NPR

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:33 pm

GogLais wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:24 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:17 pm

It's a very normal piece of thinking in the legal world and oddly this process is dominated by legal types. Yes for those wanting punishment it can seem to be missing the point, but that you start not wanting to sanction isn't in all ways bad thinking, there's a lot to admire about it.

It could of course be changed if that's deemed appropriate, just as is what's happened with Farrell doesn't represent any failing in the process

Depends what one means by in effect better than average behaviour I guess. I’m not sure what sort of good behaviour at a hearing would be so exceptionally good as to justify reducing a sentence.

It's just padding for the press release. They waffle about him being a nice, polite chap, does charity work, didn't call the committee a cnut-show, etc.....

"Good morning. We decided to reduce it to 3 weeks. Goodbye".......isn't enough.

More than that's not enough that's not remotely how it works

This is like one of those news reports where the on-site reporter is doing a story on dangerous road conditions and a car slides on the ice behind them causing yet another accident. Squares up, back at 60-70 degrees, looks *very* close to making head contact, #3 comes in with an unnecessary shot that also looks high.




Kiss even gives, I think, the reason for many of these: "collision". Playing rugby with "a game of inches" mindset when it doesn't need to be (except on the goal line), and a culture of big hits. I did a session for a newish coach last week and stressed that the good old passive tackle exposes the ball carrier/ball to the defensive side much better than a dump or dominant one that makes it easier to present the ball to their teammates.

Niegs wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:40 pm I did a session for a newish coach last week and stressed that the good old passive tackle exposes the ball carrier/ball to the defensive side much better than a dump or dominant one that makes it easier to present the ball to their teammates.

It's not like the clubs don't know this. But they also know as close a metric as you can find in rugby for who will win a given game is to measure who wins contact, that's going to have a much stronger correlation than creating counter ruck opportunities

So there's lot which needs to be addressed in terms of the tackle and the ruck, and in part coaches and players are going to have to be dragged kicking, screaming and whining their heads off claiming it's not possible

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:17 pm

It could of course be changed if that's deemed appropriate, just as is what's happened with Farrell doesn't represent any failing in the process

What the actual..

of course it represents a failing in the process, just because he didn't go high on one of the panel members and shoulder them in the face he gets a reduction on the ban.

The entry level for head contact is six weeks. Farrell does not have a clean record. He is 31 years old and has played well over 350 senior games, but if he goes to a course and learns how to tackle he gets his ban reduced from the level deemed appropriate for the misdemeanour to half of that.

This hiding behind process and use of loopholes is not how you address the very serious issue of head trauma and early onset dementia seen in some recently retired players.

I just don't agree with the premise being repeated here that the red cards and sanctions aren't working. Just watch some pro rugby from 10 or 15 years ago and you'll see scores of tackles in every match that would be red cards if done nowadays. It is changing but with slow motion replays and a highly motivated but very small group of people hell bent on portraying world Rugby and the unions like they're the tobacco companies back in the day, the tackles when they happen are massively over-exposed and all kinds of nefarious causal health links are trotted out again and again.

In short, it's nowhere near as bad as you think and things have changed massively already. There's more red cards simply because of the forensic pouring over VT looking for it.

It’s in the recycling bin so I can’t quote him 100% accurately but SJ was coming out with the “What was player supposed if he couldn’t deal with a situation legally” line in the Sunday Times yesterday.

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:52 pm I just don't agree with the premise being repeated here that the red cards and sanctions aren't working. Just watch some pro rugby from 10 or 15 years ago and you'll see scores of tackles in every match that would be red cards if done nowadays. It is changing but with slow motion replays and a highly motivated but very small group of people hell bent on portraying world Rugby and the unions like they're the tobacco companies back in the day, the tackles when they happen are massively over-exposed and all kinds of nefarious causal health links are trotted out again and again.

In short, it's nowhere near as bad as you think and things have changed massively already. There's more red cards simply because of the forensic pouring over VT looking for it.

Indeed, Quins put out a Happy Birthday Tweet for former player No Fa'asavalu, in which he absolutely monstered some poor Wasps player. Looking at, I though that he would likely get the replay treatment these days.

