Keep 15 Players on the Field (Mozart’s idea gets traction) NZ Herald article

 By Chris Rattue (Article in NZ Herald) 5:30 AM Thursday Sep 19, 2013

Maintain integrity of game for players and spectators and consider off-field punishments for rule-breakers

Here's another debate for rugby in the wake of the Bismarck du Plessis controversy.

It's time for rugby (and league) to consider keeping the full complement of players on the field at all times.

Punishing teams and thus their supporters by removing offending players is enshrined in the way we think about the game, but it is time to quit this heavily skewed playing field.

While some sports may be able to withstand an uneven player count, rugby at the highest level becomes an unacceptable no-contest. Yellow cards can also determine the outcome, even though they are dished out via subjective decisions.

The rash action of one player - or, as we discovered on Saturday night, the referee - too easily ruins the integrity and entertainment.

There is a hollow ring to the All Blacks' victory, so they have been robbed to a degree themselves, but not nearly as badly as the Boks. Just imagine if this nonsense had blighted a World Cup final.

Sports such as American football and basketball have ways of punishing individuals and teams without damaging the entire game. Rugby can follow suit.

The first step for the IRB is to ensure all red and yellow card situations are video reviewed at the time, to prevent the sort of gross error that wrecked Saturday's test at Eden Park and has put a cloud over the legitimacy of this year's Rugby Championship.

But the IRB can go further and use heavy suspensions and fines for punishments and deterrents, while always leaving the game at 15 v 15.

Under this system, a red or yellow-carded player leaves the field, but a replacement comes on. This might have some negative consequences for the offending team through the loss of a replacement, but without turning the match into a joke.

One of the unfair parts of the current system is that the removal of a frontrower, as occurred on Saturday, means an innocent player - in this case Willem Alberts - gets subbed off. Another is that a 79th-minute card does not have the same effect as a first-minute one, even though the offences may be the same.

In terms of safety, it is courting disaster to ask a test pack to operate a man down. Imagine the Springbok eight packing against seven Wallabies - it would be carnage.

And call this consumer rights - the Eden Park crowd has grounds to demand money back.

Bismarck offside or onside?

Emailers have suggested Bismarck du Plessis was offside, so there was an illegal element to the tackle on Dan Carter. Having looked at the incident over and over there is no way to determine this.

The camera work we were shown simply does not include du Plessis when Aaron Smith makes his long pass to Carter. Because of a short relay pass from Tony Woodcock backwards to Smith, there is every chance that the big Springboks hooker was indeed onside. But unless there is other footage, we will never know for sure.

 I hardly ever agree with Chris Ratue (author of this article). In fact I posted a comment on his last article in the NZ Herald telling him he should be ashamed of himself and told him why. Strangely the moderator posted it.

Anyway, this article supports the idea of keeping 15 men on the field so I post it here for us to discuss. Mozart has brought this idea up several times. Congrats Mozart!

It also included a section on if Bismarck was off-side on the Carter tackle. This was  much debated in posts on this forum but Ratue did not cite the rules on off side but says the replays could did not show if he was or not. As I said I have almost never liked of agreed with his articles but strange he did no cite the rules that some posters cited. He may not know what he is talking about (as usual) but I included it anyway.

@ Just_win

No, its not a case of him not knowing what he is talking about. its a case of kiwi supporters not wanting to believe it. Its a case of Kiwi supporters claiming this was a fair win by their boys. It is the Kiwi supporters feeling "strong" because they "beat up" a Bok pack missing two men that alone are probably stronger than any Kiwi forward in Bismarck and Alberts.

He is very right. A lot of people waited for this game in anticipation. Paid good money for seats in the stadium and were left disinterested early in the second half knowing all SA could do realistically is try keep the score from blowing out. Utter bullshit and IRB should do the right thing and squash this game, declare it a no contest and move on!

I posted on how there was no way Bismarck could be offside. Unless he is as quick out the blocks as Tyson Gaye (quicker than Bolt out the blocks) then it is impossible. He was still behind Aaron Smith when the ball was in Carter's fingertips. Woodcock, Smith and Carter were only seperated by about 5 metres in terms of length of the field. Width may have been 20metres or so but 5 metres is not a lot for a man at full speed to cover. Bismarck just read the play and was well within the right. Had he been offside, he might have effected an intercept and been under the poles.

