Rugby Championship 2022
-
-
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Bovidae said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Winger said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Bovidae pity SA don't play the game later. 5-7am would just mean up early. But 3-5am is too early and too late
Yeah, that time sucks. I was leaning towards watching a replay for the first time that I can remember, but the coaching changes have renewed my interest. I'll wait to see what team is selected and then decide.
i can't remember the last time i watched an over-night game live. On demand replays when i wake up is perfect thanks
Used to be a must , I had to watch them live , I think it was because as a kid the old man would wake me up and it became a tradition thing you just had to do ,
But yeah cant be fucked now either , I think the last time was the 2015 WC .
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@mariner4life said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Bovidae said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Winger said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Bovidae pity SA don't play the game later. 5-7am would just mean up early. But 3-5am is too early and too late
Yeah, that time sucks. I was leaning towards watching a replay for the first time that I can remember, but the coaching changes have renewed my interest. I'll wait to see what team is selected and then decide.
i can't remember the last time i watched an over-night game live. On demand replays when i wake up is perfect thanks
Used to be a must , I had to watch them live , I think it was because as a kid the old man would wake me up and it became a tradition thing you just had to do ,
But yeah cant be fucked now either , I think the last time was the 2015 WC .
you know what, that was probably mine too
-
There is still something about getting up or staying up to watch a test match live from SA or Europe. No way I ever did that for SR games from SA though. Midnight SR kickoffs from Perth might as well not exist for me either.
I think one of the few times I couldn't watch a test live was when I was flying from LAX to Auckland (NZ vs SA in Dunedin). I did ask the crew for a final score though.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
-
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the luddites -
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
Maybe if WR admitted that there are flaws/inconsistencies in the way head contact is being officiated in matches and citing process then the 20 min red card would be done away with.
I believe WR have made moves towards central contracts for referees to help reduce the variance of refereeing interpretations between matches (which feels like a lottery sometimes). But this hasn't been confirmed yet and WR are notoriously slow in implementing things.
So until WR show some leadership on this issue and provide some meaningful support for refs, citing commissioners and citing judiciaries by way by removing the risk of personal interpretations, this sort of thing will rumble on.
And if a major nation loses a game in the showpiece RWC because of an accidental red card (let's face it, most head clash reds are from poor technique rather than moments of malice) without WR either drawing a thicker red line or downgrading the sanction to yellow (like Porter's red/yellow), then it will blow up even further.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
Yes.
-
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
With more and more ex-players coming out of the woodwork with early onset dementia, World Rugby has to do something about collisions to the head.
They've gone hard and heavy, and unsympathetic to 'happenstance' / 'bad luck' / 'accidental' and most referee teams are flashing RCs for these incidents.
If you go with the 20-min RC then the player has to see some form of match ban down the line.
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
WR has to do away with HIA.
If the player leaves the field due to a head knock then they can't come back on, and they're stood down for 3-weeks like in the old days.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
And WR needs to bring back once the ball-carrier hits the deck they have to either pass immediately or let go of the ball.
This will go a long way to avoiding head contact, speeding up the game, making the tackle area contestable, and punishing those who are unwilling to change their tackle technique.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
With more and more ex-players coming out of the woodwork with early onset dementia, World Rugby has to do something about collisions to the head.
They've gone hard and heavy, and unsympathetic to 'happenstance' / 'bad luck' / 'accidental' and most referee teams are flashing RCs for these incidents.
If you go with the 20-min RC then the player has to see some form of match ban down the line.
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
WR has to do away with HIA.
If the player leaves the field due to a head knock then they can't come back on, and they're stood down for 3-weeks like in the old days.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
And WR needs to bring back once the ball-carrier hits the deck they have to either pass immediately or let go of the ball.
This will go a long way to avoiding head contact, speeding up the game, making the tackle area contestable, and punishing those who are unwilling to change their tackle technique.
