The Current State of Rugby
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
-
@reprobate said in The Current State of Rugby:
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
@MiketheSnow said in The Current State of Rugby:
I'm a big fan of bringing back substitutions for injuries only
Define injury
You don't have to define it, you just have to limit the number of subs allowed. full size bench, but only 3 subs allowed for the game, nominally for injury. Then you can't rort the system that much.
I have to say having been a reserve in rep rugby as a teenager where you only came on for injury were some of the worst moments of my rugby playing days. I was stoked to have made the rep team, trained etc. But I was not good enough to make the starting side. We travelled playing other rep sides and I got maybe 5-10 minutes total in all the games. The other 4+ hours or so was standing in the cold on the sideline with all my gear on doing nothing.
Being a reserve is tough and I can't help but feel for players under this system getting very little game time at all.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
I couldn't argue with the precautions...and i guess the real difference is if the doc tells him its serious and he shouldn't play again....then he'll coach...or manage like i had too last year....a lot seems to be keeping these guys playing....because its their job
I don't have a problem with those protocols. That's rugby unfortunately.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
Jeez we're told that nobody sideline can sign a player off as fit to return - not even run an assessment (tho our club is desperately short of neurologists).
Blue Card = mandatory stand down for at least the 11-day period after the incident.
-
I'll also add I caught a bit of a Newcastle Knights game the other week and Ponga took a blow to the head and went off for further assessment.
I respect that NRL is a bloody tough slog for players. And I look at guys like Ponga - 24, in his prime, playing against some big lads, with some heavy hitting - and wonder what he'll look like at 44. Or 54.
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
On a related point, which I've made before: World Rugby has a two-speed system where 1) refs are forced to crack down on head contact on the field, but then 2) various Judiciaries don't do their job after the game in handing down sanctions that might contribute to behavioural change. They give discounts for being a top bloke, or "remorse", or a clean record.
Quite frankly, none of that shit should matter when it comes to sentencing high contact, intent or no.
A certain Irish lawyer who used to frequent these parts says that is largely due to ex-players now being on panels. Perhaps that is a good point but I tend to think the Judiciary has been doing this since forever.
-
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Kiwiwomble said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Rancid-Schnitzel we had one of our boys "Blue carded" on the weekend, the physio ran him through all the tests and signed him off before our game had even ended....but he still needs to go see a proper doc, who recommended an MRI etc...so hes out for at least a week and possible 2 even if nothing is wrong....obviously more if there is
Jeez we're told that nobody sideline can sign a player off as fit to return. Blue Card = mandatory stand down for at least the 11-day period after the incident.
when i say "signed off", i mean completed a series of checks to work out if its a "go see your GP on monday" or "call an ambulance", as i say, blue card meant he needed to be properly cleared by a doc, its a 7 day minimum in Vic but depending on how quick he gets the all clear it could be more
-
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
One is a regional sport that only really has to deal with one set of politicians and one legal system. League can always be more permissive.
-
@Duluth said in The Current State of Rugby:
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
While Rugby seems to have gone waaaaaay too far on the way it runs player safety frameworks, IMHO the NRL isn't doing enough to protect itself against future lawsuits.
One is a regional sport that only really has to deal with one set of politicians and one legal system. League can always be more permissive.
Good point, however as a smaller sport globally, the NRL doesn't have an endless pot of cash to fight the lawsuits that may emerge.
Maybe it is proportional, I don't know. Maybe there are a few clauses in each contract to take care of it.
-
@gibbon-rib said in The Current State of Rugby:
but it seems 9/Stan have decided to plough the same furrow.
I genuinely like the Stan coverage of rugby, much better than the turd that was Fox/Kayo (and a much better quality app/stream too), but I don't watch much of the build ups etc. But I don't mind listening to a bit Mehrts and Cheika at half time.
Missed most of the early discussion but I assume the stupid maul laws have been discussed.
-
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
Missed most of the early discussion but I assume the stupid maul laws have been discussed.
God it is badly officiated. They'll spend 10 replays looking for a bit of foul play in the same maul that clearly shows a player is detatched or it was obstruction.
I'll be refereeing XVs for the first time in ages and, besides numbers at lineout (which I hate and think should be tossed from the book), my biggest bugbear is mauls.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Current State of Rugby:
Ultimately, and as I've said a million times, rugby is a brutal and dangerous sport. Obviously you don't want it to be a murderous free for all, but there are limits to how much you can sanitise a game like this. Sometimes you wonder if those instituting the rules every played the game or that they believe everything occurs in slo motion.
This might be an issue . Maybe rugby has become too sanitised. Rugby players are often shown as nice or good guys. And look out if any player isn't off the field (Reece). But now also on it.
Hating the dirty thugs in the opposing team might be good for crowd size. And overall interest.
