4 yellow cards

[paddyor]

Saturdays game was the first time I've ever seen a team concede 4 yellow cards in 40mins or 80 for that matter. There'll be some argument over the merits of the cards. Bothas was as dumb a yellow as any. Varleys not much better. It struck me as the ref trying to keep the game alive by being harsh(it didn't work). Foleys decision to bring down the maul lead to a penalty try so you can argue they were punished enough. I can't remember Murrays and tbh I thought it was Jones who offended.

Now before this descends into an interpro sh*tfest, I'd like to say that I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference to the result yesterday. Credit to Munster they played the ref etc. and by fair means or foul they were out to kill off the game early in the second half(try chance incl). They were worth their win.

Most games I can remember with more than 1 yellow for 1 side usually involve a prop being binned. I'd leave scrum infringements out of it as sometimes the ref bins both props. But I think there is a case for giving a red for 3 yellows in a game especially with defence so on top.

If a player(ala Liam Willaims) gets a 2nd yellow he gets a red. Teams can simply move the offender around as Munster did on Saturday. They even benefitted from uncontested scrums when Botha was binned and Archer was injured. You couldn't cite the team or any individual player but a fine might do.

[The Anathemata]

I think they would have absolutely hockeyed us if Varley and Botha hadn't been complete idiots. Varley strikes me as one of the dumbest professional players - up there with Liam Williams and Felon Shanks. Both were straight yellows.

I thought the Foley one was harsh, as the position he put himself into within the mail led to him being brought down by the weight of our drive.

Didn't see what Murray did. He looked bemused, but then he always does.

[StrangeButBlue]

no point when it is in the last 10 minutes, which is nearly always when the 3rd or 4th card comes up especially when the losing team is outside 3 pts.

[Not_Today]

There was 7 (I think) handed out in a game in Musgrave Park in the early days of the Celtic League

Edit - It was a H/Cup game v Bridgend. Muster got 2 YCs and Bridgend got 4 YCs and 1 RC.

[Tonic Wine]

I didn't know that the rules changed and after the first yellow card,every penalty is an automatic yellow.Never seen the likes of it

[The Anathemata]

I didn't know that the rules changed and after the first yellow card,every penalty is an automatic yellow.Never seen the likes of it

Had POC been captain, I can't believe that Munster would have got more than two cards. Munster miscreants would hardly feel threatened by a bollocking from a St Andrew's choirboy.

Bizarre choice of captain.

[All Blacks nil]

Saturdays game was the first time I've ever seen a team concede 4 yellow cards in 40mins or 80 for that matter. There'll be some argument over the merits of the cards. Bothas was as dumb a yellow as any. Varleys not much better. It struck me as the ref trying to keep the game alive by being harsh(it didn't work). Foleys decision to bring down the maul lead to a penalty try so you can argue they were punished enough. I can't remember Murrays and tbh I thought it was Jones who offended.

Now before this descends into an interpro sh*tfest, I'd like to say that I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference to the result yesterday. Credit to Munster they played the ref etc. and by fair means or foul they were out to kill off the game early in the second half(try chance incl). They were worth their win.

Most games I can remember with more than 1 yellow for 1 side usually involve a prop being binned. I'd leave scrum infringements out of it as sometimes the ref bins both props. But I think there is a case for giving a red for 3 yellows in a game especially with defence so on top.




If a player(ala Liam Willaims) gets a 2nd yellow he gets a red. Teams can simply move the offender around as Munster did on Saturday. They even benefitted from uncontested scrums when Botha was binned and Archer was injured. You couldn't cite the team or any individual player but a fine might do.

The yellow cards were pretty much deserved even if Reddan did, as astutely forecasted by Shane Horgan, buy one of them. Botha's was braindead, Foley's was deserved and punished twice, Murray's was a case of mistaken identity but also deserved a card, although whether Jones' attemped to impede the player was debatable.
Reddan's purchase of that yellow card is enough reason not to have a red card for the fourth yellow card. Incidentally what would you do if there was a fifth yellow card.

A yellow card is statistically proven to be a 7 point advantage in a 10 minute period to the full-strength team. This to me is ample punishment. To have four yellow cards allows enough advantage to the opposite team. Leinster are particularly good at exploiting a numerical advantage as they have proven particularly under MOC,

Incidentally it didn't make any difference as Murray and indeed Foley were effectively sent off. It might make a difference to the transgressing team as after 2 yellow cards I'm sure discipline would be tightened. It would also make a difference to refereeing as each yellow card would become more crucial and some might err on the side of leniency

[Peg Leg]

I didn't know that the rules changed and after the first yellow card,every penalty is an automatic yellow.Never seen the likes of it

Had POC been captain, I can't believe that Munster would have got more than two cards. Munster miscreants would hardly feel threatened by a bollocking from a St Andrew's choirboy.