Whatever they do, the current plan isn't working
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
With more and more ex-players coming out of the woodwork with early onset dementia, World Rugby has to do something about collisions to the head.
They've gone hard and heavy, and unsympathetic to 'happenstance' / 'bad luck' / 'accidental' and most referee teams are flashing RCs for these incidents.
If you go with the 20-min RC then the player has to see some form of match ban down the line.
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
WR has to do away with HIA.
If the player leaves the field due to a head knock then they can't come back on, and they're stood down for 3-weeks like in the old days.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
And WR needs to bring back once the ball-carrier hits the deck they have to either pass immediately or let go of the ball.
This will go a long way to avoiding head contact, speeding up the game, making the tackle area contestable, and punishing those who are unwilling to change their tackle technique.
Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter.
If the judiciary had given him a 3 week ban like Ta'avo, this sort of thing wouldn't flare up as much. It makes the whole thing appear to be a subjective lottery depending on who the ref is (yellow or red during the match), who the citing officer is (do they disagree with the ref if given a yellow) and who is the judicial committee members (do they disagree with the ref or the citing commissioner). How complicated do you want to make it!
Instead, everyone is now looking if the contact is absorbing or not. What a farce. Who would be a ref now?
If WR are serious about combating head contacts, they can either draw a big red line that says ANY head contact, no matter if it is accidental or absorbing (or any other wiggle-room adjective you want to put in front of the words "head contact") is an automatic red, then fine. Many won't like it, but it is a broad brush. no interpretation needed by refs.
Or they can let accidental head clashes for poor technique, players being off balance, reacting to a player changing direction,, being pushed by someone else into a player etc. be sanctioned with a yellow card, which at least won't cause the furore that it has done and the sanction can then be determined by the judiciary post-game who can take their time to ensure they reach a consistent judgement that supports WR's drive to reduce head contacts.
If a player is a repeat offender, then they will get longer bans unless they change their technique.
-
@stodders said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
With more and more ex-players coming out of the woodwork with early onset dementia, World Rugby has to do something about collisions to the head.
They've gone hard and heavy, and unsympathetic to 'happenstance' / 'bad luck' / 'accidental' and most referee teams are flashing RCs for these incidents.
If you go with the 20-min RC then the player has to see some form of match ban down the line.
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
WR has to do away with HIA.
If the player leaves the field due to a head knock then they can't come back on, and they're stood down for 3-weeks like in the old days.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
And WR needs to bring back once the ball-carrier hits the deck they have to either pass immediately or let go of the ball.
This will go a long way to avoiding head contact, speeding up the game, making the tackle area contestable, and punishing those who are unwilling to change their tackle technique.
Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter.
If the judiciary had given him a 3 week ban like Ta'avo, this sort of thing wouldn't flare up as much. It makes the whole thing appear to be a subjective lottery depending on who the ref is (yellow or red during the match), who the citing officer is (do they disagree with the ref if given a yellow) and who is the judicial committee members (do they disagree with the ref or the citing commissioner). How complicated do you want to make it!
Instead, everyone is now looking if the contact is absorbing or not. What a farce. Who would be a ref now?
If WR are serious about combating head contacts, they can either draw a big red line that says ANY head contact, no matter if it is accidental or absorbing (or any other wiggle-room adjective you want to put in front of the words "head contact") is an automatic red, then fine. Many won't like it, but it is a broad brush. no interpretation needed by refs.
Or they can let accidental head clashes for poor technique, players being off balance, reacting to a player changing direction,, being pushed by someone else into a player etc. be sanctioned with a yellow card, which at least won't cause the furore that it has done and the sanction can then be determined by the judiciary post-game who can take their time to ensure they reach a consistent judgement that supports WR's drive to reduce head contacts.
If a player is a repeat offender, then they will get longer bans unless they change their technique.
I used to hate it, but I am thinking maybe the AFL approach to high contact might be the better way forward. In the AFL, any high contact - no matter how forceful - is an automatic free kick. They also define high contact as basically anything from the shoulders and above, and apply this rule very strictly.