-
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia said in The Current State of Rugby:
Missed most of the early discussion but I assume the stupid maul laws have been discussed.
God it is badly officiated. They'll spend 10 replays looking for a bit of foul play in the same maul that clearly shows a player is detatched or it was obstruction.
It's the two chances B/S that really gets to me, and how long a team can just be stationary before winding up and it doesn't count as one of the two chances. Add to that a team can get steamrolled backwards, stop, restart again and go forwards.
Mauls and penalising intercept attempts seem to fly in the face of what rugby generally is which is a contest for the ball.
-
-
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia yeah I think it should be amended:
- If your maul goes backwards, use it
- If your maul stops, use it
Otherwise free kick to the defending team
The second bite / five second restart brought mauls back, and now they're havin' a larf.
Worse still is that the mauls become more of a weapon if you stop but absorb pressure from defence then shift your own pressure to the weakest spot. Once that second go starts the defence has to detach and scramble.
Mauls are way too heavily ruled toward the attacking side. -
I think the core issue has to be reducing time where the ball is not in play.
Go back and watch games from the turn of the century and I'd argue it's where rugby was at its peak. Professionalism made for better skills and speed, but the shackles of amateurism hadn't been fully thrown off. One thing that you notice is the speed at which they packed scrums, formed lineouts and took kicks.
Less downtime led to more tired players in the final 20 and a more entertaining game.
I'm surprised World Rugby hasn't tried to fix this as in most cases it doesn't compromise on safety. Speed up players getting to scrums and lineouts. Reduce the time for injuries - either you are up and back or you are off the field. I find the refs I like more do understand this and hurry the players up.
And of course the TM fucking O. Refs need to make quicker decisions and if there is doubt they can reduce the on-field sanction and leave it for the judiciary.
It won't solve all the problems but it will solve some and I do think it's easily achievable.
-
@Crucial said in The Current State of Rugby:
@NTA said in The Current State of Rugby:
@Nepia yeah I think it should be amended:
- If your maul goes backwards, use it
- If your maul stops, use it
Otherwise free kick to the defending team
The second bite / five second restart brought mauls back, and now they're havin' a larf.
Worse still is that the mauls become more of a weapon if you stop but absorb pressure from defence then shift your own pressure to the weakest spot. Once that second go starts the defence has to detach and scramble.
Mauls are way too heavily ruled toward the attacking side.the maul having the advantages it does has a flow on effect to teams basing their whole method of gaining points through it. play territory, and wait for penalties to kick to the corner
Super effective rugby but terrible viewing.
-
@barbarian player safety will always trump everything with scrums. And teams will play the "player safety" card all day to get themselves in to their scrum machine set. Look how many times they fucking stand up because someone isn't "comfortable"
throw in the terrible slow cadence from the ref
lineouts should be fixable with a free kick though
it cracks me up that rugby fans love to take shots at the "committee meetings between plays" of NFL when rugby is hardly any better at times.
-
@mariner4life said in The Current State of Rugby:
@barbarian player safety will always trump everything with scrums. And teams will play the "player safety" card all day to get themselves in to their scrum machine set. Look how many times they fucking stand up because someone isn't "comfortable"
throw in the terrible slow cadence from the ref
lineouts should be fixable with a free kick though
it cracks me up that rugby fans love to take shots at the "committee meetings between plays" of NFL when rugby is hardly any better at times.
The TMO situation has made rugby as poor a spectacle as I can remember for a long time
-
@barbarian said in The Current State of Rugby:
I think the core issue has to be reducing time where the ball is not in play.
Go back and watch games from the turn of the century and I'd argue it's where rugby was at its peak. Professionalism made for better skills and speed, but the shackles of amateurism hadn't been fully thrown off. One thing that you notice is the speed at which they packed scrums, formed lineouts and took kicks.
Less downtime led to more tired players in the final 20 and a more entertaining game.
I'm surprised World Rugby hasn't tried to fix this as in most cases it doesn't compromise on safety. Speed up players getting to scrums and lineouts. Reduce the time for injuries - either you are up and back or you are off the field. I find the refs I like more do understand this and hurry the players up.
And of course the TM fucking O. Refs need to make quicker decisions and if there is doubt they can reduce the on-field sanction and leave it for the judiciary.
It won't solve all the problems but it will solve some and I do think it's easily achievable.
agreed, even in the late 90's the front rows were often semi engaged before their locks were in....its ironic we've slowed things down, allow everyone to get ready etc in an attempt to make things safer...but really it just means we have 8 guys that know exactly when to throw their full weight into the other 8 guys doing the same thing, i think we've made the contact much bigger and arguably more dangerous
-
@Kiwiwomble I think a lot of it is just a natural evolution as players got bigger and stronger.
Of course you will have more power in your scrum if you are lower. You put Taniela Tupou up against Bill Young and I shudder at what might happen now.
