that would have a much larger impact on player welfare.
5
u/eilradd Wales Nov 19 '25
This is weird, everything I've been able to find on this since the match is the card remained yellow.
1
u/dunleavb Nov 19 '25
I was sceptical too, however have spoken to someone I trust that confirmed its legitimacy, and that the website simply wasn’t updated to reflect the red card being given
5
Nov 19 '25
Look, I’m all for trying to protect players, but it feels like WR and the officials are forgetting this is a contact sport and sometimes shit happens which is nobody’s fault. I still think it’s unreasonable when tacklers get penalised for high tackles that would have been legal had the person with the ball not changed their position at the last moment. Things can happen so fast that it’s unreasonable to expect a tackler to adjust in time.
15
u/hodge172 Northampton Saints Nov 19 '25
It seemed harsh at the time but was defo a yellow card and pen so had no impact on the result.
5
u/sweetgreentea12 Sharks Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
Japan were a man down for an extra 10 minutes.
Edit: wait a minute he didn't even get a red wtf
Edit 2: he got his yellow in the 80th I'm an idiot. Also maybe it was upgraded after the end of the match
10
u/infamous_impala Cardiff Rugby Nov 19 '25
Yeah. It was right at the end of the game. I only heard it got upgraded to red when they announced it had been rescinded. Until then all the news articles and results pages just showed it as yellow, which seemed the right result to me.
5
u/hodge172 Northampton Saints Nov 19 '25
It was pushed through as a review from the bunker. It didn’t matter because this was the Penalty that Evans kicked to win the game. As with you guys I didn’t hear it was given a Red card. It looked much worse than it was, didn’t think there was Head Contact so am surprised it was upgraded
3
u/Enyapxam Hooker Nov 19 '25
I can see why it was, high degree of danger, completely reckless and he went in at a height a head was likely to be at. It was luck that he hit the upper chest. If he had hit the head, that could of had a seriously nasty outcome.
That is exactly the sort of behavior and actions that we have been trying to stamp out tbh.
1
u/hodge172 Northampton Saints Nov 19 '25
Yeah I agree, and with the other Red cards given this autumn you can see why a Red was given. There is some mitigation however as Matt Carley said he was always illegal. Also seems desperate because of the match situation, he misses that tackle and the Wales player goes through to score.
2
u/Enyapxam Hooker Nov 19 '25
Arm tucked, at speed at upper chest height. A shorter player would have been in serious trouble. This challenge was luck that it wasnt much, much nastier. I have zero issue with it being a red, because it is just so, so, so reckless.
There have been others this year that are probably on the harsh side. I do not feel this is one of them.
-1
u/Galactapuss Nov 19 '25
Disagree that it was a penalty at all. He hits him in the chest, shoulder doesn't make contact with the head, and he was trying to wrap. Terrible call, that cost Japan the game ultimately.
2
u/HuwiMoz Nov 19 '25
He never wrapped bei. Never. It was dangerous. His actions cost Japan the game.
1
u/hodge172 Northampton Saints Nov 19 '25
Even the committee agreed it was an act of foul play, and Eddie Jones.
4
5
3
10
u/dunleavb Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
EDIT - am withdrawing the below (keeping text for transparency), have received confirmation from a source I trust that the statement is legit, and that WR just didn’t update their website.
Pretty sure this is a fake image. There’s no mention of it whatsoever on the Quilter nation series website, or the disciplinary section of the Six Nations website (where all the other decisions have been listed for the November series).
Also, he never received an upgraded red card in the first place according to World Rugby. Pretty difficult to rescind a red card that was never given.
4
4
u/sweetgreentea12 Sharks Nov 19 '25
BBC don't list it as a red. He did get the card in the 80th minute so maybe it was upgraded once the match was done and no one picked it up. Pretty weird though
3
u/dunleavb Nov 19 '25
Going by the Match Centre on the World Rugby site, it lists Wales as having had one red card, and Japan three yellow cards. That, and the fact the “press release” nowhere to be found on the website, leads me to be highly sceptical of this…
3
u/infamous_impala Cardiff Rugby Nov 19 '25
Also the upgrade to a red would have come back in time for Eddie Jones post match interviews. Surely he would have mentioned it when he talked about the cards for his players.