It can be frustrating, because it occasionally leads to free kicks for purely accidental and completely innocuous incidents - think an arm draped over a shoulder - as well as certain players trying to buy free kicks by ducking into contact (but I think this has now been resolved). But what it does do encourage players to avoid any high contact of any nature whatsoever.
What we have in rugby is a situation where some high contact - "high" here being anything at or above chest height - is punished brutally, but in fact most of it is rewarded.
You want to protect the head? Then sanction any contact of any kind that is even remotely close to the head, and then provide harsher punishments for those that actually result in forceful contact to the head. If I know that I could be giving away 3 points basically anytime I go in to make a tackle, I am going to be a lot more careful than if I think I've got a one in 50 chance of getting a red card, but am far more likely to fold my opposite number and kill the opposition's attack.
All that the current situation is doing is protecting WR from massive damages claims - it's doing fuck all for player safety and even less for the game as a spectacle.
-
@junior said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@stodders said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
With more and more ex-players coming out of the woodwork with early onset dementia, World Rugby has to do something about collisions to the head.
They've gone hard and heavy, and unsympathetic to 'happenstance' / 'bad luck' / 'accidental' and most referee teams are flashing RCs for these incidents.
If you go with the 20-min RC then the player has to see some form of match ban down the line.
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
WR has to do away with HIA.
If the player leaves the field due to a head knock then they can't come back on, and they're stood down for 3-weeks like in the old days.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
And WR needs to bring back once the ball-carrier hits the deck they have to either pass immediately or let go of the ball.
This will go a long way to avoiding head contact, speeding up the game, making the tackle area contestable, and punishing those who are unwilling to change their tackle technique.
Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter.
If the judiciary had given him a 3 week ban like Ta'avo, this sort of thing wouldn't flare up as much. It makes the whole thing appear to be a subjective lottery depending on who the ref is (yellow or red during the match), who the citing officer is (do they disagree with the ref if given a yellow) and who is the judicial committee members (do they disagree with the ref or the citing commissioner). How complicated do you want to make it!
Instead, everyone is now looking if the contact is absorbing or not. What a farce. Who would be a ref now?
If WR are serious about combating head contacts, they can either draw a big red line that says ANY head contact, no matter if it is accidental or absorbing (or any other wiggle-room adjective you want to put in front of the words "head contact") is an automatic red, then fine. Many won't like it, but it is a broad brush. no interpretation needed by refs.
Or they can let accidental head clashes for poor technique, players being off balance, reacting to a player changing direction,, being pushed by someone else into a player etc. be sanctioned with a yellow card, which at least won't cause the furore that it has done and the sanction can then be determined by the judiciary post-game who can take their time to ensure they reach a consistent judgement that supports WR's drive to reduce head contacts.
If a player is a repeat offender, then they will get longer bans unless they change their technique.
I used to hate it, but I am thinking maybe the AFL approach to high contact might be the better way forward. In the AFL, any high contact - no matter how forceful - is an automatic free kick. They also define high contact as basically anything from the shoulders and above, and apply this rule very strictly.
It can be frustrating, because it occasionally leads to free kicks for purely accidental and completely innocuous incidents - think an arm draped over a shoulder - as well as certain players trying to buy free kicks by ducking into contact (but I think this has now been resolved). But what it does do encourage players to avoid any high contact of any nature whatsoever.
What we have in rugby is a situation where some high contact - "high" here being anything at or above chest height - is punished brutally, but in fact most of it is rewarded.
You want to protect the head? Then sanction any contact of any kind that is even remotely close to the head, and then provide harsher punishments for those that actually result in forceful contact to the head. If I know that I could be giving away 3 points basically anytime I go in to make a tackle, I am going to be a lot more careful than if I think I've got a one in 50 chance of getting a red card, but am far more likely to fold my opposite number and kill the opposition's attack.
All that the current situation is doing is protecting WR from massive damages claims - it's doing fuck all for player safety and even less for the game as a spectacle.