The most anticipated game of the year ended up a farce and a hollow victory to the All Blacks but we are still all left here not knowing who the best team in the world this year really is. We were robbed of that opportunity. We saw NZL score an early try from a line-out 5m out. Anyone will tell you this is the easiest time to score. Early in the game, nerves are there and the teams are still working each other out. Easy 5 points. The rest we saw NZL at a grind against 14 men. I am still very convinced SA is the better team THIS YEAR and I hope the ref in Joburg is shit scared to hand out cards (yes, even against NZL. We dont want the same hollow feeling you guys must have) so we see the game we have been waiting for. Hopefully the players decide this one so we can see who really is the best team.

Boklogic: Cool down, lol

Firstly the main point of the article is that we should consider changing the rules so we can keep 15 players on the field. The same idea Mozart was posting about.

On the point about off-side. I agree Bismarck was not off-side, this was very well explained by posters on this forum with very good analysis.

Why I included the point Ratue made on the off-side issue was to demonstrate that Ratue is not always credible, i.e. his views on the off-side matter were wrong – not to support his point of the off-side matter.

BUT, IMO Ratue is right (for once) in bringing up the main point of his article, i.e. that we should review the rules so that games have 15   players and thus when a real cockup occurs (like yellow card or red card ruling in which the ref is wrong) the whole game is not ruined.

By the way, here is the link to an article published in Rugby 365 which is analyzing the rules and comes to the same conclusion most posters on this forum did, i.e. off-side rule did not apply.

http://www.rugby365.com/article/56236-law-discussion-that-red-card

So, take it easy mate, lol. There will be plenty of times for you to express red rage but this is not one of them.

On the one hand I strongly agree with Rattue . . . especially his point about how a red card in the 1st minute of a game is a lot more detrimental to a team than a red card in the 79th minute . . . for exactly the same kind of offence.

On the other hand, I find his comment regarding the Bismarck offside issue nothing short of laughable and it strengthens my belief that Kiwis in general don't understand the offside law in rugby. I mean really, if this is what one of your journalists is saying then I don't know!

Rattue's understanding of the law is roughly equivalent to Smallcock's effort above this post. Neither one has a clue. Rattue and Smallcock (and a whole bunch of Kiwi posters as well) clearly don't get the fundamental point of the offside law in rugby . . . you can only be offside if your team is in possession or was the last team to touch the ball.

No Springbok player touched the ball after Carter's 22m drop out so, as long as Bismarck was on the right side of the 22m line at the time of Carter's kick (which he was), then he could have run towards the All Black goal line if he so desired, turned around and tackled Carter heading the other way and he would still have been onside . . . because no Springbok touched the ball. There was no offside line for any Springbok player in that situation and any Springbok could have been literally anywhere on the field and still been onside.

For those of you shaking your heads and muttering that Rooinek doesn't know what he's talking about, here's the only part of the law that is relevant in this case, copied and pasted (for the umpteenth time) from the IRB's own website:

"In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball."

Now, if anyone wants to debate this point, please do me the courtesy of quoting the actual law you're referring to and please, (please!) do NOT quote me any laws pertaining to what a player has to do to play himself onside again from an offside position. Those laws do get a bit more complex but they are absolutely and utterly irrelevant in this case because Bismarck was never in an offside position after the 22m drop out so was never required to be played onside again. That is the crux of my whole argument so please don't waste my time droning on and on and quoting (as Moolaa did the other day) specific requirements for a player being played back into an onside position because it doesn't make even an iota of difference in this case . . . the Springboks were never in possession of the ball so it was impossible for Bismarck to ever be offside, whether he was in front of his own player, whether he was in front of the ball or whether he was in front of the flipping All Black fullback. He could have been anywhere on the field in that instance and he would still have been onside.

That's why Rattue (and Smallcock for that matter) both sound like idiots on this thread. They're both talking about how much of the field we could see on our TV screens or how many metres this or how many metres that . . . none of that makes any difference whatsoever! According to the laws of the game, it was not possible for Bismarck to be offside in that situation.