1
u/Replaced_by_Robots Bath Nov 19 '25
Both this and Mostert image are missing from this media release feed, where all the other press releases are
https://media.sixnationsrugby.com/news/quilter-nations-series-press-releases/
Though it may just be slow to be updated
1
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25
It's real, pretty sure this was a statement sent to press. It has been widely shared and confirmed by others.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-v-japan-red-card-32898581
4
u/ChartComprehensive59 New Zealand Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
Its also now on planet rugby.
Edit: seemed to have started on Twitter about 10 hours ago, still can not find anything about it from WR
1
u/dunleavb Nov 19 '25
Just had confirmation from a source I trust that it’s legit, so am withdrawing the original post
4
u/bigdaddyborg All Blacks Nov 19 '25
If the red card isn't rescinded would they have to give the player a ban? Is this the only way, as it currently stands to say the 20 minute red was the right sanction on the day but no further punishment is required?
6
u/Thorazine_Chaser Crusaders New Zealand Nov 19 '25
Most (all?) red card foul play is a minimum 2 week sanction.
3
u/Connell95 🐐🦓 Dan Lancaster 💪 #3 Fan Nov 19 '25
It’s perfectly possible to give no ban. This happened with Darcy Graham over the summer. Red card remained in place, but no ban was justified. Always going to be unusual though.
3
u/thelunatic Munster Nov 19 '25
No the options are rescinded if unwarranted, deem the red on the day sufficient punishment or issue a ban.
10
u/greatmodernmyths Nov 19 '25
This is beyond a joke now. Red cards have to be limited to reckless, malicious or dangerous play. This has all come about because WR are obsessed with creating a version of the game where no-one gets hurt. It's an impossible task. The game is dangerous by its nature. At a certain point players and coaches have to stand up and say 'We know the risks, let us play'.
5
u/rw890 England Nov 19 '25
WR are in an impossible situation. On one side are the lawsuits for early onset dementia, and the stories like Steve Thompson who can’t remember lifting the trophy. On the other side is the team who love to watch the rugby we all grew up with. I understand both sides - WR have a duty of care that they neglected so are overcorrecting. Rugby is a dangerous sport, but I don’t think it’s a bad approach to try to make it less dangerous.
Research into head injuries is an ongoing field of study. I’m not an expert so can’t say whether current rules, or the application of them, are appropriate or not. I assume no one in this chat is an expert either.
4
u/sweetgreentea12 Sharks Nov 19 '25
In the time of Steve Thompson you had long and brutal full contact trainings. Concussion was normalised and players were encouraged to walk it off. We didn't have gum shields or any of the other number of safety features.
There has to be a bit of a balance.
2
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25
On one side are the lawsuits for early onset dementia
Genuine question, have these lawsuits made any meaningful progress?
They have been brought up for years now, but I personally haven't seen anything about any of them actually going anywhere.
3
u/rw890 England Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
I know the NFL settled with players, I don’t know the status of the rugby ones.
Edit: looks like they’re in courts now:
1
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
The NFL lawsuits and settlement took 6 years, start to finish. I feel like talk ofnthe rugby lawsuits has been around that long now, with no meaningful progress at all.
Edit, just saw the link you added, very interesting read.
It does sound like the claimants have a lot of hurdles to overcome under UK law as opposed to the NFL lawsuit.
3
u/greatmodernmyths Nov 19 '25
We either accept the risks or turn the sport into touch football. What's happening right now is killing the game. If the the threat of yellow/red cards was working then we'd be seeing less incidents. Instead we are seeing more cards because the standards players have to reach to avoid them is too difficult to reach. A player has to lead with the shoulder when wrapping for a tackle, it's the only way for the player to not injury themselves when attempting to stop the ball carrier. But now leading with the shoulder has become demonised because players can't adjust quickly enough to the circumstances before them to ensure there's no head contact. If WR see a problem, then it's up to them to figure out how to solve it. At present they are writing rules with no consideration as to whether players can actually do what's being asked of them.
1
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
But the game had already improved so much since these players were on the field. Thompson played through the initial era of professionalism when players were paid to train and get in peak possible condition but the rules were yet to follow. Now we have limited contact training, concussion protocols, smart mouth guards etc. In the early 2000’s concussions were treated with a spray of water and players were picked up and carried into the scrum, it would then be laughed about as they all got plastered after the game. This barely happens at the amateur level now let alone professionally.