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:51 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:17 pm

It could of course be changed if that's deemed appropriate, just as is what's happened with Farrell doesn't represent any failing in the process

What the actual..

of course it represents a failing in the process, just because he didn't go high on one of the panel members and shoulder them in the face he gets a reduction on the ban.

The entry level for head contact is six weeks. Farrell does not have a clean record. He is 31 years old and has played well over 350 senior games, but if he goes to a course and learns how to tackle he gets his ban reduced from the level deemed appropriate for the misdemeanour to half of that.

This hiding behind process and use of loopholes is not how you address the very serious issue of head trauma and early onset dementia seen in some recently retired players.

But it doesn't represent a failing of the process as it stands, rather how you want it to work. What the panel was tasked with doing they did.

If fwiw you think there shouldn't be mitigating factors for all I'd agree with some changes in the process are warranted I wouldn't go with that. I'd like the game to be less about winning contact, and part of that it seems to me would be looking to drop still further the height of the tackle, and part of that would be longer low, medium and high end entry points, probably much longer, 2x if not 3x longer

Niegs wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:40 pm This is like one of those news reports where the on-site reporter is doing a story on dangerous road conditions and a car slides on the ice behind them causing yet another accident. Squares up, back at 60-70 degrees, looks *very* close to making head contact, #3 comes in with an unnecessary shot that also looks high.




Kiss even gives, I think, the reason for many of these: "collision".

Kiss is a fucking idiot!! I was there, 30 yards away and directly inline with the tackle and every single fan in the stand where I was sitting (Irish or Stormers) all agreed - stupid, dangerous & straight red!

Both players left the pitch for an HIA and didn't return FFS!

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:33 pm

Niegs wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:40 pm This is like one of those news reports where the on-site reporter is doing a story on dangerous road conditions and a car slides on the ice behind them causing yet another accident. Squares up, back at 60-70 degrees, looks *very* close to making head contact, #3 comes in with an unnecessary shot that also looks high.




Kiss even gives, I think, the reason for many of these: "collision".

Kiss is a fucking idiot!! I was there, 30 yards away and directly inline with the tackle and every single fan in the stand where I was sitting (Irish or Stormers) all agreed - stupid, dangerous & straight red!

Both players left the pitch for an HIA and didn't return FFS!

Would've been surprising if the guy who got the red card had returned to the pitch tbh

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:40 pm
Would've been surprising if the guy who got the red card had returned to the pitch tbh

Good point. He was laid out for about 20 seconds after contact.

GogLais wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:52 pm It’s in the recycling bin so I can’t quote him 100% accurately but SJ was coming out with the “What was player supposed if he couldn’t deal with a situation legally” line in the Sunday Times yesterday.

There is still some work to do on situations where the inability to safely compete needs to be addressed - how you're supposed to effectively defend against players diving at the line from 2 yards out is one of my bugbears - but the reds I saw over the weekend could have been avoided.

It seems to a be a bit of a polarised debate in some circles, where some think it's the fault of the players and some the fault of the rules/process - it's a bit of both. The current approach to sanctions seems to me to be reasonably sensible, the onus is on the player but we give some dispensation where actions weren't stupid, dangerous or reckless.

I do, however, think we need to go a few steps further to eliminate the situations where the chances of headshots are unreasonably high, or where you can't effectively compete due to risk of headshot - not least because if we don't, we'll get the usual idiots muddying the waters saying getting brained by a forearm smash is just a rugby incident. Many others have raised the point about jackaling, unfortunately the way the game is going/has gone require very quick removal of jackalers before they can clamp the ball - this doesn't exactly encourage the team in possession to enter the ruck slowly and carefully, and in most cases the jackalers' head and neck are exposed and take the brunt. The lad at London Irish was reckless, but I'd rather eliminate that particular scenario as the only truly safe response is not competing, rather than changing the way you compete. The ball hadn't really 'gone' as the jackaler was juggling it, and whilst smashing them on the swede isn't a legitimate way of removing them from the ruck neither is just letting them take the ball.

