NPR

Car analogies really suck

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:40 pm Car analogies really suck

Maybe but feel free to point out where the analogy does not apply.

Well for a start the framing is completely wrong. The problem isn't "some people routinely doing 100mph". The problem is everyone is considered fine at 99mph but 100mph is fucking lethal. But because 99mph is considered fine, people drive close to that mark and then outside events somehow cause the car to go at 100 I DONT FUCKING KNOW ITS A BAD ANALOGY BECAUSE CARS ARE NOT PEOPLE MAKING TACKLES jesus christ


The point is very much not that everyone's deciding to ignore the laws. Even I, a massive cynic, think that is bullshit. Additionally, harsher sanctions clearly are not doing the job. The RFU have recognised and accepted that. The problem that has been identified is that it's not just a question of making head contact illegal, it's about making tackles that are currently legal but could with minor disruption turn into head contact quite easily not legal any more. Again, I explained all this: the problem is the binary nature of the head contact and high tackle that doesn't take into account the dynamics of the sport. Even everyone opposed to red cards talks about this all the time.

When we criticise player tackle choice currently we always talk about "taking player safety into account" - i.e. players making a decision not to try and smash someone in the chest because it's a confused scenario or the tackled player is clearly not a stable target. But what's important to note is that they are not trying to illegally smash someone. They are trying to legally smash someone and putting safety at risk because the picture might change quicker than they can react to, and the difference between "hey, great hit!" and "long ban" is an inch or two.

So when you change the laws to make those "flirting with danger" tackles no longer a legal option, and make the illegal area much bigger but with a buffer zone of safety, then that has a huge impact. The big chest hit is now no longer legal under any circumstances, so that temptation is gone entirely and all tackles should be now approached with the tackler bending at the waist by default. This is a huge change in player behaviour.

Will there be some players who do just ignore the laws? Yeah, sure. They'll get drummed out of the game probably. Either way there's always going to be some tiny number of liabilities.

Some other points:

But critically, the incidence of head shots outlawed on the current laws won't be impacted at all.

That doesn't seem to be based on anything at all.

it might reduce some concussions but the only way to end that is to stop playing rugby

No-one is claiming they can eradicate concussions and like I said to Toga, "We can't eliminate it so there's no point to trying to meaningfully reduce it" is a shit take. STOP LETTING PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD.

But let's go back to the car analogy:

Your argument is akin to saying the speed limit is 70mph but some drivers routinely do 100mph. So, let's reduce the limit to 50mph. That'll fix it.
No. It won't. The dangerous drivers will continue at 100mph (unless you, say, jailed for 1 year as a min) and all you'll do is criminalise a large subset who hitherto were law abiding.

It's weird that in this analogy, car drivers who were able to legally drive to the speed limit aren't able to cope with it being changed. What do these drivers do in other locations? Is 70mph all they can do? That sounds bad. 70mph in a busy city sounds very dangerous. I'm pretty sure when you drive around you face different speed limits in different scenarios and adjust your speed all the time. It's almost like this analogy is fucking dreadful.

There's plenty of drivers who like pushing the speed limit. Which means it matters in safety terms what you set that limit to. And we absolutely do reduce speed limits because of the impact on safety.

There is a 'thin end of the wedge' cynicism also attached to much of the criticism and I'm as guilty of this as anyone. If you listen to the RFU representative on the GBR podcast, he makes reference to 'changing the game so it's suitable for a different generation of player'. Now, you can argue that rugby is always changing and the game that we watch now is very different to what we watched 25 years ago and I'd agree but that change has come about mostly because of coaching development, player fitness and higher skill levels. Most of the laws are the same (though I'll concede that the introduction of the jackal is a huge change - and a shit one at that). Heavy sanction and red cards have largely eradicated the spear tackle, the shoulder barge, seatbelt tackles, and taking players out in the air. It's taking longer to eradicate high tackles but I'd wager that if you went through every match from the Premiership 10 years ago you'd find 2 or 3 red cards in every match if they were sanctioned like they are now which would demonstrate - or frame it as you like to say - that the red cards are working to lower tackle heights just like they've worked to drastically lower or eradicate all of the other illegal tackle types mentioned above.

