October 12, 2024 • 14 mins
A controversial proposal allowing rugby teams to replace a red-carded player after 20 minutes has moved a step closer to global implementation.
World Rugby recently confirmed this potential change is one of several new amendments put forward for global use.
Referee Nigel Owens joined Piney to discuss the impact of these changes.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Weekend Sport podcast with Jason Vine
from newstalk ZEDB. The yellow card is going to be
upgraded to a red card.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
The high degree of danger, no clear and obvious mitigation.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Okay, Wayne Barnes shows a red card to the touchline.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Sam Kaine head in his hands, high tackle, the all
Blake Skipper set off.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Controversial proposal which would allow teams to replace a red
carded player after twenty minutes, has moved a step closer
to global implementation. Will Rugby confirmed this week. It's one
of several new law amendments which have been trialed in
some domestic and international competitions, including our own, and it's
been put forward for use globally. Nigel Owens is one
(00:53):
of the best referees in international rugby history and joins
us now to discuss this. Nigel, thanks for your time
across New Zealand. What is your overall view, first of all,
on the proposal to introduce a twenty minute red card
to international rugby.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yeah, I think you have to take a step back
to the ball. I'm trying to understand why people are
calling for this, why it's been in place in the
Rugby Championship and why it's coming into trial globally. And
the issue is, which is an understandable reason, is a
lot of people are getting frustrated with players being sent
off earlier in the game and then they feel that
(01:30):
the game is spoilt when you have fourteen against fifteen
or thirteen against fourteen under thirteen against fifteen. So that's
the reason why this has been bought in. Now the
concerns and the worry that I have is it's not
going to deal with the actual issues. And the actual
issues are the player safety. When we are still having
(01:50):
a lot of head collisions, We're still having players making
up right tackles, shoulder making contact with the head. We're
still having really reckless, dangerous playouts in the contact area.
We still have in US. We haven't seen a change
of player behavior despite the red cards. Now, if you
(02:12):
go back quite a few years, you remember a lot
of issues with contact in the air. Then we have
a lot of issues with spear tackling, and then what happened.
The referees went hard, it was a red card and
we change player behavior. But that hasn't happened this time.
And the issue is now we're still getting red cards,
and therefore a lot of people have been calling in
(02:33):
for a twenty minute red card so that it doesn't
spoil the game. Now, the issue that I have is this,
a red card in rugby should only be for an
act of total thugary or total reckless. Yes, and what
I mean by that is a player's defenses on the
ground and then you got charging in shoulder first, head first,
(02:55):
split into the player, contact with the head. This reckless,
it's really dangerous. You don't have any care whatsoever about
the player's safety who you are charging into. That should
be a red card and then you should not be replaced.
The issue that I have then, and I think this
is the issue that they're not dealing with, is if
you have a player and we've seen it, who is
(03:17):
unlucky to be sent off it's accidental, the dynamics of
the game of change this last second and everything's going
to that's a bit tough, that's a bit harsh. Then
they shouldn't be a red card. So what I feel
they should be doing is actually dealing with the issue itself.
Act of fugary active recklessness where you've got no concern
(03:37):
about the player safety, that I'm sorry. A red card
you off and you stay off. And if then it's
an issue where it's it's carelessness, it's accidental. You try
to do everything right, but the movement of the game,
the players affected thing in the last second, then that
shouldn't even be a red card. So what I feel
is happening is it's just papering over the cracks to
(04:00):
try and keep everybody happy, and in the long run,
you're not going to keep everybody happy because you're still
going to see these red cards with that, which are harsh,
and you're also then going to see a lot of
people and there's a lot of concern about then we
are not then being strong enough with the deterrent to
change players' behavior and getting rid of this need less, dangerous,
(04:22):
reckless high tackles or up right tackles or clear out.