It really is that simple. How someone like Rattue can be paid for giving his opinion on an offside decision when he doesn't even grasp the basic principle of the law is beyond me.

He's spot on with the red card issue though. Sanction the player by all means but don't spoil an entire game for one incident and allow the recipient of a red or yellow card to be substituted. The red-carded player can go have a shower (and serve a suspension) while the yellow-carded player can come back after his 10 minutes in the bin, but let's play 15 vs 15 at all times!

 Off side issue is  dead issue, at least in my mind.

If you want to strengthen your belief about "kiwis in general" go ahead based on one journalist who as I said "i hardly ever agree with".

 Let's focus the discussion  on playing 15 v 15, not the dead issue of the off-side. I will have to be latter though, I'm done on here for the night.

 Leaving a player on then having him sanctioned later is a double edged sword, it runs the risk of inducing foul play knowing that its the next team you play who benifits from that players removal. It used to happen in league in the old days using an expendable player to take a key player out .

If someone from another team on the EOYT took out a key bok player knowing they might not  see the boks until next year if at all what would you say then ? There would be nothing you could do about it but you know  its on if say a French team included someone more renkowned for their pugilistic skills than ball skills say .

It is then the next team you play who benefits from the sanction.

bugger duplicate

W'daddy, you're right, for once ....................methinks all we can do is to go upstairs & make sure the ref has made the correct decision in carding a player .

Too funny . Replace the red carded player with a fresh set of legs. Thats a real incentive to play dirty . Lets change the rule book to suit the yarpies style of play. LOL

Funny how it's the SA posters that have been calling for more yellow cards so be careful what you wish for next time...

The other point I believe is missed is that a yellow/red only applies where the ref ot touchy sees the incident. Think about all the post-match citings, where dirty play wasn't picked up during the game. If the player subsequently gets a suspension, then it isn't consistent  since he wasn't sent off.

Has it occurred to you Bricy that a team can introduce a fresh player any time they want? Sorry that's hardly relevant. My thought was take the offending player off the field for 10 minutes. If its a yellow he can return as currently. If its a red the team can dip into  the reserve bench after 10 minutes, but the offending player can't return.

That way there is a penalty for the offender's team.....but the match isn't destroyed. Offenders are dealt with the same way as currently.

Its possible this lowers the barrier to bad behavior, but I doubt any player wants to be red carded. It's not perfect, but better than having these non contests like Saturday or the Welsh/France debacle at the RWC.

If SA is dumb enough to leave a yellow carded serial offender on the field they deserve everything they get. Does'nt sound like you've learned anything from last week as loose canon Duplessis has been put on a pedastal and hero worshipped ever since . Too funny

No need for a rule change as Meyer said the ref is always right.

Btw Fiji had the same problem in the Junior WC except they lost 3 players. Not a pip squeak from anyone about rule changes then.

Good luck trying to change the international rules of rugby to suit some eyegouging thug.

 SA have a history of dirty play but are in denial they have a discipline problem so their woes are self inflicted .You need to stop playing the hard done by victim as it's pathetic.

 Actually I made the suggestion about the rule change about three weeks ago, so all  these motivations you ascribe are irrelevant. As a rugby fan I don't like unequal contests, they are a waste of time. But it's just a simple thought, not calculus of variations... others may see things differently

poite did Bok fans a huge favour, he tainted the All Blacks victory by sending of bizzy giving their fans a good cry who ignore the fact that the All blacks are undefeated at eden park in the professional era, a ground the Boks have never won in since 1937, in a country the Boks have only won in 3 times since union turned pro.
to say nothing of the fact that morne and pienaar continued to do stupid kicks the whole game as if bizzys presence would have chnaged anything is very typicak and i would expect nothing less.

bakkies headbutt on jimmy on the same ground back in 2010 should of been a red, but shit happens, u just got to knuckle down and get on with the job, something that for some reason Boks cant do.

cant wait for ellis park, no ref will dare send any Bok player off in that game after all the baby waah waah screams heard since then from the rebuplic, and the All Blacks will show once and for all why bizzys presence wouldnt have done jack shit.

re: red and yellow cards
i dont agree that players shouldnt be sent off, its the biggest deterrent against foul play.
to take a player off and then substitute for another player means that teams can feild a nobody whose only purpose is to take out another player from the game, he gets red and the coach can then bring in his preferred starting player instead.

keep the red and yellow i say, but all on feild card sanctions must be reviewd by the TMO, both touchies and ref who must come up with a decision on the matter where the majority agree on the sanction.

