Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Watch some league then. Gets ridiculously bad when the refs have no balls and refuse to send players to the bin for all sorts of crap.
Concussions and Protecting Our Players
- Thread starter USARugger
- Start date
The NRL situation is ridiculous when they rarely ever send anyone off even if a horrible high tackle injures the opposition player so they can't continue.
The team that suffered the foul play gets disadvantaged through losing their player and then the future opposition of the offending player's team gets the advantage due to not having to face the suspended player.
World Rugby needs to monitor these changes carefully and make sure it doesn't end up with farcical situations and cards being given out too often but ultimately the players need to adjust their behaviour.
Generally, blame for games being influenced heavily by red cards should be directed at offending players for their ill-discipline.
At the end of the day I don't think any referee likes giving out red cards and will tend to err on the side of keeping players on the field. Whilst they got the Barritt/Barrington one wrong by sending off the wrong player, a red card for a high tackle that knocked the ball carrier out was justified in that situation.
The team that suffered the foul play gets disadvantaged through losing their player and then the future opposition of the offending player's team gets the advantage due to not having to face the suspended player.
World Rugby needs to monitor these changes carefully and make sure it doesn't end up with farcical situations and cards being given out too often but ultimately the players need to adjust their behaviour.
Generally, blame for games being influenced heavily by red cards should be directed at offending players for their ill-discipline.
At the end of the day I don't think any referee likes giving out red cards and will tend to err on the side of keeping players on the field. Whilst they got the Barritt/Barrington one wrong by sending off the wrong player, a red card for a high tackle that knocked the ball carrier out was justified in that situation.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
I think most would agree that a team that loses a player is behind the 8 ball in respect of the game.
Supporters also miss out on a contest because of one or 2 fuckheads.
Maybe the way forward is to yellow card offenders and have them seriously reviewed (with harsh penalty) after the game. In other words dump the red Card except for those absolutely malicious offences. Generally most offences on a rugby paddock are not malicious but more likely careless.
Bit like the AFL.
Supporters also miss out on a contest because of one or 2 fuckheads.
Maybe the way forward is to yellow card offenders and have them seriously reviewed (with harsh penalty) after the game. In other words dump the red Card except for those absolutely malicious offences. Generally most offences on a rugby paddock are not malicious but more likely careless.
Bit like the AFL.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Presume this was targeting me?
No I have no interest in watching League and couldn't give a tuppence on the impact or otherwise or interest of NRL refs to reduce player numbers on the field. No enthusiasm at all. Piss poor comment imo.
And it has nothing to do with the impact in professional rugby of playing with a man down. These things effect the fan. And ideally any punishment should not target the fan in a professional game (short of fan misbehaviour).
I see the Tah coach now suggesting that training needs to prepare teams to play with 13 and 14 players. Player health is paramount, but that is an utter shite way to try to resolve it.
I think the comment was reasonable. It refers to referees in the NRL not being willing to enforce the laws of the game which in itself has an effect on the game.
I'm not completely in favour with the harsher treatment of high tackles but I am willing to wait and see how it plays out in reality. If you follow the laws to the letter now we would already see far more yellow and red cards than we already do. This is really just a change or clarification on the interpretation to actually enforce the laws in this area.
In my opinion it is pretty rare that a referee can be blamed for ruining a game due to issuing cards. In almost all circumstances the blame should be placed at the feet of the offending player(s).
I think it is entering dangerous territory when you start taking fan enjoyment (or the potential loss of enjoyment) into account when adjudicating a game. It adds a pretty artificial element to the game. Professional sport is absolutely an entertainment product but I don't think it is down to the referees to try and make it entertaining.
dru
David Wilson (68)
BH, dont take fan enjoyment into account adjudicating the game. That would of course be silly. But I do tjink you should consider how the design of your product presents itself to it's intended market.
I'd be totally confused, if consistent rugby games ending with less than 30 players on the field, does not end in reduced fans and reduced income.