There is an order to this - get rid of the high shots, and then legislate away the remaining situations where the risk of unintentional head contact is unacceptable. I think we should be actively reviewing the number of citings and sanctions for each type of offence, as those which still regularly occur despite sanctions being in place for a number of years warrant a review to see why player behaviour isn't changing quickly enough. The sanctions, it appears, aren't really working - in any other walk of life, that would suggest a systemic issue, and not isolated behaviour.


(did I just defend SJ? I need a shower)

As an aside, and not in response to the quoted post, its not hard to view the low point as being the intended sanction and the start point just being what you get if you're not engaging with the sanctioning process - by not accepting that you've offended (and are therefore not likely to change your behaviour), or you're consistently offending (you're clearly not changing your behaviour). These need an additional kick up bum.

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:52 pm I just don't agree with the premise being repeated here that the red cards and sanctions aren't working. Just watch some pro rugby from 10 or 15 years ago and you'll see scores of tackles in every match that would be red cards if done nowadays. It is changing but with slow motion replays and a highly motivated but very small group of people hell bent on portraying world Rugby and the unions like they're the tobacco companies back in the day, the tackles when they happen are massively over-exposed and all kinds of nefarious causal health links are trotted out again and again.

In short, it's nowhere near as bad as you think and things have changed massively already. There's more red cards simply because of the forensic pouring over VT looking for it.

I remember a game at the rec against Leiciester and the Tualigi brothers were utterly smashing Nick Abendanon like he'd just cheated on their little sister.

Started legalish but just got mental. No way they'd have stayed on the pitch using current interpretations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zflocS4 ... bendanoned

eta: Anyway, wild-west as it once was, there are still too many high shots and there seems to a be a residual/background level every week which aren't being eliminated.

inactionman wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:48 pm Many others have raised the point about jackaling, unfortunately the way the game is going/has gone require very quick removal of jackalers before they can clamp the ball - this doesn't exactly encourage the team in possession to enter the ruck slowly and carefully, and in most cases the jackalers' head and neck are exposed and take the brunt. The lad at London Irish was reckless, but I'd rather eliminate that particular scenario as the only truly safe response is not competing, rather than changing the way you compete. The ball hadn't really 'gone' as the jackaler was juggling it, and whilst smashing them on the swede isn't a legitimate way of removing them from the ruck neither is just letting them take the ball.

You must "enter a ruck through the gate" - you can only remove a jackler in this way by hitting him head-on/on his neck which is dangerous.

Maybe we need to allow defenders to enter a ruck from the side and smash the jackler off the ball in his ribs instead.

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:56 pm

inactionman wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:48 pm Many others have raised the point about jackaling, unfortunately the way the game is going/has gone require very quick removal of jackalers before they can clamp the ball - this doesn't exactly encourage the team in possession to enter the ruck slowly and carefully, and in most cases the jackalers' head and neck are exposed and take the brunt. The lad at London Irish was reckless, but I'd rather eliminate that particular scenario as the only truly safe response is not competing, rather than changing the way you compete. The ball hadn't really 'gone' as the jackaler was juggling it, and whilst smashing them on the swede isn't a legitimate way of removing them from the ruck neither is just letting them take the ball.

You must "enter a ruck through the gate" - you can only remove a jackler in this way by hitting him head-on/on his neck which is dangerous.

Maybe we need to allow defenders to enter a ruck from the side and smash the jackler off the ball in his ribs instead.

I've said for a while I think entry at a 45 degree angle could be the 'solution' here. Peel the would-be jackaller off, but of course without smashing in or targeting knee. People say it's dangerous - and would be with a smash - but shoulder into the head area and croc rolls are already dangerous.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:23 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:51 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:17 pm

It could of course be changed if that's deemed appropriate, just as is what's happened with Farrell doesn't represent any failing in the process

What the actual..

of course it represents a failing in the process, just because he didn't go high on one of the panel members and shoulder them in the face he gets a reduction on the ban.

The entry level for head contact is six weeks. Farrell does not have a clean record. He is 31 years old and has played well over 350 senior games, but if he goes to a course and learns how to tackle he gets his ban reduced from the level deemed appropriate for the misdemeanour to half of that.

This hiding behind process and use of loopholes is not how you address the very serious issue of head trauma and early onset dementia seen in some recently retired players.