Yeah, sounds like the existing system is the best of all bad options.

Basically we have to rely on the ref and the assistant refs including the TMO. The ref has to be sure based on these inputs. Maybe the TMO is allowed to say  to the ref, hold on a minute mate you have asked me question x but in fact I can see there is problem y. Or at least the ref should ask for a replay and see it on the big screen before he make such critical calls. This is what that Steve Walsh does.

Bottom line for  me is refs have to make better use of the tools at their disposal but there is always a chance of human error. I agree with posters who say we can't have a situation where a low life brute is sent on the field to injure key players in the opposition and comes off only for the coach to send on his star player as a replacement. 

"Leaving a player on then having him sanctioned later is a double edged sword, "

Wardad, I think you're missing the point. Nowhere is anyone suggesting that a player who commits a red or yellow card offence should stay on the field. If a player is red-carded then he should be off for the rest of the game and afterwards he should face a board of enquiry who determine how many future games he's banned for. The player receiving a yellow-card also serves 10 minutes in the sin-bin as he currently does. The only difference we're suggesting is that these players (red and yellow card recipients) are replaced by subs the minute they leave the field, not 10 minutes later, so that the paying spectators and the TV audience are always watching 15 men playing against 15 men.

Brycy claims it's actually giving an advanatage to the offending team by having fresh legs on the field but as Moffie points out, that's a change the coach could have made anyway of he wanted to. In these cases the coach is being forced to make a sub  at time that may not suit him and it will use up his bench quicker.

It's not a perfect solution but it's a damn site better than the current situation where a player might do something stupid witin the first 5 minutes and the game is over as a spectacle, while an opposition player may commit the exact same offence in the 79th minute and it hardly affects his team.

How would this solution deal with this situation:

Game starts; an "elminator" takes out a key player in the opposition. Eliminator is red carded and replaced by an excellent player. The elminator's team wins unfairly. The eliminator is subject to offical review, gets an x week ban but doesn't care. His team won and he wasn't needed for the x number of weeks anyway.

Just_win, I'm not claiming its a perfect solution and no, it wouldn't deal with your hypothetical situation very effectively. The only real disadvantages for the team that implements that cynical kind of plan is that the fact that they'd be short a player on the bench for the game and they'd also lose the kind of supporters who recognise that they're not playing in the spirit of the game.

But I reckon I'd still rather that scenario than the scenario where a player inadvertently spear-tackles someone in the first minute of a game and gets sent off, his team (which would normally have been competitive) gets smashed 50 points to nil because they play 79 minutes of the game with only 14 men and half the spectators disappear before half time.

My 2p on this. Discipline is a team issue. Even the discipline of an individual player. If a player is ill-disciplined, it has always and should always affect the entire team. The team and I mean the total team, including the coaches and players, should keep thier discipline in place. I agree in principle with Brycy the only problem is that his arguments are provocative and used as a stick to get to the South Africans again. There are just as many YouTube examples of All Blacks playing dirty as there are examples of other playesr and South African players in particular playing dirty.

I do not believe that a red-carded player should be replaced. How easy would it be to have a player taken out, the culprit leaves the field and is replaced after 10 minutes. Mission accomplished. Yes, we do want to see 15 against 15, but we also want to see a fair contest without unfair foul play. If the team risk going onto the field with a loose canon in their midst, then they should carry the can when the shit hits the fan. We should not let this once in a blue moon incident cloud or common sense. If, hypothetically, Bismarck du Plessis did tackle Carter illegally, there would have been no way that we could have been shouting foul over his send-off. It could easily have happened. He could have tackled him too early or too late. Think what the outcry would then have been.

