Law trials and changes
-
Wow. I have two issues with that.
First the complete 'unfairness' (yes, I do know the world ain't fair) to lump completely accidental head contact in with everything else. I note that the words 'may still be sanctioned' are used placing it in the hands of the ref and/or citing official. I have no doubt that accidental contact will be judged on outcome rather than fault e.g lets imagine the Cane/Henshaw incident with Cane coming in lower but Henshaw spins and slips and gets KO'd. Does Cane really deserve a 6 week ban for that? Same scenario but the contact is glancing and Henshaw is OK to continue playing? Probably a penalty and warning.
If I was coaching I would be getting all ball carriers in traffic to present their heads toward potential contact (ie drive head first). The potential for easy penalties and cards is obvious.This is the 'taken out in the air' story being re-written all over again and will go through numerous examples of crazy rulings before some sanity prevails and tweaks are made.
My second issue with this is that WR state they have been working on this for some time to provide clear instruction on head contact to both players and refs. Why on earth did they hang refs out to dry with a half hearted 'clampdown' in the Autumn Internationals then? FFS give them the clear guidance or hold back on the change.
After a re-read of that above I'm also adding a third grizzle. That is all written as if tackles are the only danger to head injury. We still have the stupid rulings that kicking at a ball near a players head is not 'dangerous play' and that any contact made can be ruled accidental and get off scot free despite the act itself being a deliberate taking of high risk.
-
Also doesn't address people who duck their head into tackles. The irish are great examples of this - the running style of a lot of them looks coached to be head down, leading with the head. If it is such a risk, then they are putting themselves at risk of head injury
-
the accidental contact doesn't sit well, will they take into account the falling player, afterall, this contact will still be accidental, but totally out of the control of the tackler, and as above, those attackers that lead with the head, no onus on them to change?
I think maybe if they simply lower the target line, as Collins had to do at one point, it should help in reducing the ones like Fekitoas, but wont stop ones like with Cane or other purely accidental contacts.
-
@nzzp said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
Also doesn't address people who duck their head into tackles. The irish are great examples of this - the running style of a lot of them looks coached to be head down, leading with the head. If it is such a risk, then they are putting themselves at risk of head injury
I found that very noticeable in the ABs game after all the furore as well. I guess you could only compare the same players in other games to see if it is being coached into them but it makes sense especially in one off charges to lead with the head inviting accidental contact.
There was one penalty in the game (Moody?) in exactly that fashion. He had nothing to tackle except the head and shoulders, went for the shoulders and got pinged for it. -
This tweet from World Rugby contains a video with some examples of this law change and the link to the official media release that @Daffy-Jaffy has posted. I don't know about you, but I think we're going to see a lot of players being penalised for accidental contact with the head, exactly as @nzzp says, because ball carriers duck or dive with their head first or otherwise with a downward movement of the head/neck/shoulders (increasing the risk of an initially well-placed tackle slipping to the head area).
I hope that unions/teams/players will not enter guilty pleas if they are cited for such accidental contacts, and instead contest the charges if it is the result of the ball carrier moving downward/head first. Abuse of the new law should be prevented right from the start.
-
I'd also like to see stats on the causes of concussion in rugby. Are the majority really the result of high tackles, or does poor tackling technique play a big role (which obviously isn't addressed by this law change)? If the majority of head injury cases is not the result of high tackles, doesn't that just make this law change a complete farce (like those stupid law trials in Mitre 10 Cup) and possibly a knee-jerk to moaning (mostly NH) media?
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
I'd also like to see stats on the causes of concussion in rugby. Are the majority really the result of high tackles, or does poor tackling technique play a big role (which obviously isn't addressed by this law change)? If the majority of head injury cases is not the result of high tackles, doesn't that just make this law change a complete farce (like those stupid law trials in Mitre 10 Cup) and possibly a knee-jerk to moaning (mostly NH) media?
Yep. Head on hip, head on knee are surely the biggest causes
-
-
Rugby is fucked #937
Watching Racing v Toulon. Halfpenny and Dulan jump for the ball, Dulan the defender actually gets himself higher than HP, both get hands on the ball, but HP makes the better catch. Both crash to the ground, Dulan on top (still with hands on the ball). Penalty, and Dulan to the bin because while the timing was good, his hands were deemed the reason HP hit the deck. Even in super slow-mo this one didn't look a penalty.
The game has an issue if we have reached the point that chasing a kick and jumping for it has such a high chance of winning your team a penalty and getting one of them carded.
-
Carded for this.
-
@antipodean what a joke...he even jumped higher too.
Seems unless you catch it, you are in the wrong.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
Carded for this.
What the fuck?
This looks like a ridiculous new application of laws, and I don't see how it increases player safety. Players will just gamble on not getting carded if they catch it.
-
That's just ridiculous! I fear with great fears what a "card fest" it's going to be during the Super Rugby season, although I still have a little bit of hope that our SH refs have more common sense and find common ground on a more reasonable interpretation and application of the rules. WR and NH refs are killing the game damn it! Who still wants to watch games if teams end up playing with 12-13 players for some time during the game and reach the final whistle with fewer than 15 players on a regular basis?
-
@gt12 said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
Carded for this.
What the fuck?
This looks like a ridiculous new application of laws, and I don't see how it increases player safety. Players will just gamble on not getting carded if they catch it.
Shit, I hadn't seen this one.
Yep. Rugby has lost the fucking plot.
-
Wayne Barnes explains the 'new' tackle laws:
http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2017/01/wayne-barnes-will-make-you-completely.html
-
I was at a club game yesterday and the biggest area of confusion was players getting penalised for "over the shoulder" tackles, especially in close quarters. Nobody was doing anything dangerous but until the practice is unlearned it leads to endless penalties and eventually YCs for continued infringements.
-
What's your analysis?
I'm in favor of the new interpretations, except for the red card ruling, based on what I've heard there.
I watched the video and it seems to me that they're guessing what is red and yellow. From what I heard, it seems like non-penalty versus penalty are clear enough (perhaps not in practice) and penalty versus card is clear enough (perhaps not in practice) but I still couldn't really see much difference between yellow and red.
-
I'm a big fan. Can only be an advantage for NZ with tackle laws that are likely to increase offloads. I've yet to watch a game in the NH that has bee "ruined" by them. And I've already watched a few games this weekend.
-
@antipodean said in Law trials and changes set for 2017:
Carded for this.
Alright that is a shocker.