I'd be totally confused, if consistent rugby games ending with less than 30 players on the field, does not end in reduced fans and reduced income.
If these changes don't change player behaviour and purely lead to more players getting sent off with no reduction of reckless tackles that make contact with the head then they are not working.
The intention is surely to change player behaviour not to drastically increase the number of players sent off. As with most law/interpretation changes there is likely to be some period with increased punishments as players adjust.
The intention is surely to change player behaviour not to drastically increase the number of players sent off. As with most law/interpretation changes there is likely to be some period with increased punishments as players adjust.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
We crossed that Rubicon a long long time ago.
They already decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore in the name of letting the game "flow".
There's probably more interpretation asked of Rugby refs than any other major sport on earth.
What is a bit concerning is that we are all expecting 3 to 4 incidents in a game that might result in a card. That suggests that serious head impacts are occurring very often in our game.
Concussions are one thing, but there's the regular lower level sub-concussive impact that seems to result in CTE to think about as well
dru
David Wilson (68)
Actually the stats I have seen suggest 70% (ish) concussions happen to the tackler and 30% (ish) to the attacker. If so the rule changes dont get slightly close to addressing the issue. A bit of window dressing at the cost of real disfunction in the reffing of the game. But hey, must be seen to be doing something.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Found the reference: http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339
Extract:
"611 HIA incidents were reviewed from 1,516 elite matches
76 per cent of HIA incidents occur in the tackle
72 per cent of HIA incidents in the tackle occur to the tackler
Body position, speed and direction of tackle all influence risk"
As far as I can tell, the rules changes dont attempt to address the key areas as detailed by WR (World Rugby)'s own study.
FWIW I dont have a problem with rule changes that address even (only) the smaller cohort of concussion injuries. And I would cope with those interpretations being confusing, if that had to be, while it settles down.
Just not comfortable when the anticipated result in reducing player numbers is such a high expectation that Coaches are training to play short handed.
Extract:
"611 HIA incidents were reviewed from 1,516 elite matches
76 per cent of HIA incidents occur in the tackle
72 per cent of HIA incidents in the tackle occur to the tackler
Body position, speed and direction of tackle all influence risk"
As far as I can tell, the rules changes dont attempt to address the key areas as detailed by WR (World Rugby)'s own study.
FWIW I dont have a problem with rule changes that address even (only) the smaller cohort of concussion injuries. And I would cope with those interpretations being confusing, if that had to be, while it settles down.
Just not comfortable when the anticipated result in reducing player numbers is such a high expectation that Coaches are training to play short handed.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Simon Kemp, [English] RFU Chief Medical Officer states the fucking obvious:
"We know that the tackle is where the overwhelming majority of concussions occur and welcome the recent initiatives around zero tolerance to contact with the head from World Rugby. We anticipate that these initiatives are most likely to reduce the risk to the ball carrier. Two thirds of all concussions are sustained by the tackler; 47% of all injuries to the tackler are now concussions and developing interventions to reduce the risk to the tackler must now be the priority."
Full article here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11784995
Well, they do say that step one of solving a problem is recognising that there IS a problem.............
"We know that the tackle is where the overwhelming majority of concussions occur and welcome the recent initiatives around zero tolerance to contact with the head from World Rugby. We anticipate that these initiatives are most likely to reduce the risk to the ball carrier. Two thirds of all concussions are sustained by the tackler; 47% of all injuries to the tackler are now concussions and developing interventions to reduce the risk to the tackler must now be the priority."
Full article here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11784995
Well, they do say that step one of solving a problem is recognising that there IS a problem.............
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
^^^ Good to see
Looks like World Rugby tackling the easy 30% first. Given that it's covered by the laws of the game and merely an enforcement issue makes it the obvious route to take.