However, the French example has shown that you need complimentary laws to make the lower tackle law work. Asking referees to 'suggest and encourage' players not to dip into contact is a cop out. So we know that that's likely to be brought in as another law. More than one tackler will also have to be outlawed, and eventually the pick and drive will be outlawed as it's just impossible to tackle legally. The game will fundamentally change to something else to appease a very small but vocal group but it won't appeal to a different generation of player any more than it will appeal to the current generation or previous generations.

Forget the car analogy and go with an old saying...

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

Rugby is turning into a camel.

But focusing on the sanction is part of the problem. We're years into this stuff and we still see all these red cards, precisely because the line between legal and illegal is so thin, and because it's so heavily impacted by external factors. This is the argument that was made prior to this law from people who hated the current focus on head contact - that players are being punished for trying to do something legal and being unable to react at the last second to a change in circumstances.

What did the tackle in the air law change? It changed player behaviour. Now players usually only compete when they know they're going to get a clean run at it and know they're going to get there. They're far more happy to back off and wait to make a tackle rather than gamble than they were prior to that law change. But the sanctions on head contact do not change player behaviour. Partly because there's so much mitigation thanks to outside factors in order to be "fair" (and to differentiate between someone who shoulder charges someone in the head and someone who would've been tackling legally were it not for a slip), but also partly because doing the thing that is dangerous is still legal. It's like if hitting people in the air was fine but if they landed badly it was a red card. You're still encouraging the action that leads to the bad outcome!

Anyway, the guys doing these studies say that sanctions have not had a material impact over the past few years. I see no reason to doubt them, especially after the last few months of drama. It's clearly not a working solution.

As for suggest and encourage - I agree, it is a cop out. It's actually the problem we have now. Dangerous tackles are still legal but players are encouraged to go lower. Encouragement isn't worth much, so laws have to be made. We don't actually know the full details and the RFU have made it pretty clear the full details will be available soon, so I fully expect there to be a law around this.

Take a recent example - the Jamie George tackle that got a YC in the match v Edinburgh. I've watched that a number of times now from a number of angles and my only conclusion is that it was just absolutely piss poor technique from a player who has been a pro for over 10 years and achieved 70 + caps for England and the Lions and 100s of matches in the Premiership and European Cup. Now, I know the coaches at his club know what they are doing, I hope we can all agree on that, and I (think) I know that Jamie George isn't a dirty player so how on earth did it happen? I can only surmise that professional players are still not being coached to lower their height before contact. Now, when did that trend begin? It began when Rugby League coaches started coaching defence in Rugby Union - something I have mentioned as the elephant in the room in this place long before this new law was introduced. Now, I'm not saying that to eradicate this problem with a far more effective solution would be to simply ban RL coaches from RU but I do reckon it wouldn't currently be a problem in RU had RL coaches not been employed in the first place! So, if RL-style tackle techniques are to blame, why don't we be honest and just say it? It will upset the Leaguies no doubt but tough, if they are more comfortable with accepting high shots as part of their game then that's their business. In RU, it isn't acceptable.

I've been trying to envisage what body type will best exploit these new tackle laws and I can't decide if a short and wide player - the Trevor Leota type, will be harder to stop or the tall rangy type - the Sonny Bill type, who can offload easier.