So this is understandable why people are calling for it,
but my concern is they're not actually dealing with the
co issue itself, and that's why I'm not a big
fan of the twenty minute red card. I'd rather see
them bring it in a red card for total recklessness,
(04:43):
total fabruary. If anything is accidentally or unlucky, then it
shouldn't be a red card in the first place, and
then we will look after the player safety and people
who are sent off are sent off because they totally
deserve to be sent off and not because of an
accidental dynamic of the game.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
That is just such absolute common scenes. Now your absolute
common scenes. Do you think anybody's listening at w Rugby,
because surely a raid card can't be seen as harsh
or unlucky.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
No, it shouldn't be in us. That's not what I mean.
You know, with a red card is your head, but somebody,
you punch somebody from behind, you kick somebody the head
on the floor, that's what a red card should be.
Or as I said, you going up you was charging
in upright with a forearms swinging into somebody's head, or
a leading with a shoulder into an upright tackle or
a clearout, which is total recklessness. That's what a red
(05:34):
card should be. And when you're looking at incidents and
we've seen him over the last few years where that's
a bit unlucky. Yes, he was upright, but he was
trying to make and just remember the issue with this
as well. You see, upright tackers are not illegal if
you go in and upright tackle somebody. So what you
tend to have now the game has changed. One player
will go low, the other player will go high to
(05:56):
try and prevent an offload or rip the ball or
wrap the arms. We can't offload to another player. That
action is not illegal. There's nothing illegal in that. It
only comes an offense if you get it wrong and
you make contact with a player's head illegally. So what
they're trying to do, they're trying to get players to
change behavior without actually nothing in law to say you
(06:19):
have to do it. And this is when we are
landing up then with harsh red cards. We've seen plenty
in the World Cup. Some of them were totally deserved,
others were, oh god, this is a bit harsh. This
is unlucky. For that reason, it shouldn't be a red
card in the first place. And so that's what I'm
my concern is we're not dealing with the actual issues here,
(06:42):
and that's what I like to see them do.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
So, while the red card threshold is where it is,
while the rules are as they are written, isn't the
twenty minute red card in some ways a good idea
to give redress to a harsh or unlucky dismissal.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Well, that is a fair point in what you say
in that, But then I don't think it's it's not
a prevention, it's it's not a deterrent. And then if
you look at look at some of me being sent
off and on then for twenty minutes and being replaced,
so that team they're unlucky to guess somebody sent off.
I suppose an example, you could look at Sam Kaine
in the World Cup final. For me, a very unlucky
(07:23):
player to be sent off, so you have an unlucky
red card. Okay, for all of the guidelines guidance tell
you you may well end up with the red cards.
It's a harsh it's an unlucky one. Then compare that,
or it doesn't have to do that. Don't compare that
type of red card, which we call an unlucky harsh one.
Compare that then with a total act of thug, a
(07:46):
total lack of recklessness where you went flying into that
into that truck leading with a showler straight into player's head.
It's a red card. You're off. Yet both are treated
the same, and it shouldn't be the case. So both
teams now back up to fifteen men where one of
them was accidental unlucky, the other one was totally deserved
(08:08):
to go. Nobody in the world is complaining, yet they're
back to to fifteen men. Such a me that that is,
that is not right. So we need to look at
exactly what a red card should be. And if there's
any case of, oh, this is you know, this is
just unlucky, and it shouldn't be a red card. You know,
(08:29):
the fact you get sent off. Because if you're sent
off now for charging into ruck and catching play in
the head, and then all of a sudden you plead guilty,
they say I'm sorry and I was guilty. Reduce the
sanction by two weeks. And then you do a tackle school,
tiss your tackle which you've been taught attacked since you
were ten years of age. You go to a tackle school,
(08:49):
reduce it by another week, and all of a sudden
you're down to two or three weeks. If you get
sent off for that total act of recklessness, you should
be getting six or eight weeks, and there shouldn't be
nothing of it, because that's the only way that player
will learn, or that's the only way we're going to
enforce the player behavior. So there's a lot of other
things I think we can do to deal with the
(09:11):
situation we're in rather than just picking over the cracks
with this twenty minute red card.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
In your experience, nogele, does a game between a team
with fifteen and a team with fourteen automatically become a
reduced spectacle.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I don't. I don't think so, not all the time.