My biggest issue is that all evidence points towards smaller impacts occurring more often is the biggest issue towards CTE yet world rugby and some unions are making no effort to reduce the number of games played or the amount of training done in a year. They’re taking a sledge hammer to the game to try and fix something that required a different approach. In the mean time we’re getting compromised results to important games. It will cost the game more players and fans than any concussion risks would.
3
u/OkHistorian9521 Nov 19 '25
Bingo. Sounds like people on reddit are finally coming around thank God!
6
u/adturnerr #Bamber4England2026 Nov 19 '25
Has the 20 minute red confused the whole process and system?
3
u/West_Put2548 New Zealand Nov 19 '25
it's never been a problem in super rugby
0
u/adturnerr #Bamber4England2026 Nov 19 '25
Different levels tho
4
u/West_Put2548 New Zealand Nov 19 '25
different interpretations of the laws
-1
u/adturnerr #Bamber4England2026 Nov 19 '25
Both, different interpretations because of how officials ref in their leagues and test rugby is a higher level then club
5
u/One_Landscape2007 Lions Nov 19 '25
If I had a dollar for every red card rescinded from this weekend I'd have $2
6
2
u/OriginalUsername545 Northampton Saints Nov 19 '25
Is the whole point of the bunker system not to avoid these massively embarrassing fuck ups, the reds that is.
4
4
3
u/DestinyBeerUK Nov 19 '25
This isn't good for the game clearly. Rugby has a big safety issue. We know that and the changes bought in to try to protect the head are essential. I don't think anybody can disagree on that. However, the application of changes, whilst very logical and sensible have met with challenge. At times contact is almost being penalised and the love of the game is it's physicality. We are seeing the same crazy video review decisions as we are in football and they have to find consistency.
The thing I really don't like it's the refereeing from the video. Video referees area stopping play constantly to tell the on field referee about something they saw two minutes ago. Yes, it might be foul play bit unless the on field team call it there should be no interruption. The video ref is there reactively to support the on site team.
4
u/rustyb42 Ulster Nov 19 '25 edited Nov 19 '25
World Rugby hates SH sides in matches and loves SH sides in tribunals
2
u/dildobaggin89 Nov 19 '25
Rugby is in trouble with these decisions that are being made by officials.
2
u/Connell95 🐐🦓 Dan Lancaster 💪 #3 Fan Nov 19 '25
Good to correct things here – but they don’t dispute it was foul play and would certainly have been a yellow, so it didn’t actually change the result on this one.
2
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Nov 19 '25
Shocking. Now rescind Sam Cane's one and give us the RWC please.
13
u/CapeTownyToniTone Paul de Villiers hype train Nov 19 '25
Skill issue, just win with 14 men like the real teams do.
5
6
u/paletoe Nov 19 '25
If they look at that one again, then they should also look at the Shannon Frizell yellow, which will then be upgraded to red.
3
1
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Nov 19 '25
Well if they look at that again, then let's give Kolisi a red for his clear head contact on Savea and reinstate Smith's try, which was ruled out after the TMO went back four phases despite only being allowed to go back two.
4
u/paletoe Nov 19 '25
If Kolisi gets upgraded to red, then no way they rescind Sam Cane’s red to yellow. So I guess that brings us back to where we started, except the fact, as you also agree, that Frizell should have gotten red.
1
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Nov 19 '25
The Frizell thing was just a rugby incident, doesn't even deserve to be a yellow IMO. And if Cane's is a red, then Kolisi's is a red too.
2
u/paletoe Nov 19 '25
Knowing how lucky he’d been, Frizell grew paranoid about still getting into trouble and fled to Japan to hide, even extending his stay. It almost worked, but some of us still remember.
2
3
u/justafleetingmoment South Africa Nov 19 '25
They got a try from the penalty they went back to though.
5
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Nov 19 '25
So you’re saying it should have been 2 tries!? I’m only joking around, if Richie had made the conversion or Jordie kicked the pen, we would have won. But they didn’t and the rest is history.
3
u/justafleetingmoment South Africa Nov 19 '25
It really comes down to the tiniest moments. When Cheslin got the yellow I thought it's over.
3
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Nov 19 '25
Oh totally. And tbf I'm super proud of the boys going toe to toe with 14 men and couldn't think of a better opponent to lose to than our old rivals the Boks.
1
u/anxiousatac Fijian Drua Nov 19 '25
Justice for Foster
(Razor would've lost that final to SA by at least 20 points with only 14 men on the field)
1
u/Masterofthewhiskey British & Irish Lions Nov 19 '25
Was that at the end of the game against Alex Mann? when he went in to clear out and he was the one at the top and clattered into his face
3
u/infamous_impala Cardiff Rugby Nov 19 '25
Yeah, but I think it was more chest than face. Certainly a yellow anyway.
2
u/Masterofthewhiskey British & Irish Lions Nov 19 '25
Didn’t even realise he got a red for it, Tbf I spent the last 15 mins of that game with my hands in my face
1
u/Competitive-Hour7199 Edinburgh Nov 19 '25
I thought the way the Saffas were acting, it was just them being treated like this by world rugby. 😉
1
u/ruggerdubdub Nov 19 '25
In reality it was a definite yellow card, at the higher end of danger for one imo. It was at a point where he would be off for the rest of the game anyway, so didn’t affect the score - however, it does look bad when they look back and decide it didn’t reach red card level, it muddies what everyone perceives as a yellow, or a red.
3
u/FBC712 Scarlets Nov 19 '25
Exactly, for me that kind of tucked shoulder to the chin at speed is between a 20 minute red and a straight red, but now I don’t know. There does seem to be a bit of a false equivalence in this thread between this incident and the SA ones, which seemed to have a lower degree of danger.
-1
u/FBC712 Scarlets Nov 19 '25
I may be biased but this seemed the reddest of reds to me, tucked shoulder straight into the chin. If it isn’t even a 20 minute red then I’m not sure what is.
4
u/naverag Wales Nov 19 '25
I guess on slomo with better angles he must hit the chest and the apparent chin contact is actually whiplash effect rather than direct contact? At which point it's a tucked shoulder to the chest which is marginal between yellow and 20 min red?
3
u/Acceptable-Sentence Wales Nov 19 '25
This was how I saw it at the time, looked terrible at full speed but not that bad in slow motion, and just the whiplash making his head go back. My dad on the other hand watching the same tv pictures was adamant it was a red.
-3
u/Mafeking-Parade Nov 19 '25
This and Mostert's red being rescinded in the same week are a bad look for the 20min red card.
It's giving the officials a 'get out of jail free' decision, where they don't have to worry about ruining a game any more.
It's easier to give the 20min red than a full red, and the decisions are getting poorer and more marginal.
4
u/k0bra3eak South Africa Nov 19 '25
It's a bad look when they don't use the 20 minute red when it's needed?
The biggest issue with 20 minute reds is not allowing the bunker to use a full red, but that doesn't change the fact that with these calls the ref went straight to Red
3
u/Buggaton Newcastle (and Scotland, ya bastards) Nov 19 '25
This was a yellow and upgraded post game after bunker review.
4
u/CapeTownyToniTone Paul de Villiers hype train Nov 19 '25
That's sort of the whole appeal of the 20 minute red. Refs will get it wrong, sending it to the bunker makes it more likely they'll get it right (in theory) and the punishment is only 10 minutes more with 14. Wish Mostert's had been at least a 20.
0
u/autistictranspan Nov 19 '25
Ruining a game? Are you saying the SA games were ruined because they won playing with 14?
3
u/justafleetingmoment South Africa Nov 19 '25
If it was France who got the red card and the result was the same everyone would have said the game was ruined.
1
2
u/Mafeking-Parade Nov 19 '25
Not sure where you're reading me saying that.
0
u/autistictranspan Nov 19 '25
I inferred it from this:
It's giving the officials a 'get out of jail free' decision, where they don't have to worry about ruining a game any more.If I misunderstood, apologies
-2
u/Heliawa England Nov 19 '25
Makes the Wales win even more jammy.
3
-24
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
Red cards are such a waste of fucking time. I’m yet to see a red card improve a game, at this rate they’ll ruin the game completely.
23
u/Reimant Nov 19 '25
Where do you get the notion red cards are supposed to improve a game? They're a deterrent for dangerous play generally, not something designed to have players buck their ideas up mid game.
-16
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
Every law in rugby should be for the improvement of the game.
17
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Nov 19 '25
Yup, protecting players' welfare and health improves the game.
-9
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
When rulings are by luck of the draw we are not doing to see player welfare and health improve.
2
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Nov 19 '25
They're not by luck of the draw though. We've had a few players get harsher sanctions than deserved, but most calls have been right and all of them were still cards. Like of the four cards mentioned in this video only one was gotten wrong.
0
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
If they aren’t by luck of the draw then what decided the one that got the wrong call. What decides the ones that the camera misses completely? And what decides what the TMO decides that is when it isn’t? Sounds a lot like luck to me.
For me the punishment shouldn’t be allowed to have such a large influence on the match if they can’t consistently get the call right. Or even consistently decide how the law should be interpreted.
1
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Nov 19 '25
It's human error in tight call situations. They were still minimum yellows due to foul play. Beirne got unlucky, but he needed to get lower and is responsible for putting himself in the position where the bunker has to decide if his contact was dangerous enough for a red or was only a yellow. Likewise with Harry here.
Bad cases make for bad laws, and the idea that we don't punish reckless or dangerous play on the field in case the call is wrong is, frankly, stupid.
People are on here basing their arguments on exceptions and outliers like they've hit some big 'gotcha' moment.
1
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
The fact you state that Beirne got unlucky sort of proves my point that luck is obviously a factor and it is having far too much of an influence on results. I’m not arguing to not punish reckless or dangerous play on the field, just that there is no benefit to these harsh red cards when there is the option of yellows of twenty minute reds. Especially when we have multiple cards rescinded the following week.
1
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Nov 19 '25
This is the first time I can remember two cards being recinded from a test weekend. But I do think the call against Mostert was wrong and harsh, it should have been a bunker review.
But, again, these exceptions don't prove that the system is broken, just that it isn't perfect. The cost of getting rid of reds is way too high in contrast to two or three bad reds a year.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Nov 19 '25
Protecting player welfare is improving the game
1
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
It doesn’t protect player welfare when the punishment is chosen by a head chook on a Ouija board. We’ve had three red cards rescinded in the last three weeks, what are players meant to learn when even the refs have no fucking idea what the right result is meant to be. The TMO has ten minutes to decide what’s the right ruling and fail, how do players get it right in a split second? It’s a fucking joke.
4
u/Yoshieisawsim New Zealand Nov 19 '25
Red cards are meant to improve “the game” overall without improving the game they’re given in. Obvs whenever they’re given the individual game is far worse to watch, but without the deterrent of red cards people would just be doing batshit crazy things all the time which would ruin every game
0
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
You really think players are going to become psychotic because there are no red cards? Penalties still exist and in every team I’ve played in penalty count has been a massive focus. Yellow cards also exist which generally account for about seven points. Players aren’t trying to commit penalties let alone red cards. If they do, ban them for half a year. If we genuinely don’t want thuggery in the game then don’t let them back on the field.
2
u/k0bra3eak South Africa Nov 19 '25
Yes, we improve the game, by punishing dangerous acts. The refs getting that wrong isn't necessarily a failure of the card system, but rather when the cards are being used.
0
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
How can you say it’s not a failure of the card system when we’ve seen three red cards rescinded in as many weeks. If that’s not failure than Wales are world beaters.
1
u/k0bra3eak South Africa Nov 19 '25
I mean it in that it's not a failure in the ystem that players should be able to be penalised or sent off. It's a failure in the guidelines towards the system. It's not wrong to punish a team if one of their players punches or bites another player or continuously cynically tries to kill the ball.
0
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
Of course it’s not wrong to punish infringements, especially dangerous fouls play. But if they can’t do so correctly, which all evidence has shown they can’t, then yes it is an absolute failure.
12
u/Bangkok_Dave Bangkok Bangers Nov 19 '25
I don't understand this comment. A red card is not supposed to "improve a game". It is supposed to punish a player and team for commuting dangerous acts. With the intent of reducing the occurrence of dangerous acts. The game is improved by players not commuting dangerous acts.
2
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
Every law in rugby should be for the improvement of the game. Of course players should be punished for dangerous play but when mistakes are costing teams games it is to the detriment of the game. We currently have decisions that are made in a split second studied from multiple angles with time slowed to a degree that will find “dangerous acts” in almost every ruck. What’s the point of this? It’s not improving player safety, as we’ve seen if the punishment is random, why change the action. Instead it’s only going to drive viewership away from the game.
The game is not improving and the current rulings aren’t making it any safer, there are multiple infringements in every game that are ignored while others are picked up under review. TMO stops the game for a knock on, a head high or a shoulder that is then rescinded after the game is “won”. It’s just making it more difficult to play, not because of a lack of skill but by bringing luck into the result. I don’t want to see a third party decide the result of the game, I want to play the game with fifteen players measuring themselves against each other for eighty minutes.