This is an interesting idea, but my guess is that 99% of the time, players have the heads facing well above their shoulders, but in rugby it's now so common for players to be leading with the head, that we couldn't go five minutes without 30 penalties.
-
@gt12 said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@junior said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@stodders said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
With more and more ex-players coming out of the woodwork with early onset dementia, World Rugby has to do something about collisions to the head.
They've gone hard and heavy, and unsympathetic to 'happenstance' / 'bad luck' / 'accidental' and most referee teams are flashing RCs for these incidents.
If you go with the 20-min RC then the player has to see some form of match ban down the line.
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
WR has to do away with HIA.
If the player leaves the field due to a head knock then they can't come back on, and they're stood down for 3-weeks like in the old days.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
And WR needs to bring back once the ball-carrier hits the deck they have to either pass immediately or let go of the ball.
This will go a long way to avoiding head contact, speeding up the game, making the tackle area contestable, and punishing those who are unwilling to change their tackle technique.
Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter.
If the judiciary had given him a 3 week ban like Ta'avo, this sort of thing wouldn't flare up as much. It makes the whole thing appear to be a subjective lottery depending on who the ref is (yellow or red during the match), who the citing officer is (do they disagree with the ref if given a yellow) and who is the judicial committee members (do they disagree with the ref or the citing commissioner). How complicated do you want to make it!
Instead, everyone is now looking if the contact is absorbing or not. What a farce. Who would be a ref now?
If WR are serious about combating head contacts, they can either draw a big red line that says ANY head contact, no matter if it is accidental or absorbing (or any other wiggle-room adjective you want to put in front of the words "head contact") is an automatic red, then fine. Many won't like it, but it is a broad brush. no interpretation needed by refs.
Or they can let accidental head clashes for poor technique, players being off balance, reacting to a player changing direction,, being pushed by someone else into a player etc. be sanctioned with a yellow card, which at least won't cause the furore that it has done and the sanction can then be determined by the judiciary post-game who can take their time to ensure they reach a consistent judgement that supports WR's drive to reduce head contacts.
If a player is a repeat offender, then they will get longer bans unless they change their technique.
I used to hate it, but I am thinking maybe the AFL approach to high contact might be the better way forward. In the AFL, any high contact - no matter how forceful - is an automatic free kick. They also define high contact as basically anything from the shoulders and above, and apply this rule very strictly.
It can be frustrating, because it occasionally leads to free kicks for purely accidental and completely innocuous incidents - think an arm draped over a shoulder - as well as certain players trying to buy free kicks by ducking into contact (but I think this has now been resolved). But what it does do encourage players to avoid any high contact of any nature whatsoever.
What we have in rugby is a situation where some high contact - "high" here being anything at or above chest height - is punished brutally, but in fact most of it is rewarded.
You want to protect the head? Then sanction any contact of any kind that is even remotely close to the head, and then provide harsher punishments for those that actually result in forceful contact to the head. If I know that I could be giving away 3 points basically anytime I go in to make a tackle, I am going to be a lot more careful than if I think I've got a one in 50 chance of getting a red card, but am far more likely to fold my opposite number and kill the opposition's attack.
All that the current situation is doing is protecting WR from massive damages claims - it's doing fuck all for player safety and even less for the game as a spectacle.
This is an interesting idea, but my guess is that 99% of the time, players have the heads facing well above their shoulders, but in rugby it's now so common for players to be leading with the head, that we couldn't go five minutes without 30 penalties.
I agree its initial implementation would be farcical but in time I think it is more likely to have the desired effect than what we currently have. As for players leading with the head, obviously ducking into contact to milk penalties would be an exception and this is something that the AFL has (mostly) managed to deal with.
But, I doubt we will get there, because as I say above, WR is more concerned with protecting themselves from lawsuits than actually protecting players' heads (not saying that they don't care about player protection at all, more that it's not their main concern).
Stuff