Bizarre choice of captain.

Running to the ref alone, would have had him fatigued!

[olaf the fat]

With citings, the tmo calling foul play and the ref checking back on the big screens- there is enough to censor foul or dangerous play.

Consistent application of a sanction is called for, and ex-player commentators disputing cards does not help ( ala Warburton in the RWC).

Munsters 4 cards were all justified, but they were just slowing us down.Even with 4 binned opposition players and a penalty try, we were still way off the mark. Our fault, not Munsters . If we were only a score behind, Munsters discipline would have been alot tighter.

To throw away a result (or even allow a losing bonus point) would be sufficient sanction.

[All Blacks nil]

For the statiscians among you.

In Leinster's 22 regular season Pro 12 matches last season they scored 56 tries, 17 of which (30.3%) were scored when the opposition had one or more players in the bin.
In Munster's season they scored 58 tries, 10 of which (17.2%) were scored when the opposition had players in the bin.

This season so far Leinster have scored 14 tries, 4 of which (28.6%) while opposition binned.
Munster have scored 13 tries, only 1 of which (7.7%)was scored with opposition in the bin.

While probably testament to Leinster's strong scrum last season, it is also an indictment of their attacking play.

Another interesting stat is that the last time Munster had 4 yellow cards was last season in Treviso. where despite having 3 tries scored after 46 minute and leading 19-9 , we again failed to secure a try scoring bonus point. Three second half yellow cards cost us dearly and allowed Treviso to win 29-19
You think we would learn

ps
Paddy
You seem to be on your own on this one - 11 v 1 as I post.

[paddyor]

With citings, the tmo calling foul play and the ref checking back on the big screens- there is enough to censor foul or dangerous play.

Consistent application of a sanction is called for, and ex-player commentators disputing cards does not help ( ala Warburton in the RWC).

Munsters 4 cards were all justified, but they were just slowing us down.Even with 4 binned opposition players and a penalty try, we were still way off the mark. Our fault, not Munsters . If we were only a score behind, Munsters discipline would have been alot tighter.

To throw away a result (or even allow a losing bonus point) would be sufficient sanction.

It's more about the game as a spectacle, which tbh the 3 yellows did help and that's what they were introduced for in the first place. I think the threat of losing a player for the remainder of the game would sharpen up discipline and punish teams trying to cynically kill the game. It basically means you can't be as gung ho going into rucks or challenging for the high ball. Though dangerous play isn't what I'm talking about more technical fouls like the first 3 Munster got.

I knew what was coming at half time but didn't expect Munster to be so brazen/stupid about it.

I think Munster would have won without the cards. Foleys offence just made the conversion easier.

[sewa]

Regarding Botha does no one here understand the laws of the game? If the tackler gets up he can play the ball from wherever he likes regardless provided he does it before the ruck is formed, there was no ruck formed and as such it was a bad decision by the ref. Its a stupid rule the way its worded imo but the refs call was wrong; not Botha's.

[All Blacks nil]

With citings, the tmo calling foul play and the ref checking back on the big screens- there is enough to censor foul or dangerous play.

Consistent application of a sanction is called for, and ex-player commentators disputing cards does not help ( ala Warburton in the RWC).

Munsters 4 cards were all justified, but they were just slowing us down.Even with 4 binned opposition players and a penalty try, we were still way off the mark. Our fault, not Munsters . If we were only a score behind, Munsters discipline would have been alot tighter.

To throw away a result (or even allow a losing bonus point) would be sufficient sanction.

It's more about the game as a spectacle, which tbh the 3 yellows did help and that's what they were introduced for in the first place. I think the threat of losing a player for the remainder of the game would sharpen up discipline and punish teams trying to cynically kill the game. It basically means you can't be as gung ho going into rucks or challenging for the high ball. Though dangerous play isn't what I'm talking about more technical fouls like the first 3 Munster got.

I knew what was coming at half time but didn't expect Munster to be so brazen/stupid about it.

I think Munster would have won without the cards. Foleys offence just made the conversion easier.

And the award for stating the obvious goes to
drumrollllllllllllllll
paddyor

[olaf the fat]

I think you are right Sewa, no one here understands the laws of the game. Neither does any ref (team result dependent!).

