In every sport where there is a sin-bin teams will tell you that they are disadvantaged the most when forced to be a player down.
Fans will tell you that it completely changes the game. Apart from the team that is a man down becoming far more conscious of keeping possession, they will also look to slow the game down at every opportunity they can.
In Rugby it has always been believed that a yellow card will result in a seven point swing to the team still with its full quota of players on the field. Although Rugby World Magazine looked into this statistic to see if it was in fact true, and found that it wasn’t.
One thing that was clear was that the strength of the sides involved in the contest was a factor in how well the extra man advantage was exploited. At the time they found that South Africa averaged just a two point difference against Australia or New Zealand compared to ten points when facing all other opponents in this period. That figure was similar for Australia.
There was a slight difference when you moved into club rugby. Here Rugby World found that the average points difference during a sin-bin in the Aviva Premiership “was just 3.5 and 4.6 in Super Rugby.” The report went on to discover that “in both competitions, while around a third of yellow cards resulted in that desired seven or more point edge, approximately the same number saw either no change or a deficit.”
Based on those results credit must be given to the coaches and players who obviously prepare for the scenario of being a man down, and have learned ways to ensure that they do not concede during this period of play.
This became abundantly clear in the England v Scotland Six Nations match at Twickenham at the weekend, and shows that Rugby still does not have this part of the game absolutely right.
In the 24th minute England’s Billy Vunipola received a yellow card, ten minutes in the sin bin. Scotland were pressing for a try and won a scrum five metres from the England try-line. The time on the match clock was 25.09 when the scrum was awarded. For the next three minutes, although play was underway, effectively nothing happened. The scrum failed to engage properly and the referee awarded Scotland a free kick after 37 seconds. They opted to take another scrum. This one collapsed after 54 seconds and a penalty was awarded to Scotland. Again they opted for the scrum looking to make the extra man advantage pay and score the mythical seven points. The referee stopped the clock before this scrum and explained to the two props what he wanted from them. Eventually two minutes and 57 seconds after the scrum had been awarded the ball was put in and play continued. Scotland to their fans frustration made a hash of possession and blew the chance of a try.
However England had eaten up three minutes of Billy Vunipola’s time on the side. Many will argue that there is nothing wrong with what happened and it was all within the rules. It is hard to deny that, but surely such a passage of non-play makes a mockery of such a suspension? If the scrum cannot be completed surely the timekeeper on the side should go back until the scrum is completed?
Now in this instant it was in play twice, but twice England infringed. So the time elapsed was fair. Yet while the clock may have been on and the referee had called play to continue, the scrum had not been able to be completed because of two instances of foul play. Some will say that England managed the situation superbly. They delayed Scotland’s momentum and at the same time lessened their team mate’s time on the side.
Yet if Rugby wants to pull in new fans and keep the old ones such moments in a game are scrappy, ugly and unwanted. They do the game a disservice.
In such a situation if the scrum goes down twice should a penalty try should be awarded? Some will argue that at the best of times the referees have no idea who is collapsing the scrum, so such a punishment would be harsh as it could see the attacking team manipulate the situation in order to receive the penalty try.
From a fans perspective it is a farcical situation and a blight on the game. Especially if the suspended player is seeing his time of the side reduce while absolutely nothing is happening.
Someone rarely quoted on this site is the former head of the International Olympic Committee Avery Brundage, but it was he who said “sports played professionally are entertainment.” Certainly if people are paying to watch a sport they want to be entertained. They certainly do not want moments such as this.
Coaches and players are, as is often the case, one-step ahead of the administrators in finding a way to lessen the impact of a decision. However if a player is to be sin-binned and the punishment is to be legitimate that player should be off the field for ten minutes of actual play.
As Rugby World also revealed “there is nothing unusual about successful sides conceding a high number of cards, particularly late in games. Committing a series of professional fouls to remove an opponents’ momentum is an effective way of protecting a lead. If those infringements are varied and shared about the team, they may get away with several before attracting a warning from the referee. If a yellow card does follow, then the top sides are proving capable of escaping with the scoreboard relatively untouched.”
This may well be Rugby’s problem. It is still not that long in relation to other sports since the game turned professional, this year will be its 25th year as a professional sport. It has struggled to make that adjustment in some aspects, and in the main the law makers have been caught between making the game safe to encourage others to play, and also maintain its entertainment value. The law changes that have emerged have at times stifled that entertainment. The sin-binning of players and the proliferation of ‘professional’ infringements have also contributed. Maybe this is all part of the evolution of the game.
At this point in time it is best not to get too hot under the collar about such things and remember the words of Admiral Sir Percy Royds, who was President of the Rugby Football Union in the days before Work Rugby existed, he said, “Laws may come and Laws may go, but the game goes on for ever.” In truth that is all that matters.
For those who missed it Scotland won at Twickenham for the first time against the English since 5th March 1983, a period of 38 years!