A lot of times it does do, because you if
you're playing against you know, fifteen men and you're down
to fourteen and you're of equal ability as a side,
and that's the result could have gone either way, then
it is going to be of an advantage. Doesn't work
all away. We still have some great games. You go
back to the twenty eleven World Cup. I was sitting
next door to a good friend of mine, Bryce Laurea
(09:48):
is watching Wales France where Sam Warburton got sent off
in that and I haven't done it because of Welshman.
I have no doubt that contributed to, you know, Wales
losing a semi final where they could have won it anyway,
but it did made things much more difficult. So on
the most when you were down to four fourteen men,
particularly for a period of maybe sixty five seventy seventy
(10:11):
minutes fifty minutes. Then I think it does take its toll.
Not always, but on occasions it does. And on occasions
we've seen great game of rugby on the side of
fourteen men actually winning, but I think they are more
of a case of occasionally rather than than the often.
So I think there is I think you know, down
to forty men, I think there's effect sort of. It
(10:31):
may affect your tactics as well. You may become now
a bit more if you're in the lead, you're going
to become maybe a bit more defensive. You're not going
to risk anythings. You're going to hold on to the lead,
so you can you can change the style of dynamics
of the game as well, which makes it much more
difficult and which can take away from the spectacle. But
we also have seen game with players sent off which
have been great games of rugby as well. But on
(10:51):
the most I think it does disadvantage of because its just.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
To finish nodule. The common scenes that you've talked, as
you know, in the last ten minutes is absolute common scenes.
Is anybody at World Rugby listening.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
You know, I'm not the only I do some work
for World rug and I think majority of people in
the world rugby they do a good job, you know,
on the most with the game to look at globally,
you have different countries, different dynamics from all over the
world coming together. It's not an easy job and the
most they do a very decent, decent job. But I'm
not involved in I was not involved in this process.
(11:26):
I'm not involved in in the process of law changing
or making at all. But there are good people who
are involved in that process. But but I'm not I'm
a part of that of that process. No, I'm not.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
All right, Nigel, It's been really instructive listening to your chat.
Thanks for taking air coll We really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Yeah, my pleasure. All the best, All.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
The best to you too, Nigel. There you go, Nigel
awance Worth eleven minutes of absolute common scenes. Imagine if
Nagel Aowans was sitting around whatever table it was when
I decided about the you know what the red card
threshold would be. I'm almost certainly you've got a view
on this. O eight one hundred and eighty eighteen eighty
(12:04):
anything you want to pick up on there, because here's
the problem. In their quest to protect the head, which
by the way, is the right thing to do, world
rugby have simply gone too low with their red card threshold.
They've tried to change behavior and tackle technique by making
the consequences of not getting it right more severe ie
(12:26):
a red card, and as Nigelan's has pointed out, player
behavior hasn't really changed, because how can you change being
in the wrong place by accident? And now red cards
are being given out when they shouldn't be. We've all
seen it, and we're now at the point where a
red card in rugby can be described as harsh or
(12:47):
unfair or unlucky. That should never ever happen. If someone
is sent off, there should be very little in the
way of dispute about it. It should be clear and obvious.