It was needless of Botha to get himself carded - but he seems to be caught out more often the older he gets.

[All Blacks nil]

Regarding Botha does no one here understand the laws of the game? If the tackler gets up he can play the ball from wherever he likes regardless provided he does it before the ruck is formed, there was no ruck formed and as such it was a bad decision by the ref. Its a stupid rule the way its worded imo but the refs call was wrong; not Botha's.

Sewa
Much as I'd like to agree with you, I disagree that the ruck had not formed when BJ picked the ball up. A ruck is formed when two players are competing over the ball. I can be one-eyed but that was a penalty and a yellow card at any stage of the match.

[olaf the fat]

With citings, the tmo calling foul play and the ref checking back on the big screens- there is enough to censor foul or dangerous play.

Consistent application of a sanction is called for, and ex-player commentators disputing cards does not help ( ala Warburton in the RWC).

Munsters 4 cards were all justified, but they were just slowing us down.Even with 4 binned opposition players and a penalty try, we were still way off the mark. Our fault, not Munsters . If we were only a score behind, Munsters discipline would have been alot tighter.

To throw away a result (or even allow a losing bonus point) would be sufficient sanction.

It's more about the game as a spectacle, which tbh the 3 yellows did help and that's what they were introduced for in the first place. I think the threat of losing a player for the remainder of the game would sharpen up discipline and punish teams trying to cynically kill the game. It basically means you can't be as gung ho going into rucks or challenging for the high ball. Though dangerous play isn't what I'm talking about more technical fouls like the first 3 Munster got.

I knew what was coming at half time but didn't expect Munster to be so brazen/stupid about it.

I think Munster would have won without the cards. Foleys offence just made the conversion easier.

And the award for stating the obvious goes to
drumrollllllllllllllll
paddyor

Why resort to cynically killing the game to the extent of 4 yellow cards - Munster players must have felt the need.
Clear to all here they did not need to play like that and probably cost themselves a 4 try bonus point.

Now, if there was an award for missing the point!!!

[sewa]

If the ruck formed it happened just as he played the ball, in such a situation the ref should give the benefit of the doubt and just go with the penalty.

[janeymac08]

Axel says Botha's & Varley's were not Yellow Cards.

“BJ’s thing is a point of law. If there’s no ruck formed, which there wasn’t, he’s entitled to play the ball from that direction within the laws of the game. I know it looks horrible, it looks wrong, but it’s actually a rule in the game of rugby. BJ was entitled to do that.

“BJ knows the rules, he’s a World Cup winner, he knows what he’s entitled to do there. There was no ruck called, so he’s entitled to immediately play the ball there.”

http://www.thescore.ie/anthony-foley-mu ... 6-Oct2014/

[paddyor]

Regarding Botha does no one here understand the laws of the game? If the tackler gets up he can play the ball from wherever he likes regardless provided he does it before the ruck is formed, there was no ruck formed and as such it was a bad decision by the ref. Its a stupid rule the way its worded imo but the refs call was wrong; not Botha's.

I haven't re-watched the game and probably won't. I seen that one called and not called. It happened to us against Castres last year at home after a big break by SOB. It all depends on whether the ref thinks the ruck has formed. BOD got carded for it in a HEC game a few years ago by Pearson IIRC.

[All Blacks nil]

Axel says Botha's & Varley's were not Yellow Cards.

“BJ’s thing is a point of law. If there’s no ruck formed, which there wasn’t, he’s entitled to play the ball from that direction within the laws of the game. I know it looks horrible, it looks wrong, but it’s actually a rule in the game of rugby. BJ was entitled to do that.

“BJ knows the rules, he’s a World Cup winner, he knows what he’s entitled to do there. There was no ruck called, so he’s entitled to immediately play the ball there.”

http://www.thescore.ie/anthony-foley-mu ... 6-Oct2014/

Does the ref have to call a ruck before it is deemed a ruck?
When two players compete over the ball it becomes a ruck. The ref only declares it a ruck to communicate the situation to the players. Doesn't neccessarily have to do that. A decent ref will obviously keep communicating. In fairness to the ref Saturday, he couldn't have anticipated BJ doing what he did.

Varley's card was more debatable. I can understand why the ref gave it, but Reddan definitely bought it. Varley stood up and stopped so as not to get in the way of Reddan's pass. Reddan spotted him and threw it at him. Check out the position's of Reddan's possible receivers. Reddan is a speedy and accurate passer. All of a sudden he became a slow inaccurate passer!!!