But it doesn't represent a failing of the process as it stands, rather how you want it to work. What the panel was tasked with doing they did.

Nope, the process involves subjective decisions, such as the one I pointed out.

We either think that there should be a deterrent to dangerous tackles involving shoulders hitting players in the face or we don't.

as far as I'm aware, the other cases from Farrell involve the exact same offence (though I'm open to correction on that).

How that can be spun as the process working is beyond me.

Unless of course "need for a deterrent" means something completely different, like not a deterrent at all.

inactionman wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:51 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:52 pm I just don't agree with the premise being repeated here that the red cards and sanctions aren't working. Just watch some pro rugby from 10 or 15 years ago and you'll see scores of tackles in every match that would be red cards if done nowadays. It is changing but with slow motion replays and a highly motivated but very small group of people hell bent on portraying world Rugby and the unions like they're the tobacco companies back in the day, the tackles when they happen are massively over-exposed and all kinds of nefarious causal health links are trotted out again and again.

In short, it's nowhere near as bad as you think and things have changed massively already. There's more red cards simply because of the forensic pouring over VT looking for it.

I remember a game at the rec against Leiciester and the Tualigi brothers were utterly smashing Nick Abendanon like he'd just cheated on their little sister.

Started legalish but just got mental. No way they'd have stayed on the pitch using current interpretations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zflocS4 ... bendanoned

eta: Anyway, wild-west as it once was, there are still too many high shots and there seems to a be a residual/background level every week which aren't being eliminated.

In the comments on that video, Ben Youngs is quoted as saying that the Tuilagi brothers and Mafi had targeted Abendanon in that game because one of the Tuilagis had been banned for an illegal hit on him in a previous game and they wanted to get ‘revenge’ for this.

Maybe the answer is if you can't legally stop someone diving for the line 2 yards out then you concede the try

Not for the first time I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall...

Forget the specific numbers - adding on for bad behaviour and taking off for good behaviour are the same concept phrased differently.

Saying "it should be 3 weeks base + 1 week for bad behaviour" is exactly the same as saying "it should be 4 weeks base - 1 week for good behaviour".

So it's meaningless to say "they should punish extra for bad not let off for good" - they are the same thing. All you're really arguing is that the base should be more. Which is fine, but say that.

As with most of the debates around laws, if they applied the existing laws consistently and strictly, it'd be better. And of course stop this nonsense with knocking time of people's bans.

If Farrell, and everyone else who hits the head, got six weeks instead of three, that would have an impact.

If we enforced the arrival at rucks to be that you ha e to have the intention of staying on your feet, that'd stop dangerous hits, or most of them. Half the arrivals at rucks are players at full speed with their shoulders two feet off the deck. Show me how you're staying on your feet from that position?

As usual, rugby by shoots its own feet off by not applying our own laws. It's fucking maddening.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:22 pm Maybe the answer is if you can't legally stop someone diving for the line 2 yards out then you concede the try

Rather defeats the purpose of competition. The try line is the try line, not 2 meters from the tryline.

Maybe, and spitballing here, if you're within 5 meters at a ruck then you have to pass the ball back behind the 5 meter line before attacking again, or perhaps the attacking team who are not part of the ruck have to retreat behind the 5 metre line. There are alternative options (not that either of my suggestions are good options)

Mahoney wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:32 pm Not for the first time I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall...

Forget the specific numbers - adding on for bad behaviour and taking off for good behaviour are the same concept phrased differently.

Saying "it should be 3 weeks base + 1 week for bad behaviour" is exactly the same as saying "it should be 4 weeks base - 1 week for good behaviour".

So it's meaningless to say "they should punish extra for bad not let off for good" - they are the same thing. All you're really arguing is that the base should be more. Which is fine, but say that.

Spot on.

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:08 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:23 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:51 pm


What the actual..

of course it represents a failing in the process, just because he didn't go high on one of the panel members and shoulder them in the face he gets a reduction on the ban.

The entry level for head contact is six weeks. Farrell does not have a clean record. He is 31 years old and has played well over 350 senior games, but if he goes to a course and learns how to tackle he gets his ban reduced from the level deemed appropriate for the misdemeanour to half of that.