And nobody, not a single person, is suggesting that if
a player commits s where is foul play on the
(13:07):
rugby field and has given a red card, that he
should be able to be replaced. I'm talking outright thuggery
or recklessness, as niger Owen's called it.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
There.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
If someone does that, their team should suffer the consequences
go down to fourteen and stay at fourteen. But if
a player makes head on head contact by accident or
by circumstance, well, first of all, it shouldn't be a
red card, simple as that. Nigelones even said that Sam
Kaine's red card and the Rugby World Cup Final last
year was harsh and unlucky. The red card threshold's in
(13:40):
the wrong place. But until that gets changed, which will
take ages. And while the rules are what they are,
you have to have a twenty minute red card. If
a bloke sent off of something beyond his control or
because of the low threshold for red cards, he needs
to be able to be replaced. Because, as we've said
(14:03):
so many times, in these days of bat for engagement
and battling for eyeballs, a lopsided contest just will not
cut it. Fans will say, nap, not interested, not interested
in that. I don't want to watch a lopsided contest
simply because the red card threshold is in the wrong place.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
For more from Weekend Sport with Jason Fine, Listen live
to news Talk said B weekends from midday, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Weekend Sport podcast with Jason Vine
from newstalk ZEDB. The yellow card is going to be
upgraded to a red card.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
The high degree of danger, no clear and obvious mitigation.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Okay, Wayne Barnes shows a red card to the touchline.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Sam Kaine head in his hands, high tackle, the all
Blake Skipper set off.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Controversial proposal which would allow teams to replace a red
carded player after twenty minutes, has moved a step closer
to global implementation. Will Rugby confirmed this week. It's one
of several new law amendments which have been trialed in
some domestic and international competitions, including our own, and it's
been put forward for use globally. Nigel Owens is one
(00:53):
of the best referees in international rugby history and joins
us now to discuss this. Nigel, thanks for your time
across New Zealand. What is your overall view, first of all,
on the proposal to introduce a twenty minute red card
to international rugby.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Yeah, I think you have to take a step back
to the ball. I'm trying to understand why people are
calling for this, why it's been in place in the
Rugby Championship and why it's coming into trial globally. And
the issue is, which is an understandable reason, is a
lot of people are getting frustrated with players being sent
off earlier in the game and then they feel that
(01:30):
the game is spoilt when you have fourteen against fifteen
or thirteen against fourteen under thirteen against fifteen. So that's
the reason why this has been bought in. Now the
concerns and the worry that I have is it's not
going to deal with the actual issues. And the actual
issues are the player safety. When we are still having
(01:50):
a lot of head collisions, We're still having players making
up right tackles, shoulder making contact with the head. We're
still having really reckless, dangerous playouts in the contact area.
We still have in US. We haven't seen a change
of player behavior despite the red cards. Now, if you
(02:12):
go back quite a few years, you remember a lot
of issues with contact in the air. Then we have
a lot of issues with spear tackling, and then what happened.
The referees went hard, it was a red card and
we change player behavior. But that hasn't happened this time.
And the issue is now we're still getting red cards,
and therefore a lot of people have been calling in
(02:33):
for a twenty minute red card so that it doesn't
spoil the game. Now, the issue that I have is this,
a red card in rugby should only be for an
act of total thugary or total reckless. Yes, and what
I mean by that is a player's defenses on the
ground and then you got charging in shoulder first, head first,
(02:55):
split into the player, contact with the head. This reckless,
it's really dangerous. You don't have any care whatsoever about
the player's safety who you are charging into. That should
be a red card and then you should not be replaced.
The issue that I have then, and I think this
is the issue that they're not dealing with, is if
you have a player and we've seen it, who is
(03:17):
unlucky to be sent off it's accidental, the dynamics of
the game of change this last second and everything's going
to that's a bit tough, that's a bit harsh. Then
they shouldn't be a red card. So what I feel
they should be doing is actually dealing with the issue itself.
Act of fugary active recklessness where you've got no concern
(03:37):
about the player safety, that I'm sorry. A red card
you off and you stay off. And if then it's
an issue where it's it's carelessness, it's accidental. You try
to do everything right, but the movement of the game,
the players affected thing in the last second, then that
shouldn't even be a red card. So what I feel
is happening is it's just papering over the cracks to
(04:00):
try and keep everybody happy, and in the long run,
you're not going to keep everybody happy because you're still
going to see these red cards with that, which are harsh,
and you're also then going to see a lot of
people and there's a lot of concern about then we
are not then being strong enough with the deterrent to
change players' behavior and getting rid of this need less, dangerous,
(04:22):
reckless high tackles or up right tackles or clear out.
So this is understandable why people are calling for it,
but my concern is they're not actually dealing with the
co issue itself, and that's why I'm not a big
fan of the twenty minute red card. I'd rather see
them bring it in a red card for total recklessness,
(04:43):
total fabruary. If anything is accidentally or unlucky, then it
shouldn't be a red card in the first place, and
then we will look after the player safety and people
who are sent off are sent off because they totally
deserve to be sent off and not because of an
accidental dynamic of the game.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
That is just such absolute common scenes. Now your absolute
common scenes. Do you think anybody's listening at w Rugby,
because surely a raid card can't be seen as harsh
or unlucky.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
No, it shouldn't be in us. That's not what I mean.
