Still seeing red: Blame the rules not the ref

I really, really hate 15 on 14 rugby. Three years ago, I wrote a venting post when in the space of five All Black tests we had seen 3 yellow cards and 1 red. On Saturday night in the test match between the All Blacks and South Africa, we saw that quantity in a single game, three for foul play and one for a professional foul. 

The first yellow card to Bismark Du Plessis was clearly wrong; the second to the same player was clearly correct (as were the cards to Nonu and Read) according to the rules. The problem was that the rules state that a second yellow card automatically leads to a red, and so the original error was compounded and South Africa had to play most of the second half one man short, to the detriment of the game. 

Most of the discussion in the main-stream media and social media since has focused on the error by Roman Poite in carding Du Plessis for what was a perfectly legal tackle. This misses the point. Yes, Poite made was in error*, but errors are inevitable. Rugby is played at a furious pace. Split second judgements are required from both players and referees and all of them are going to make mistakes. The rules need to be written with a view that this is going to happen. The two-yellow-equals-a-red rule is simply too draconian to a world where errors of judgement can happen. 

Part of the problem, here, is that there isn't any coherence in the incentives that the rules seek to create. Partly we want to punish individual players for behaving in a reckless way causing unnecessary endangerment to other players. Partly we want to punish teams for illegal actions of individuals that give their team an advantage. For the latter, it is appropriate that the punishment lead to an advantage for the other team in the course of the game being played. For the former, the punishment can occur after the game in the form of suspensions, fines, etc. If the point of a card is to put a team at a disadvantage to mitigate the advantage caused by some illegal act, why does it make a difference if the same player transgresses twice, or two players from the same team transgress once each? And if the point of the two-yellows-equals-a-red rule is to increase the punishment for habitual offenders, why does it make a difference if that player earns a yellow card once in two successive games or two yellows in a single game? 

I come back to the rule I suggested in my 2010 post: If foul play merits sending a player off, let him be replaced so the game continues to be 15 on 15, but take appropriate action at the post-match judiciary (including being open to the possibility that the on-field decision by the referee was a mistake). If the problem is professional fouls, change the incentives so that conceding a penalty does not give the infringing team an advantage in terms of possession and field possession, and instruct referees to be more liberal in awarding penalty tries. But please, no more 15-on-14; it is a blight on the game. 

* As an aside, why has the criticism all been placed on Poite rather than, George Ayoub. Poite made a call based on what he saw; he asked for guidance from Ayoub, the television match official. Ayoub instead of clearly stating that there was no foul play simply said that he couldn't make a determination and that Poite should go with the call as he saw it. Ayoub had the benefit of slow motion, multiple replays and different angles; Poite did not. Why, then, is Poite the one blamed? 

Doing Well by Doing Good: Sports Edition

New Zealand play Argentina in the Rubgy Championship again this weekend, so there will likely be more discussion of the role that the immediate past New Zealand coach, Graham Henry, has as a coaching advisor to the Argentinian team.  When the two teams met a couple of weeks ago in New Zealand, the media commentary on this focused on patriotism (how dare Henry work for the opposition), industrial espionage (there should be a stand-down period between coaching stints for different teams, since Henry still has information about current NZ structures), and social policy (it is good for the game to provide help to the less-strong teams).

In contrast, no-one seems to have considered the possibility that Henry's assistance to Argentina could be good for New Zealand. File this one under Honours problem sets I would like to write if I were teaching an appropriate course. The model is as follows:

The Rugby Championship is a two-round, round robin tournament (home and away) involving four teams: New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. New Zealand is clearly currently the strongest of the four teams and Argentina the weakest. The disparity is not so great that any result is a foregone conclusion, but realistically the gap between New Zealand and Argentina is large.  The biggest threat to New Zealand in the competition, then, is not the prospect that they might lose to Argentina. It is that they might split their two-game series with the other two teams, and have the competition decided by bonus points.

Helping out Argentina, therefore, would be to our advantage, if it raised the probability of their beating the other two teams by more than if it raised the probability of their beating New Zealand. I have no idea just what assumptions would be needed to make this model work, which is why I think it would make a great problem set. There might even be a letters-style publication here. I'll put co-authorship out for tender!

Worthless rugby players

If a rugby player leaves for Japan, is there a loss to the country? Seamus says no. So long as he's being paid his marginal product.

While rugby fans may decry his loss to the sport, Canterbury University economics lecturer Dr Seamus Hogan told NBR ONLINE there is no loss to the New Zealand economy.

"If he was prepared to play in New Zealand free, obviously that would be of tremendous value to the rugby union because it would get more bums on seats.

"Beyond that, there wouldn't be any spill over benefit economically to the country."

Dr Hogan says that in terms of economic activity, if Williams' presence in a match gets more fans into the stadium those people are just spending money they would have spent elsewhere.

"It is just a transfer. It's not a benefit to the country economically."

Dr Hogan says Williams gets almost the full value of his contract because he has unique talents.

If the Rugby Union is good at getting fans to pay for the value provided, and if Sonny Bill's manager is good at negotiating his pay, then he doesn't provide much value above his pay. Because the rugby union can't perfectly price discriminate, fans might get some surplus from a good player that isn't captured by the rugby union. But, if the player has a good manager, sponsorship and endorsement deals ought to mop up at least some of what's left.

But I would have expected that fans shifting away from rugby into something else because of the departure would have some loss of associated surplus. The other activity also generates surplus, just less of it; that's why it was the second choice prior to the staffing change.

He says somebody who is a very good lock, such as Brodie Retallick from the Chiefs, cannot command a high price because the next-best lock is right behind him.

"If he goes, the cost to the rugby union of losing him is not great because there is somebody waiting to take his place.

"But if Williams goes this year, we have to take a step down in the quality of our second five-eighths."

However, Dr Hogan says it would not be a big slide because there are plenty of other talented second five-eighths around.

Williams' biggest value is probably in terms of the entertainment he provides, such as taking his ripped shirt off during a World Cup match last year, he says.

 Afraid I'd missed that.

RWC losses

Such are the measures of success in hosting international sporting events: The Herald calls the 2011 Rugby World Cup a success for having lost the country only $31.3 million, "$8 million less than they expected." Alas, the article seems not to be online. But as most of the APNZ story seems to come from the IRB press release, you can probably just read that.

I'd be interested in seeing what went into that final "cost to the country" tally. Is it just the cash transfer from the government to the RWC? Local government outlays as well? Costs of diverting a substantial part of the Wellington bureaucracy to supporting the RWC? Stadium expenditures, like Dunedin's mess, where the RWC push was a pretty explicit part of the case for building it?

RWC Minister Murray McCully comments:

"Without a doubt, RWC 2011 will generate significant economic benefits for this country for many years to come."

Sam Richardson points to some different results in Manawatu:

Far from producing a windfall, predicted to be worth between $750,000 and $2.2 million to the city, economic growth actually slowed during last year's tournament.

Proponents of the city's involvement, which included two matches, were "overly optimistic", said economic policy analyst Peter Crawford, and some city councillors are asking whether hosting large events is worth it.

The estimates process got it so wrong because it did not balance the likely benefits against the costs, he said.

One of the costs was the extent to which such a major event crowded out other activities.

I'll look forward to seeing Sam's paper at the NZAE meetings.

HT: Hamish Keith