Concussions and Protecting Our Players

[Braveheart81]

There has to be a limit, though. Absolute liability as in the case of accidental contact with the head is too far.

A law change (or a change to the interpretation) isn't really shifting responsibility from the players to the regulatory body though.

I disagree with this aspect of the high tackle changes but I don't really see it as being connected with absolving players of any responsibility in partaking in a dangerous sport.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

The study WR (World Rugby) cite found that ~70% of head injuries arising from tackles were sustained by the tackler, not the ball carrier. Where, then, are the increased sanctions for e.g. lifting a knee or leading with the forearm going into contact? And removing the ref's discretion to rule the contact accidental & keep playing is surely inviting players to take a dive.

 

[Twoilms]

The study WR (World Rugby) cite found that ~70% of head injuries arising from tackles were sustained by the tackler, not the ball carrier. Where, then, are the increased sanctions for e.g. lifting a knee or leading with the forearm going into contact? And removing the ref's discretion to rule the contact accidental & keep playing is surely inviting players to take a dive.

That Mike Brown dive was fucking horrendous.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's because they are professionals and hence employees that regulation and care is required.

It's no longer alright to say that it's a dangerous job so they have to bear that risk on their own. This is the reason we have workplace health and safety laws.

That's correct to a point. Employers have to take all reasonable steps to make a workplace safe. But the law recognises that some activities are more inherently risky or dangerous than others and participants and/or employees should be made aware of the risks beforehand. Once the risks/dangers have been explained and acknowledged the participant accepts certain risks.

Rugby for example is an inherently risky activity and there is a possibility of serious injury at all levels. As long as the laws are constructed to minimise risk and match officials are enforcing the laws, then you can't hold the game responsible for injury.

The part of the law change which says that if the tackler is doing everything correctly and the ball carrier slips or falls and thus the head of the ball carrier accidently comes into contact with the tackler then the tackler should be penalised, does nothing to address safety. In fact it's too ludicrous for words. It's no different to someone tripping over their own feet at work and falling over - nothing to do with workplace safety, it's just an accident.

As WOB has noted, over 50% of concussions are suffered by the tackler and only 17% by the ball carrier.

 

[Twoilms]

It's because they are professionals and hence employees that regulation and care is required.

It's no longer alright to say that it's a dangerous job so they have to bear that risk on their own. This is the reason we have workplace health and safety laws.

No, but we already have rules in place to protect players, as well as education available about the nature of the risks. You wouldn't hold a mining company responsible for a collapse in a mine that was completely out of their hands?

There is a balance that is being overstepped.

 

[Braveheart81]

The part of the law change which says that if the tackler is doing everything correctly and the ball carrier slips or falls and thus the head of the ball carrier accidently comes into contact with the tackler then the tackler should be penalised, does nothing to address safety. In fact it's too ludicrous for words.

I agree completely with you on this bit. It's a silly change to the laws.

No, but we already have rules in place to protect players, as well as education available about the nature of the risks. You wouldn't hold a mining company responsible for a collapse in a mine that was completely out of their hands?


There is a balance that is being overstepped.

It's more that they don't sit miners down at the start of their career and tell them that they'll die in their 50s from black lung disease. They make efforts to ensure it doesn't happen (sadly, it still is happening but that's beside the point).

Long term concussion problems seem to be less of an issue in rugby than the NFL for example but it is without doubt an increasing issue. With professionalism there are often more high level games in a season and careers are getting longer as well.

I can see why they're putting so much effort into trying to mitigate the number of concussions. It's a big potential long term liability for the sport as a whole.

To be clear though, we're all in agreement that penalising accidental high contact that has resulted from the ball carrier slipping is stupid.

 

[Strewthcobber]

We saw the Aussies get almost blown off the park for high tackling against Argentina this year - and that was as a result of their strategy to go a bit higher, with ball and all tackles to stop the Argentinian off load game.

That is the sort of strategy that will be affected by this change. The accidents will definately still happen. But you can attempt to make them happen less through these sort of law interpretations.

Smart coaches will have to come up with something else.

 

[Quick Hands]

We saw the Aussies get almost blown off the park for high tackling against Argentina this year - and that was as a result of their strategy to go a bit higher, with ball and all tackles to stop the Argentinian off load game.

That is the sort of strategy that will be affected by this change. The accidents will definately still happen. But you can attempt to make them happen less through these sort of law interpretations.

Smart coaches will have to come up with something else.