This hiding behind process and use of loopholes is not how you address the very serious issue of head trauma and early onset dementia seen in some recently retired players.

But it doesn't represent a failing of the process as it stands, rather how you want it to work. What the panel was tasked with doing they did.

Nope, the process involves subjective decisions, such as the one I pointed out.

We either think that there should be a deterrent to dangerous tackles involving shoulders hitting players in the face or we don't.

as far as I'm aware, the other cases from Farrell involve the exact same offence (though I'm open to correction on that).

How that can be spun as the process working is beyond me.

Unless of course "need for a deterrent" means something completely different, like not a deterrent at all.

A 3 week ban is a deterrent, even if you and I may agree a longer ban would be a better one.

And there weren't other cases when it came to Farrell that counted when it came to aggravating factors, the one from 2016 wasn't considered as being too far in the past, and that's the norm, and then with only one other repeat offence in 2020 that's insufficient in number to rise to repeat offences, because if they counted the 2020 incident and the current one he was being charged with that would be counting the current one he was being charged with twice, and again that's the norm.

So Farrell was charged as a non repeat offender with a mid level entry point, he got no aggravating factors, but he didn't get the full mitigation because whilst he wasn't a repeat offender he did have the previous high tackle on his card. And nothing in that is especially subjective, it's very much a rinse and repeat.

The bit that isn't great is if England claim Farrell would play the Bristol game, because that would be something of an impolite fiction, even if one suspects most sides would do the exact same.

Mahoney wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:32 pm Not for the first time I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall...

Forget the specific numbers - adding on for bad behaviour and taking off for good behaviour are the same concept phrased differently.

Saying "it should be 3 weeks base + 1 week for bad behaviour" is exactly the same as saying "it should be 4 weeks base - 1 week for good behaviour".

So it's meaningless to say "they should punish extra for bad not let off for good" - they are the same thing. All you're really arguing is that the base should be more. Which is fine, but say that.

No its not.

If the base is six and you add on for bad behaviour, it starts at six first time out.

If the base is six and you take off for good behaviour, it starts at three first time out.

It only becomes equivalent if you change the base.

Lobby wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:17 pm

inactionman wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:51 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:52 pm I just don't agree with the premise being repeated here that the red cards and sanctions aren't working. Just watch some pro rugby from 10 or 15 years ago and you'll see scores of tackles in every match that would be red cards if done nowadays. It is changing but with slow motion replays and a highly motivated but very small group of people hell bent on portraying world Rugby and the unions like they're the tobacco companies back in the day, the tackles when they happen are massively over-exposed and all kinds of nefarious causal health links are trotted out again and again.

In short, it's nowhere near as bad as you think and things have changed massively already. There's more red cards simply because of the forensic pouring over VT looking for it.

I remember a game at the rec against Leiciester and the Tualigi brothers were utterly smashing Nick Abendanon like he'd just cheated on their little sister.

Started legalish but just got mental. No way they'd have stayed on the pitch using current interpretations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zflocS4 ... bendanoned

eta: Anyway, wild-west as it once was, there are still too many high shots and there seems to a be a residual/background level every week which aren't being eliminated.

In the comments on that video, Ben Youngs is quoted as saying that the Tuilagi brothers and Mafi had targeted Abendanon in that game because one of the Tuilagis had been banned for an illegal hit on him in a previous game and they wanted to get ‘revenge’ for this.

It was rank bad, even for the standards of the day, and they needed to walk. There were high and swinging arms on more than one occasion.

The fact that wanted revenge for a previous illegal act they'd committed is pretty fucking snivelling, all things considered.

Biffer wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:37 pm

Mahoney wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:32 pm Not for the first time I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall...

Forget the specific numbers - adding on for bad behaviour and taking off for good behaviour are the same concept phrased differently.

Saying "it should be 3 weeks base + 1 week for bad behaviour" is exactly the same as saying "it should be 4 weeks base - 1 week for good behaviour".

So it's meaningless to say "they should punish extra for bad not let off for good" - they are the same thing. All you're really arguing is that the base should be more. Which is fine, but say that.

No its not.

If the base is six and you add on for bad behaviour, it starts at six first time out.

If the base is six and you take off for good behaviour, it starts at three first time out.

