No straight red card huh?

Is the person who claimed there was no straight red card in rugby now willing to concede that it is in fact a thing. Care to own up? I eagerly await the silence. So, a shoulder to head is a straight red card. But a closed fist punch to the face is a yellow. Do we then asses the severity of the punishment on the outcome of the punch? If he's KO'd you get red. If he's dazed you get yellow. And if he laughs at you when you punch him then it's play on. Haha

 Quote a single law in the law book that carries a sanction of a "straight red/yellow card". Just one.

Let me give further assistance......

 Law 10. Foul Play:

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

As was said before..... There are three places in the law book where the cards are mentioned.

The one place is in the definitions, where the cards are described:

Red Card: A card, red in colour shown to a player who has been sent off for contravening Law 10 - Foul Play, Law 4.5(c).

Yellow card: A card, yellow in colour shown to a player who has been cautioned and
temporarily suspended for 10 minutes playing time.

The second is under the same law, mentioned above, i.e. Law 10 Foul Play:

10.6 YELLOW AND RED CARDS
(a) When a player has been cautioned and temporarily suspended in an International match the referee will show that player a yellow card.
(b) When a player has been sent off in an International match, the referee will show that player a red card.
(c) For other matches the Match Organiser or Union having jurisdiction over the match may decide upon the use of yellow and red cards.

It need to be pointed out that the law is also only specific for International games.


The third place where a red card is mentioned, is in fact the only place where a specific sanction, of a which is effectively a red card (send off), is the prescribed sanction and coincidently, it has nothing to do with foul play. It has to do with clothing.

4.5 INSPECTION OF PLAYERS’ CLOTHING
(c) If, at an inspection before the match, the referee or a touch judge tells a player that an item banned under this Law is being worn, and the player is subsequently found to be wearing that item on the playing area, that player is sent off [effectively a red card] for misconduct.
Sanction: A penalty kick is awarded at the place where play is restarted.

 Plum if your some French git named pick-a-mole [ sounds like window shopping in Amsterdams red light district !] punching McCaw in the head is a yellow even when the ref changes his wording from a 'push to the face ' to" You put your fist through his face '

Yep, I agree Wardad. My point in a previous post was consistency. Two identical incidents with identical outcomes. Ones get's a straight red and the other gets a penalty. We can never expect rugby to be adjudicated properly when such blatant occurrences are interpreted so differently. What about situations where the ref actually does need to use his brain and interpret the law? A situation that is not so clear cut. It pretty much means that the ref gets to decide the outcome of the game to a large degree. We thus rely on them to be honest. And i hate relying on people to be honest. I don't like the way rugby is reffed. Not even a tiny bit.

Cera. Yes, I read your previous post too. Though, it is possible to be sent off on one's first offense, granted the ref "interprets" it as severe enough. That's what I was questioning. THE INTERPETING. Thanks for the useless information though. Wait, maybe I need to clarify. You said. "First off, there is no such thing as a straight red or yellow." Meaning there are no prescribed card sentences for offenders, right? So do you see how, while it appears as though you added relevant info to the discussion...you kinda didn't. The discussion was about consistency of interpretation. Verstaan jy nou?