The Great Red Card Debate

THE GREAT red card debate rumbles on. Do we stick with a red card meaning one side is handicapped for the remainder of the game, because of one mis-timed tackle; or do we go down the road of 20 minutes a man down, then the miscreant can be replaced?

It's a difficult one, yet another example of “It's aye been.” The referee decides someone has to go – he's off and it's then up to his remaining team mates to make the best of a bad job. But, this suggestion of the 20 minute sanction might mean “It willnae aye be.”

Certainly, for as long as we are going to see head knocks as something to be clamped-down on, the debate will continue. But, I believe card sanctions ought to be part of the wider Laws review which World Rugby seems determined to kick as far down the road and into the long grass as they can. The game's rulers do appear remarkably loathe to squeeze a few prominent plooks on the face of the game.

As I have pointed-out before on these pages, having covered over 50 different sports during my many wasted years in the comic pages of publications, I have seen how different sports tackle discipline problems, and I reckon, rugby is extremely lax in how it polices what is a collision sport.

Take Basketball, for instance. Ostensively a “non-contact” sport; well, you get three or four guys, closer to seven feet than six feet tall, competing for a rebound under the basket – you've got contact.

The guys who drew up the rules knew this would happen, so, in their wisdom they decided each side would be allowed a certain number of fouls, for such things as illegal contact – but, after a certain number, well, they were presumed to be taking the piss, so each subsequent foul – regardless of where on the court it was committed, gave the non-offending side a chance to score off a free throw.

They also decided to make each player personally responsible for the number of fouls he gave away. Up to four personal fouls committed in a game – you're ok, but, commit a fifth and that's it, you're out of the game – however, you can be replaced.

If, as I recall happening in the final minute of one Scottish Basketball Cup Final, the national team captain decided his best mate – playing for the opposition - had fouled him once too often and pit the heid oan said opponent, well, that was instant ejection from the game. To be fair, the expelled player did buy his victim a pint post-match and no lasting harm was done to the relationship.

Suppose we brought personal fouls into rugby. Aside from Saracens paying Maro Itoje a lot of money, for not many minutes on the field, would that move be the end of life as we know it?

I've just had a flash of left-field thinking. If personal fouls for technical breaches of the rules were to be introduced, I think we would see the scrums tidied-up pretty quickly. OK, I accept a lot of the time, the referee is guessing, but, if a prop knew he only had a certain number of lives before he was off, he'd need to be even-thicker than Joe Marler, Ellis Genge, Dan Cole and Kyle Sinckler combined, not to clean-up his act.

I seem to recall, back in the 1970s, there was a suggestion, which wasn't taken-up, that such breaches of the Laws as squint feeds would carry a “three strikes and off” penalty. Some might say it's a pity that one was never introduced.

Of course, the stumbling block to introduce personal fouls and the concept of individual player responsibility is – where do we draw the base line? In Basketball a miscreant is out of the game after their fifth foul: too-high or two low for Rugby?

Or, we could go down the Ice Hockey road and have “Major Penalties” and “Minor Penalties.” “Roughing” - the sort of 'Handbags at ten paces” skirmishes we see such a lot of in Rugby these days, well, that would be a minor penalty – two or three minutes in the sin bin in Ice Hockey. “Fighting” the sort of helmets and gloves off, one v one punch-ups which the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation loves to show, well, that's at least five minutes in the cooler and quite often a game ejection penalty – that's a red card to us.

Suppose we went down the route of having differential penalties? Technical offences: scrum infringements, offsides etc – ok, make it a penalty, but, not one which can be kicked at goal. Foul Play, definitely make them kickable. If we were to go to the lengths of personal penalties leading to ejection from the game, or cumulative team penalties, not-kickable until a certain number have accrued, it might well clean-up the game.

I still have a lot of time for dear old Alan Hosie's suggestion of about half a century ago – a ten-point penalty, kicked from a penalty spot on the centre of the 22 line – for serious foul play. We could even look at differential penalties – two-pointers for technical offences, seven-pointers (same as a converted try) for serious foul play.

But, one thing is clear, we desperately need a root and branch overhaul of the Laws of the Game and it's way past time World Rugby got this done. Given they cannot even force the referees to rigidly enforce the Laws, such as they currently are, I don't have a lot of hope of the game's high heid yins biting the bullet and righting the wrongs.

FINALLY - here's another one we might like to think about. In Ice Hockey, if somebody goes into the bin for an offence, the non-offending side has a "Power Play," a one player advantage. However, if they score before the end of the power play, that ends the spell in the sin bin and the miscreant can return to the game. How about, conceding a try at any time during a rugby power play, ends the one-man advantage?