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 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).
-
@canefan said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@junior the rules at the moment make consistency almost impossible.
Yeah sure, I'm not saying I want to adopt an AFL-style approach - more that it would probably work better than what we currently have in terms of protecting heads.
-
@junior said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@canefan said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@junior the rules at the moment make consistency almost impossible.
Yeah sure, I'm not saying I want to adopt an AFL-style approach - more that it would probably work better than what we currently have in terms of protecting heads.
I was agreeing with you. Whatever they do, WR needs to look at simplifying the ruling. At the moment there is no clarity or clear decision making process. I can't take anyone who tries to make a rational argument as to why one of those high shots was a RC and one was a YC seriously. And there are a shitload of them out there in the metaverse. I'd like them to tell me how clear the rulings were if the results were reversed and it was Porter who got the RC and our boy who escaped
-
@canefan said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@junior said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@canefan said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@junior the rules at the moment make consistency almost impossible.
Yeah sure, I'm not saying I want to adopt an AFL-style approach - more that it would probably work better than what we currently have in terms of protecting heads.
I was agreeing with you. Whatever they do, WR needs to look at simplifying the ruling. At the moment there is no clarity or clear decision making process. I can't take anyone who tries to make a rational argument as to why one of those high shots was a RC and one was a YC seriously. And there are a shitload of them out there in the metaverse. I'd like them to tell me how clear the rulings were if the results were reversed and it was Porter who got the RC and our boy who escaped
@MiketheSnow the floor is yours…
-
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@nostrildamus said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@mariner4life said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Also can we stop asking Owens to have a say in anything because he occasionally said funny stuff while reffing?
Welshophobe.
17 years reffing experience, common sense suggestions that would help improve the ABs chances, what is not to love?
"The game’s out of control" - Nigel Owens wants five law changes ASAP - Ruck
Popular referee Nigel Owens says rugby’s new Laws are NOT working to improve the game. Owens, who hung up his whistle two years ago, has come up with four possible…
Agree with all of those
Double upvote
-
@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.
You'd need to couple it with some tweaks to reward players to go low, and enable contests on the ground without massive collisions.
Maybe there's an onus of care on the carrier too - intentionally dipping into contact becomes forbidden - basically you have to stay upright. Some of the hunchback carrying makes me shake my head -
@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.
Don’t think there’s any disagreement with that.
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.
That’s what happens. To reach the RC threshold it has to be foul play and goes to a ban from judiciary
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
See above with regard to foul play. If you are suggesting a lower threshold for Red then your idea falls over if there is, say, a full Red 10 minutes to go from a team well in the lead. Where’s the punishment there?
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.
Would lead to all sorts of “bloodgate” type scenarios and worse, players and teams hiding head knocks as much as they can. Like the old days a bad thing.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
Agree. Majority of concussions don’t come from accidental high tackles they are just the more visible element. To use a popular term, the initiatives smack of virtue signalling without dealing with the main causes of bigger athletes, bigger contacts.
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.
I would remove the pass as well. Go back to the underlying tenet that “rugby is a game played on the feet”. Banning rucking (another virtue signal) has contributed to this problem as now players can join rucks at great force cutting down adjustment time and has exposed heads in the way of charging shoulders.
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.
This unwilling concept is what pisses me off the most in the argument. Why is there a narrative that players/coaches are unwilling? If the laws allow you to tackle above the nipple line and ball carriers to lead with the head then the advantages of doing so will be used or rather you wouldn’t weaken yourself by not playing to the limit of the law. For WR to allow risky situations and accidents to be a consequence really is putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff while leaving a road along the edge.
Easily 90 odd percent of the head contacts we are seeing reds for are accidents or clumsy due to slow reactions. That’s why spectators are annoyed that games they are paying to watch (and it is a commercial game) are being ruined as an even contest on the whim of a marginal decision. Hence the 20 minute mitigation.
I still haven’t heard a strong argument that supports the “less deterrent” concept. Deterrents only work for deliberate acts.I would be more than happy for full reds if the laws changed so that when high tackles occurred it was obviously a transgression by its very nature.
-
It would be interesting to see when reds were awarded in full red card games. Because, according to the NH twenty minutes is not enough deterrent. So you'd expect the major of reds too be in the last half an hour or so. Or maybe they're just talking shit
-
I wonder sometimes what it would be like if instead of the plethora of cards we penalise teams points wise. For example, instead of a 15 minute yellow card we have a 15 minute period where each score by the non offending team is worth more. That way we keep 15 on 15 and the infringing team is punished.
Maybe something similar for red card scenarios, I don't know.
Stuff