Kawazaki wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:04 pm Take a recent example - the Jamie George tackle that got a YC in the match v Edinburgh. I've watched that a number of times now from a number of angles and my only conclusion is that it was just absolutely piss poor technique from a player who has been a pro for over 10 years and achieved 70 + caps for England and the Lions and 100s of matches in the Premiership and European Cup. Now, I know the coaches at his club know what they are doing, I hope we can all agree on that, and I (think) I know that Jamie George isn't a dirty player so how on earth did it happen? I can only surmise that professional players are still not being coached to lower their height before contact. Now, when did that trend begin? It began when Rugby League coaches started coaching defence in Rugby Union - something I have mentioned as the elephant in the room in this place long before this new law was introduced. Now, I'm not saying that to eradicate this problem with a far more effective solution would be to simply ban RL coaches from RU but I do reckon it wouldn't currently be a problem in RU had RL coaches not been employed in the first place! So, if RL-style tackle techniques are to blame, why don't we be honest and just say it? It will upset the Leaguies no doubt but tough, if they are more comfortable with accepting high shots as part of their game then that's their business. In RU, it isn't acceptable.

From the backlash, some people seem to think that denying a carrier inches and stopping an offload is a MUST or even their right. I'd argue you can do both with better defence that doesn't require a front-on hit or upper body + arms wrap. These, I think, are newer mentalities brought in by RL. Former Eng women's coach Graham Smith suggested these tactics weren't part of the game back when in response to a former women's international who joined the chorus of "Whatabout..." players/former players on twitter. He suggested, as I was thinking, if waist becomes the norm that you go back to angled drift defence instead of blitzing head-on. Force them out, destabilize with a shoulder in the side, offloads aren't effective if running sideways. In go-forward scenarios, supporting defenders get into (some call it a 'jam') the space where an offload could occur. That said, I'm all for basketball scores (though we only see this in 7s when the teams are outclassed, and surely with 15 defenders, scores aren't suddenly going to skyrocket).

But it's also amateur. Who cares if someone scores? Pride dented, but jobs aren't on the line. Get that one back using the same attacking strategy/tactics!

The most successful Saffer Team recently is the Stormers and their defence is always praised. They don't go high....

I see NZRU has a handy resource for their tackle trial:

https://www.rugbytoolbox.co.nz/the-game ... lvs/tackle

... some good Q&A in the attached pdf too.

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:00 pm

Niegs wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:45 pm Can anyone get the full text on this?

Analysis: Rugby's brave new world could cause unintended consequences
By Charlie Morgan, Senior Rugby Writer
...
Passionate about retaining “the fabric of the game” as a pursuit for “all shapes and sizes where there is a contest for possession”, Easter would prioritise tackle technique and cap replacements in order to incite fatigue. The first is a necessity. In time, the second may also become part of this brave new world.

At the top level, it has not truly been a game for all shapes and sizes for quite a few years now. If this were not the case, why the suprise that, say, Ange Capuozzo is able to have considerable impact ball-in-hand?

Additionally, the contest for possession has been supplanted by the contest for penalties as regards the scrum in particular and, to a lesser degree, the maul.

Niegs wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:49 am I see NZRU has a handy resource for their tackle trial:

https://www.rugbytoolbox.co.nz/the-game ... lvs/tackle

... some good Q&A in the attached pdf too.

That’s interesting tho - their trail differentiates between the first tackler and subsequent tacklers?
Assuming there’s evidence that majority injuries caused by the initial tackle and not any follow up?
Looks complex for the amateur and particularly junior games

Sinkers wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 5:05 am

Niegs wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:49 am I see NZRU has a handy resource for their tackle trial:

https://www.rugbytoolbox.co.nz/the-game ... lvs/tackle

... some good Q&A in the attached pdf too.

That’s interesting tho - their trail differentiates between the first tackler and subsequent tacklers?
Assuming there’s evidence that majority injuries caused by the initial tackle and not any follow up?
Looks complex for the amateur and particularly junior games

My guess is that it might be a compromise especially considered for not just the community game where "all sizes" means you may have a tiny person against a massive person, but also reflecting the reality of NZ rugby that will have massive Polynesians.

During the RFU kerfuffle, it struck me that in the women's game in particular, I can think of players I coached who would not be able to get their arms around the waist of another player or two I've coached. Allowing one to lock on and another to help complete the tackle helps one of those "what ifs".