You know, with a red card is your head, but somebody,
you punch somebody from behind, you kick somebody the head
on the floor, that's what a red card should be.
Or as I said, you going up you was charging
in upright with a forearms swinging into somebody's head, or
a leading with a shoulder into an upright tackle or
a clearout, which is total recklessness. That's what a red
(05:34):
card should be. And when you're looking at incidents and
we've seen him over the last few years where that's
a bit unlucky. Yes, he was upright, but he was
trying to make and just remember the issue with this
as well. You see, upright tackers are not illegal if
you go in and upright tackle somebody. So what you
tend to have now the game has changed. One player
will go low, the other player will go high to
(05:56):
try and prevent an offload or rip the ball or
wrap the arms. We can't offload to another player. That
action is not illegal. There's nothing illegal in that. It
only comes an offense if you get it wrong and
you make contact with a player's head illegally. So what
they're trying to do, they're trying to get players to
change behavior without actually nothing in law to say you
(06:19):
have to do it. And this is when we are
landing up then with harsh red cards. We've seen plenty
in the World Cup. Some of them were totally deserved,
others were, oh god, this is a bit harsh. This
is unlucky. For that reason, it shouldn't be a red
card in the first place. And so that's what I'm
my concern is we're not dealing with the actual issues here,
(06:42):
and that's what I like to see them do.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
So, while the red card threshold is where it is,
while the rules are as they are written, isn't the
twenty minute red card in some ways a good idea
to give redress to a harsh or unlucky dismissal.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Well, that is a fair point in what you say
in that, But then I don't think it's it's not
a prevention, it's it's not a deterrent. And then if
you look at look at some of me being sent
off and on then for twenty minutes and being replaced,
so that team they're unlucky to guess somebody sent off.
I suppose an example, you could look at Sam Kaine
in the World Cup final. For me, a very unlucky
(07:23):
player to be sent off, so you have an unlucky
red card. Okay, for all of the guidelines guidance tell
you you may well end up with the red cards.
It's a harsh it's an unlucky one. Then compare that,
or it doesn't have to do that. Don't compare that
type of red card, which we call an unlucky harsh one.
Compare that then with a total act of thug, a
(07:46):
total lack of recklessness where you went flying into that
into that truck leading with a showler straight into player's head.
It's a red card. You're off. Yet both are treated
the same, and it shouldn't be the case. So both
teams now back up to fifteen men where one of
them was accidental unlucky, the other one was totally deserved
(08:08):
to go. Nobody in the world is complaining, yet they're
back to to fifteen men. Such a me that that is,
that is not right. So we need to look at
exactly what a red card should be. And if there's
any case of, oh, this is you know, this is
just unlucky, and it shouldn't be a red card. You know,
(08:29):
the fact you get sent off. Because if you're sent
off now for charging into ruck and catching play in
the head, and then all of a sudden you plead guilty,
they say I'm sorry and I was guilty. Reduce the
sanction by two weeks. And then you do a tackle school,
tiss your tackle which you've been taught attacked since you
were ten years of age. You go to a tackle school,
(08:49):
reduce it by another week, and all of a sudden
you're down to two or three weeks. If you get
sent off for that total act of recklessness, you should
be getting six or eight weeks, and there shouldn't be
nothing of it, because that's the only way that player
will learn, or that's the only way we're going to
enforce the player behavior. So there's a lot of other
things I think we can do to deal with the
(09:11):
situation we're in rather than just picking over the cracks
with this twenty minute red card.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
In your experience, nogele, does a game between a team
with fifteen and a team with fourteen automatically become a
reduced spectacle.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
I don't. I don't think so, not all the time.
A lot of times it does do, because you if
you're playing against you know, fifteen men and you're down
to fourteen and you're of equal ability as a side,
and that's the result could have gone either way, then
it is going to be of an advantage. Doesn't work
all away. We still have some great games. You go
back to the twenty eleven World Cup. I was sitting
next door to a good friend of mine, Bryce Laurea
(09:48):
is watching Wales France where Sam Warburton got sent off
in that and I haven't done it because of Welshman.