It only becomes equivalent if you change the base.

Or in other words, by arguing to "add on not take off" all you're really arguing is that the base should be more.

Mahoney wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:42 pm

Biffer wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:37 pm

Mahoney wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:32 pm Not for the first time I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall...

Forget the specific numbers - adding on for bad behaviour and taking off for good behaviour are the same concept phrased differently.

Saying "it should be 3 weeks base + 1 week for bad behaviour" is exactly the same as saying "it should be 4 weeks base - 1 week for good behaviour".

So it's meaningless to say "they should punish extra for bad not let off for good" - they are the same thing. All you're really arguing is that the base should be more. Which is fine, but say that.

No its not.

If the base is six and you add on for bad behaviour, it starts at six first time out.

If the base is six and you take off for good behaviour, it starts at three first time out.

It only becomes equivalent if you change the base.

Or in other words, by arguing to "add on not take off" all you're really arguing is that the base should be more.

No. The current base is six weeks. It gets discounted. I want it applied as it is.

What is the difference between base of 7 and 1 week off for being good, and base of 6 plus 1 week extra for being bad?

Nothing. Badly behaved people get 7, well behaved people get 6 in both cases.

So what is the practical difference between what you want and "I want to increase the base to 7"?

Mahoney wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:47 pm What is the difference between base of 7 and 1 week off for being good, and base of 6 plus 1 week extra for being bad?

Nothing. Badly behaved people get 7, well behaved people get 6 in both cases.

So what is the practical difference between what you want and "I want to increase the base to 7"?

The base is six weeks for mid level head contact right now. I don't want to change that.

inactionman wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:34 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:22 pm Maybe the answer is if you can't legally stop someone diving for the line 2 yards out then you concede the try

Rather defeats the purpose of competition. The try line is the try line, not 2 meters from the tryline.

Maybe, and spitballing here, if you're within 5 meters at a ruck then you have to pass the ball back behind the 5 meter line before attacking again, or perhaps the attacking team who are not part of the ruck have to retreat behind the 5 metre line. There are alternative options (not that either of my suggestions are good options)

The try line is indeed the try line. If you haven't stopped them before they can dive for the try line and aren't in a position to legally try and hold them up, maybe that's on you. If that means we have to push 5m scrums/lineouts back a bit to adjust, then fine - but you don't see football accepting that players hack someone's ankle apart because it's the only way to stop a goal if they're 2 feet with no legal way to stop a goal

Christ knows I've seen enough head shots and shoulder charges - it's a free for all at times, all in service to doing literally everything possible to stop the try, and player safety be damned. It's a bad attitude for the sport to have even as we laud it on an individual basis.

inactionman wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:51 pm
eta: Anyway, wild-west as it once was, there are still too many high shots and there seems to a be a residual/background level every week which aren't being eliminated.

And I hope that never changes because if there are zero head collisions - even accidental ones which are still a red anyway - then rugby won't be worth the name anymore. FFS, it is a collision sport, it's supposed to be hard to play and tough to endure.

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:12 pm

inactionman wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:51 pm
eta: Anyway, wild-west as it once was, there are still too many high shots and there seems to a be a residual/background level every week which aren't being eliminated.

And I hope that never changes because if there are zero head collisions - even accidental ones which are still a red anyway - then rugby won't be worth the name anymore. FFS, it is a collision sport, it's supposed to be hard to play and tough to endure.

Which is fine for chests, backs, arms, hips, thighs, knees and feet. But not heads or necks.

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:06 pm

inactionman wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:34 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:22 pm Maybe the answer is if you can't legally stop someone diving for the line 2 yards out then you concede the try

Rather defeats the purpose of competition. The try line is the try line, not 2 meters from the tryline.

Maybe, and spitballing here, if you're within 5 meters at a ruck then you have to pass the ball back behind the 5 meter line before attacking again, or perhaps the attacking team who are not part of the ruck have to retreat behind the 5 metre line. There are alternative options (not that either of my suggestions are good options)

The try line is indeed the try line. If you haven't stopped them before they can dive for the try line and aren't in a position to legally try and hold them up, maybe that's on you. If that means we have to push 5m scrums/lineouts back a bit to adjust, then fine - but you don't see football accepting that players hack someone's ankle apart because it's the only way to stop a goal if they're 2 feet with no legal way to stop a goal

Christ knows I've seen enough head shots and shoulder charges - it's a free for all at times, all in service to doing literally everything possible to stop the try, and player safety be damned. It's a bad attitude for the sport to have even as we laud it on an individual basis.