How they deal with head injuries to the tackler appears to be a much more difficult issue. Will be watching with interest to see what ideas come through over the next year or two
Looks like World Rugby tackling the easy 30% first. Given that it's covered by the laws of the game and merely an enforcement issue makes it the obvious route to take.
How they deal with head injuries to the tackler appears to be a much more difficult issue. Will be watching with interest to see what ideas come through over the next year or two
Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
Seems incredibly difficult to address. I don't see how regulations could reduce the occurrence of concussions to the tackler without completely changing the shape of the game.
If not regulation then education maybe. Poor technique seems to be the biggest contributor but surely the majority of these professionals get their technique right 99/100 and simply make errors in the heat of the moment.
If not regulation then education maybe. Poor technique seems to be the biggest contributor but surely the majority of these professionals get their technique right 99/100 and simply make errors in the heat of the moment.
I don't see how they can deal with the risks to the tackler without fundamentally changing the game.
My guess is they won't and also shouldn't aside from continuing to improve the HIA process and everything that goes with it.
My guess is they won't and also shouldn't aside from continuing to improve the HIA process and everything that goes with it.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Another aspect of this is how do you now deal with a guy at the breakdown who's on his feet, has his hands on the ball and his nose all but touching the ball? Do you just stand back & watch him rip the ball, or do you try to clean him out & run the risk of making contact with his head? Seems to me all he has to do is stand up at the right moment & he "wins" his team a YC.
The more I think about this, the more I think it's either window dressing or hasn't been properly thought through.
The more I think about this, the more I think it's either window dressing or hasn't been properly thought through.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Imagine how bad the studies into CTE and concussions must be for WR (World Rugby) to take these steps......
Shelby Trappey
Frank Row (1)
Although it is way too early to tell, I keep thinking about the depressive effects of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).
In the past few years this has gotten alot of attention with all the NFL players who have suffered from CTE after-retirement. Some of which have eventually committed suicide due to their CTE depression and early-onset dementia.
Although I think our tackling laws prevent to a certain extent the amount of head trauma that gridiron player experience. I wonder if eventually we will start to see the same results from former professional players who have spent years getting put through the ringer...
I certainly have experienced several concussions as a schoolboy and a club rugby player.
In order to protect the younger generations of rugby players, I personally don't think its that bad an idea to maybe make headgear compulsory for schoolboys in the same way that mouth-guards are.
Obviously when you get to the higher levels you are free to choose not to wear one, but at least I think we should aim to minimize unnecessary head trauma for the players who are still growing.
In the past few years this has gotten alot of attention with all the NFL players who have suffered from CTE after-retirement. Some of which have eventually committed suicide due to their CTE depression and early-onset dementia.
Although I think our tackling laws prevent to a certain extent the amount of head trauma that gridiron player experience. I wonder if eventually we will start to see the same results from former professional players who have spent years getting put through the ringer...
I certainly have experienced several concussions as a schoolboy and a club rugby player.
In order to protect the younger generations of rugby players, I personally don't think its that bad an idea to maybe make headgear compulsory for schoolboys in the same way that mouth-guards are.
Obviously when you get to the higher levels you are free to choose not to wear one, but at least I think we should aim to minimize unnecessary head trauma for the players who are still growing.
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
What those critical of the new tackle protocols seem to overlook is that they are designed exactly to address issues such as CTE. I think many people falsely assume that its exclusively the big knocks that lead to CTE developing. But there's a great deal of evidence that suggests a culminative effect of many small, otherwise 'inconsequential' knocks are just as debilitating over time. Particularly knocks that shift the head rapidly side to side. Which apparently where most of the damage occurs on the brain stem.
I actually agree that headgear should be compulsory at the junior level. In fact, it should be compulsory period. It won't necessarily stop the knocks but any littlr bit helps.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
Apologies if this has been posted already, am on the phone and haven't followed the thread closely.
Fascinating and tragic story of CTE in a young American NFL player.
http://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Fascinating and tragic story of CTE in a young American NFL player.
http://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk