Refs don't like giving red cards, especially early in games. This is because so much foul play is difficult to spot and happens quickly.
Maybe one of the ways around this issue in high pressure games would be to allow the TMO to review yellow cards for dangerous/foul play and upgrade them before the player resumes the game.
This way it would take a lot of the burden off refs while making it much harder to get away with foul play.
It wouldn't slow down the game and wouldn't risk red cards being awarded incorrectly. Citing could still take place as normal for any incidents that were missed but now there'd be a more effective in game sanction. The problem with citing afterwards is that it becomes a risk that players are more willing to take in the heat of crucial matches. It's a more effective deterrent in the relatively unimportant matches a few weeks before a big one.
Red Cards
Moderator: moderators
-
Munsterboy
- Mullet
- Posts: 1599
- Joined: July 27th, 2006, 5:29 pm
Re: Red Cards
I suggested that myself on another thread. I don't see any reason why the ref can't go to the TMO to ask him to recommend the sanction based on replay evidence. Takes the pressure off and provides for much better decisions. Would have to be limited to dangerous play.
We're all red on the inside.
Re: Red Cards
i agree. on a slightly related note, i think bans should be awarded in terms of 'suspended for x games' rather than 'suspended for x weeks' since there seems to be a serious drop in discipline towards a seasons end.
One MAJOR MAJOR point that needs to be sorted though: inconsistency with reffing. If an offence is considered serious enough for a red, a red should be handed out, regardless of the referee. I hate seeing matches where players know what they can get away with from that particular ref and pushing the rules constantly.
Failing that, make Alain ref every match
One MAJOR MAJOR point that needs to be sorted though: inconsistency with reffing. If an offence is considered serious enough for a red, a red should be handed out, regardless of the referee. I hate seeing matches where players know what they can get away with from that particular ref and pushing the rules constantly.
Failing that, make Alain ref every match
-
leinsterlank
- Knowledgeable
- Posts: 314
- Joined: April 19th, 2008, 6:39 pm
Re: Red Cards
The only issue I'd have is with a ref who abuses the TMO system, like tries in rugby league, for minimal incidents. If it is a questionable yellow card, like the gouging, I'm all for it but the refs have to be responsible untimately and the use of the TMO would have to be governed well.
"It feels great. I've played for the team for 10 years and it was worth the wait. I love Leinster and I wanted to do it before the end of my career."
- BOD, Heineken Cup and Grand Slam Winner 2009
- BOD, Heineken Cup and Grand Slam Winner 2009
Re: Red Cards
I see definite reasons why live citing would cause problems and unnecessary delays. It could cause more problems than it solves in terms of diving and faking injuries to get someone punished.
Refs use the option for the video ref a lot, possibly more than they need. Expanding the scope to stopping the game to decide on foul play could really delay the game far more than the current situation where there's a natural stoppage anyway.
That's why I was attracted to the idea of reviewing cards. In televised matches refs wouldn't need to award red cards directly and therefore would be less intimidated about making mistakes. Assistant referees are obviously intimidated about calling a red card when so much foul play is hard to spot, a wrongly awarded one could ruin a game.
10 minutes to review a decision while they're in the bin and a simple burden of proof on the evidence being there (because they could still be cited later for more complicated situations). Now a ref doesn't have to be as sure who was the aggressor. It would be a brilliant deterrent to foul play because of the immediacy and the knowledge that you can't get away with something when the ref isn't looking and the touch judge is far away.
It wouldn't happen very often in practise and a lot of foul play would still be missed (even after the citing officer has viewed the tapes) but I don't see a downside: no delay in the game, less likelihood of incorrect ref cards, less likelihood of unpunished foul play. The odds would be stacked against offenders but towards the innocent and the victims.
Refs use the option for the video ref a lot, possibly more than they need. Expanding the scope to stopping the game to decide on foul play could really delay the game far more than the current situation where there's a natural stoppage anyway.
That's why I was attracted to the idea of reviewing cards. In televised matches refs wouldn't need to award red cards directly and therefore would be less intimidated about making mistakes. Assistant referees are obviously intimidated about calling a red card when so much foul play is hard to spot, a wrongly awarded one could ruin a game.
10 minutes to review a decision while they're in the bin and a simple burden of proof on the evidence being there (because they could still be cited later for more complicated situations). Now a ref doesn't have to be as sure who was the aggressor. It would be a brilliant deterrent to foul play because of the immediacy and the knowledge that you can't get away with something when the ref isn't looking and the touch judge is far away.
It wouldn't happen very often in practise and a lot of foul play would still be missed (even after the citing officer has viewed the tapes) but I don't see a downside: no delay in the game, less likelihood of incorrect ref cards, less likelihood of unpunished foul play. The odds would be stacked against offenders but towards the innocent and the victims.