Mallett endorses the Moz solution.

I have long been an advocate for the red card solution that keeps the player involved on the bench while allowing another player to sub on after 10 minutes......keeping the game as a contest for the millions watching. .. One could even visualize a 'team red' where in exceptional circumstances the team is given a red and no sub back on is allowed...circumstances which generally don't apply eg with Smith. But it does guard against a team engaging in continued deliberate foul play. .... Here's the Mallett take: .. “I feel incredibly sorry for the Lions, the spectators and the integrity of this game. There’s honour in defeat occasionally and this was an honourable defeat by the Lions. Unfortunately, that was a red-card offence by Kwagga Smith. The laws state that if you take a player out in the air and he comes down on his head or lands on the neck and shoulder area, it is a definite red,” Mallett said. However, Mallett feels a rule change is needed and that teams shouldn’t lose a player for the entire game. “My point is, this is still a game of rugby and I think perhaps we should look at the player getting sanctioned individually and not the whole team. Perhaps they should think of replacing a red-carded player with someone off the bench after 10 minutes. We’re all feeling very, very sorry for the Lions and their supporters.”

 Sounds sensible to me!

 A "team red" would take care of players deliberately committing foul play. This ruling will take care of a concern I mentioned in an earlier post.

 Speel volgens die reëls dan hoef jy nie die reëls te verander nie. 

 Daar is sommige reëls wat die spel versuur.

 Verseker maar dit is nog steeds die reëls.

 Waar, maar al die reëls word nie toegepas nie. 

Ag ou Meany, dit is nie altyd doelbewys nie....ou Kwagga het 'n blapsie gemaak, in the verkeerde posisie gaan staan. Die Sader spring toe reg oor hom. En stort neer op sy rug. En vir daai klein voutjie is die hele wedstryd 'n gemors. Nee man dis sommer kaf.

There is no law "stating a definite red".

I don't agree Cera, the rules were correctly applied in this instance. But Moz and Mallett are 100% correct here, the red card stuffed up what was sure to be a great game.  

Then quote me any single law in the law book that prescribes a sanction of a card of any colour. Even in this case the sanction prescribed by the law is a penalty. Go check for yourself. There is only one law in the entire law book that carries a sanction of a send off and even that has nothing to do with any actions on the field of play. Try finding that one as well just for the kicks.

Vlag you are right, and therin lies another problem.....a great deal of this is governed by custom. Not unusual in general life, where custom amplifies written law. But in the case of rugby custom it's hardly applied equally. In the SBW case none of the assistant refs or the TMO were pushing for a red.....the ref decided. So one assumes were the roles reversed the decision would have been made differently. ... Rugby has become more constrained and more confused by laws and customs than any other major sport.

BTW, the only law that prescribes a send off (red card) is law 4.5. (c) and it has to do with illegal clothing or equipment. What it boils down to is that the referee or another appointed official has to inspect the clothing of the players prior to the game. Any player found to be wearing anything illegal or dangerous has to be ordered to remove it. If, after the commencement of the game, the referee finds the player still wearing the clothing he must be sent off and a penalty, for the other team, is awarded on the spot where the referee noticed the player still wearing the clothing or equipment.