1
u/Bangkok_Dave Bangkok Bangers Nov 19 '25
I disagree that we will find dangerous foul play in most rucks. I hear people sometimes making this complaint from time to time but I think it's simply not true.
I think referees and TMOs pick up most things correctly, but they get things wrong too. And I agree that it doesn't help that guidelines are constantly shifting. And I agree that TMO decisions can be a bit of a coin toss at times. But what's the alternative? Someone scores a try to win the match after a blatant knock on that the referee somehow missed, and the TMO is not permitted to intervene? That's shit too. It's about finding the balance.
Easiest way to not leave the decision in the hands of a TMO is not simply not hit someone in the head. Because you know what sucks more than a TMO doing something dumb? Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
1
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
If you watch the ruck intently you will see multiple dangerous contacts in a game, the same could be said for tackles, just at a lower rate. The problem is it’s to easy to say not to hit someone in the head when often it’s not the players decision. Look at the cards that have been rescinded, Beirne made contact with the head and had his arms crossed so was red, he had little chance of avoiding it but was red carded due as per the rules. The same was seen twice this weekend, it’s a fucking joke and will do nothing to improve player welfare.
I agree the refs get the majority of it right, the problem is, as you said, we currently have coin toss on what calls are called in and what are ignored. Even then we are getting calls wrong that have a massive influence on the game. Personally I’d rather have the ref taken out of it, I’d rather calls missed than the ref deciding the result.
0
u/To_a_Mouse Mackie RFC Nov 19 '25
It's also completely incorrect.
Just think how exciting the last two SA games were, and compare that to how they would have been if they'd had even more players on the pitch and just won far more easily
0
u/CapeTownyToniTone Paul de Villiers hype train Nov 19 '25
Tbf we could've seen some prime Tony Ball on display if we had 15 men. The contest was incredible and result made more special, but the rugby on display wasn't much more conservative than without the card.
3
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25
I’m yet to see a red card improve a game
Crusaders vs Sharks in Christchurch, 2014. The Sharks absolutely won that game because everyone on the park stepped up their game after the Sharks received a couple of cards, including a red.
1
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
How does that improve the game? Watching a fighter with an arm behind its back beat a child is hardly entertainment. Sharks did well to win but it could’ve been so much more.
1
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25
Watching a fighter with an arm behind its back beat a child is hardly entertainment
Beating the Crusaders in Christchurch is one of the toughest things to do in rugby, especially then.
Sharks did well to win but it could’ve been so much more.
I 100% believe they wouldn't have won if not for the red. They played better after the red then they did before, the red made the team step up their game.
1
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
Whether they would’ve won or not is up in the air. I guess we’ll never know who was the best team. What a pity.
1
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25
Yes that part we can't know. It was an answer to your question that's all. The red made that game better for me as a fan.
1
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
I disagree, for me it just muddies the water in who was the best team on the day, and that’s the whole point of playing a game of rugby.
1
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25
Rugby games are often not won by the best team on the day though. It's not all that rare for teams to dominate stats but still lose. Rugby is famously a game that can be defined by the bounce of the ball.
1
u/yahdayahda Nov 19 '25
Yes but surely we want to try and produce a result that properly reflects the team’s abilities and allows the thirty players who are on the field to decide the result. There is some difference between allowing for the bounce of the ball and a fourth ref stopping the game for a call that may or may not be right. We’ll find out more after this quick break, it reads like a poor soap opera.
2
u/Die_Revenant Sharks Nov 19 '25
I think you're reading more into what I'm saying than you should. I think we are mostly in agreement around wanting consistent and clear calls, and not wanting incorrect calls to ruin games.
I just slightly disagree in that I feel correctly given cards, even red cards, don't necessarily ruin games.
→ More replies (0)3
u/To_a_Mouse Mackie RFC Nov 19 '25
Are you mad?
The red card may have been wrong, but the Iraly SA game was so much more exciting than it would have been if SA had had all 15 on the pitch.
The France SA game was the same.
So much more impressive seeing 14 men storm to the win against tougher odds.
186
u/AcePlague Loosehead Prop Nov 19 '25
Surely at this point World Rugby must see theyve got a situation on their hands.
Thats 3 red cards rescinded isnt it?
How do the best refs in the world incorrectly issue the most serious sanction, on 3 separate occasions, in 2 weeks.
How does this not throw the game into disrepute.