There seems to be little argument with the first part of the change; i.e. even if the tackle starts around the chest and moves up to the head it needs to be dealt with harshly (noting that this also applies to players in rucks or mauls who make contact with the head). These are worthwhile - although all they really do is to restate the existing law but provide clearer instructions for referees and the judiciary.

The second change - the "accidental contact" part is ridiculous and seems to mean that the only way of the tackler avoiding penalty is to jump out of the way of someone who is falling. Not sure how this change does anything to reduce concussion - an accident is an accident and penalising someone for being fallen into reeks of doing something for the sake of it rather than for any purpose. I'm all for making the game safer for everyone, but I can't see that being the case with this.

It's like saying if the tackler puts his head in the wrong position and cops an accidental knee to the head from the ball carrier, then the ball carrier should be penalised for "accidental contact with the head".

One reason that some teams have been going higher in tackles is to try to hold the ball carrier up, form a maul and obtain a scrum feed from an indeterminant maul. Getting rid of the "use it or lose it" law might go some way to eliminating the need for this tactic.

 

[Twoilms]

I agree completely with you on this bit. It's a silly change to the laws.



It's more that they don't sit miners down at the start of their career and tell them that they'll die in their 50s from black lung disease. They make efforts to ensure it doesn't happen (sadly, it still is happening but that's beside the point).

I'm not convinced it is beside the point, really. But i'm happy to drop the point at this stage.

 

[Strewthcobber]

A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway

Going to be an interesting reaction when the first ball carrier is yellow carded for fending off a would be tackler.......

 

[Quick Hands]

Going to be an interesting reaction when the first ball carrier is yellow carded for fending off a would be tackler...

Which, according to the directive, would now be a yellow card minimum offence.

 

[gel]

Apologies if the video has been posted previously:

I am supportive of the need to protect players, the size increase since the game has become professional has been insane and it is a big unknown as to what these impacts will have at a later date.

However, some of the examples for "accidental" contact in the video above are hard to justify as penalties IMO.

With such tough interpretations, there will need to be extreme sanctions for the inevitable diving that will occur as soon as anyone so much as grazes someone head in a tackle - there will be any number of players ever keen to milk an immediate TV review and possible sanction repeatedly which will cost teams matches.

A two week ban after your team has just won the super rugby final due to a gutless dive to force the opposition's chief playmaker off the field won't do shit to deter diving.

I think rugby have generally been pretty good at balancing the laws to create a bit of yin and yang - but I think the heavy interpretations by themselves are a recipe for unintended consequences.

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^^And they didn't/couldn't provide an example of a player "slipping into a tackle" resulting in a penalty. In fact none on the examples provided in the second section seem to involve accidental contact at all.

Nor did they address "contact with the head in other phases of play" such as rucks, mauls or lineouts or even offences by the ball carrier accidentally contacing the head of an opponent.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Going to be an interesting reaction when the first ball carrier is yellow carded for fending off a would be tackler...

......... or when the tackler gets his head in the wrong place & cops a knee or thigh to the face for his troubles. How can you penalise a player for another player's poor tackling technique? I just hope the inevitable absurd decision that hopefully forces them to rethink this doesn't cost any of the teams I support.

 

[TOCC]

At first I thought this was a good decision, I've had my fair share of concussions and been knocked out over the years, and it's the reason I retired.. but then I started thinking how many of those were caused by been tackled high, and none of them were.

All my concussions either occurred at the ruck, head clash with my own player or as the tackler, it was just bad technique or just catching a stray elbow.. the new laws would have prevented none of these..

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

As you may be aware, George North recently got knocked out again:

Northampton sent him back out after his SCAT but were found to have been wrong to do so. You'd expect them to get some kind of punishment for that, but you'd be wrong:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11772051

Players Association aren't happy but doesn't sound like they're actually going to do anything about it.

 

[Quick Hands]

Significant civil liability for Northampton and the authorities down the track if he ends up with an ongoing problem with this.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^ sets a terrible precedent, too. Having failed to sanction Saints, how can they possibly sanction anyone for a future & similar failure?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

World Rugby are not amused by the George North concussion fiasco:

"[World Rugby] will seek further information from the RFU regarding the factors behind the apparent non-compliance with World Rugby protocols and the outcomes reached by the independent review group."

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/214113

 

[Brumby Jack]

Mike Brown complains about too many yellow and red cards in the game..

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/rugb...by-red-cards-stop-children-grassroots-playing

Same guy who fell over after a late nudge from DHP to get him yellow carded...