I have no doubt that contributed to, you know, Wales
losing a semi final where they could have won it anyway,
but it did made things much more difficult. So on
the most when you were down to four fourteen men,
particularly for a period of maybe sixty five seventy seventy
(10:11):
minutes fifty minutes. Then I think it does take its toll.
Not always, but on occasions it does. And on occasions
we've seen great game of rugby on the side of
fourteen men actually winning, but I think they are more
of a case of occasionally rather than than the often.
So I think there is I think you know, down
to forty men, I think there's effect sort of. It
(10:31):
may affect your tactics as well. You may become now
a bit more if you're in the lead, you're going
to become maybe a bit more defensive. You're not going
to risk anythings. You're going to hold on to the lead,
so you can you can change the style of dynamics
of the game as well, which makes it much more
difficult and which can take away from the spectacle. But
we also have seen game with players sent off which
have been great games of rugby as well. But on
(10:51):
the most I think it does disadvantage of because its just.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
To finish nodule. The common scenes that you've talked, as
you know, in the last ten minutes is absolute common scenes.
Is anybody at World Rugby listening.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
You know, I'm not the only I do some work
for World rug and I think majority of people in
the world rugby they do a good job, you know,
on the most with the game to look at globally,
you have different countries, different dynamics from all over the
world coming together. It's not an easy job and the
most they do a very decent, decent job. But I'm
not involved in I was not involved in this process.
(11:26):
I'm not involved in in the process of law changing
or making at all. But there are good people who
are involved in that process. But but I'm not I'm
a part of that of that process. No, I'm not.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
All right, Nigel, It's been really instructive listening to your chat.
Thanks for taking air coll We really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Yeah, my pleasure. All the best, All.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
The best to you too, Nigel. There you go, Nigel
awance Worth eleven minutes of absolute common scenes. Imagine if
Nagel Aowans was sitting around whatever table it was when
I decided about the you know what the red card
threshold would be. I'm almost certainly you've got a view
on this. O eight one hundred and eighty eighteen eighty
(12:04):
anything you want to pick up on there, because here's
the problem. In their quest to protect the head, which
by the way, is the right thing to do, world
rugby have simply gone too low with their red card threshold.
They've tried to change behavior and tackle technique by making
the consequences of not getting it right more severe ie
(12:26):
a red card, and as Nigelan's has pointed out, player
behavior hasn't really changed, because how can you change being
in the wrong place by accident? And now red cards
are being given out when they shouldn't be. We've all
seen it, and we're now at the point where a
red card in rugby can be described as harsh or
(12:47):
unfair or unlucky. That should never ever happen. If someone
is sent off, there should be very little in the
way of dispute about it. It should be clear and obvious.
And nobody, not a single person, is suggesting that if
a player commits s where is foul play on the
(13:07):
rugby field and has given a red card, that he
should be able to be replaced. I'm talking outright thuggery
or recklessness, as niger Owen's called it.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
There.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
If someone does that, their team should suffer the consequences
go down to fourteen and stay at fourteen. But if
a player makes head on head contact by accident or
by circumstance, well, first of all, it shouldn't be a
red card, simple as that. Nigelones even said that Sam
Kaine's red card and the Rugby World Cup Final last
year was harsh and unlucky. The red card threshold's in
(13:40):
the wrong place. But until that gets changed, which will
take ages. And while the rules are what they are,
you have to have a twenty minute red card. If
a bloke sent off of something beyond his control or
because of the low threshold for red cards, he needs
to be able to be replaced. Because, as we've said
(14:03):
so many times, in these days of bat for engagement
and battling for eyeballs, a lopsided contest just will not
cut it. Fans will say, nap, not interested, not interested
in that. I don't want to watch a lopsided contest
simply because the red card threshold is in the wrong place.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
For more from Weekend Sport with Jason Fine, Listen live
to news Talk said B weekends from midday, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.