Think about it. If a player keeps being off-side in his own 22m his team will potentially give away at least three points every time. Then we have no problem with the fact that his stupidity has an influence on his team, but we have a problem if his team is disadvantaged because of him being sent off? Each and every action by each and every player has some influence on his team as a whole. If the actions are good, the influence is good. If the actions are bad, the influence is bad. End of story.

 Rooipoes, did you not read my first post on the issue where I said Bizzy was not offside as there had not been an ensuing ruck from the kick to form an offside line. No Bok player touched the ball therefore Bizzy was well within his right. You are also very wrong about your explanation surrounding Bismarck being able to run to the try line and tackle Carter coming back. He can not. Its much like the rule of a player doing an up and under. His team mates have to retreat outside the imaginary 10m offside line or make an effort to retreat and not just wait for the kicker to run past them to put them onside.

Had Bizzy stood next to Carter, he would have been done for not making an effort to retreat or "loitering" as it is now known. I was just proving that Bizzy was in no way loitering and had there been an offside line, he would have still been within his rights. This new retreat and loitering law will not be familiar to you as you played the game in the 70's or something but just believe, it does exist now.

You are wrong, Smallcock. The laws around loitering and retreating are only relevant when a player has moved into an offside position. In the case of Bismarck's tackle, he was never offside at any time so there could not have been any loitering and there was no requirement to retreat.

As I requested earlier, please quote the relevant law you are referring to if you disagree but don't waste my time with squawking about what a player needed to do to get back into an onside position, as this is not relevant. Now either put up or shut up.

 RoOUpoes, a fullback up and unders the ball. It travels 30 metres. 20 metres in front of where he kicked it is his forward back that have stood still and waited for him to put them onside which he does by running past them and contesting possession in the air..Why are the players still penalised? Failure to retreat. Players must make an effort to retreat. Those players were never offside as they are not making an attempt for the ball and they end up outside 10 but failure to retreat gets them. 

Rules change rooicunt. Just like the rule Andre Joubert loved to exploit. He used to use the kick into in goal area as a weapon as it was a drop out and we get possession back with a better platform to attack. They changed that rule now to a scrum where the ball was kicked from. Players never had to retreat from an up and under. The kicker could play them onsid. Now they must retreat outside the 10..Times have changed since you were a kid back in the 60's boet!

I am just schooling you now but in Bizzy's case, there was no offside. He was well within his right although some have argued that the beast tackled/engaged Woodcock so the offside line had formed there. I was just stating that even if that was the case, Bizzy was still onside.

This off-side issue is getting boring, but Rooinek is correct. To make yourself guilty of loitering you have to be off-side to begin with.

Boklogic makes this remark, which is also bulldust. "Had he been offside, he might have effected an intercept and been under the poles." The off-side issue has been done and dusted. He could never have been off-side in that sittuation. The only way that he could have been off-side would have been if he was behind Carter when he took the 22m drop-out. To even have any further discussion about the so-called offside is a waste and has actually bugger-all to do with the essence of this thread.

Fantastic Hakwa, lol

hey Just_Win hehehe! What do you think of my Total Rugby post? Come and comment on your thoughts!

Like in the army, the TEAM must suffer.  Hit them where it hurts by taking % of match fee or salary or what ever.  But not just the offender, the team must pay.

John Eales said the same about the Wallabies KalaedFreddie - apparently O'Connor will be without any salary soon for being too drunk to fly as a commercial passenger - apparently Beale was nowhere near him to be blamed!

 Your idea hasn't lost traction Mozzie - it has evolved!

hahahahaha good come-back Mozzie! Too funny - yep that's why he yellow carded himself to make it a fair contest!

 genius is also yellow carding Nonu for the same tackle Bismarck gave Carter with both their elbows in full extension at moment of impact! CHECK MATE!

So you think the Boks had a chance of making up 3 tries in the few minutes remaining because they were a man up.....man you guys are really nervous. Game, set and match.

 Hansen couldn't say anything to Hore after the Twickenham Test Mike,

not so clever mike, you're right about Nonu thats why the Stormers are interested in him i guess .