It's not really the same thing - it's a case of what would be appropriate on the halfway line ceases to be appropriate 2 yards out. Hacking a player's legs is always illegal.

I've no ready answer, but allowing players to dive at the line - where the chances of a defender only being able to see and impact their head and neck but the defender being sanctioned for any direct contact with head and neck - seems untenable to me. Ultimately it's the attacker placing themselves in a dangerous position, which I think shouldn't be rewarded.

I thought there was a law about sanctioning players who go or fall to the ground to avoid a tackle, and was wondering if that could be deployed here - but it's a bit unworkable and I must have dreamt it up in a drunken moment as I can't find any reference to it on the World Rugby site.

I'm finding myself wincing more and more at the scrambling on goal lines - it's not just head and neck, knees look pretty vulnerable.

Maximum 2 x pick-and-gos within 5 yards, then you have to pass the ball to someone standing away from the ruck?

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:12 pm FFS, it is a collision sport, it's supposed to be hard to play and tough to endure.

It has become a collision support, but it always was and is supposed to be a contact sport. A subtle difference maybe, but a very important one.

PornDog wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:42 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:12 pm FFS, it is a collision sport, it's supposed to be hard to play and tough to endure.

It has become a collision support, but it always was and is supposed to be a contact sport. A subtle difference maybe, but a very important one.

Also, you really wouldn't want to be going into court defending rugby with the claim 'ffs it's a contact sport'

You might has well just get out your cheque book and ask how much you should make out the settlement for

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:33 pm

Niegs wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:40 pm This is like one of those news reports where the on-site reporter is doing a story on dangerous road conditions and a car slides on the ice behind them causing yet another accident. Squares up, back at 60-70 degrees, looks *very* close to making head contact, #3 comes in with an unnecessary shot that also looks high.




Kiss even gives, I think, the reason for many of these: "collision".

Kiss is a fucking idiot!! I was there, 30 yards away and directly inline with the tackle and every single fan in the stand where I was sitting (Irish or Stormers) all agreed - stupid, dangerous & straight red!

Both players left the pitch for an HIA and didn't return FFS!

An looong time ago, Les Kiss played for the Brissie RL team I used to support. He was pretty damned good, too.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 10:15 pm

PornDog wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 9:42 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:12 pm FFS, it is a collision sport, it's supposed to be hard to play and tough to endure.

It has become a collision support, but it always was and is supposed to be a contact sport. A subtle difference maybe, but a very important one.

Also, you really wouldn't want to be going into court defending rugby with the claim 'ffs it's a contact sport'

You might has well just get out your cheque book and ask how much you should make out the settlement for

This is an anonymous internet forum, not a court of law you twat.

Unless you make rugby a game with the same tackle threshold as basketball then there is always going to be a risk of head contact. It's not anywhere near as dangerous as boxing, or MMA or even high-diving but there is that danger. And that's ok, people are prepared to play the sport with that level of danger. If they're not then fine, play something else.

Problem is the real level of danger wasn't revealed for sure until like 2 months ago, and since all these current players now have a significant level of Brain Damage from the game, any waivers they sign can easily be deemed void.
If I set up a internet Web cam and charged you 6 quid to watch me bash my head in with a hamer I would have social services and mental health services around in about 8 minutes as I would be a danger to myself.

Why is agreeing to have, or risk over 70 thousand micro concussions (like Alex Popham) or the worst case of early onset dementia from playing the specialist has ever seen (Ryan Jones) over the course of a career be any different?

They too would be classed as a danger to themselves, if they knew and were prepared to risk it anyway.

Sorry, we just have to accept that we are utter scum basically, knowing what we know now and for continuing to support this game.

Some are more happy to be scum than others.

Line6 HXFX wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:34 pm charged you 6 quid to watch me bash my head in with a hammer

I'll pay you