Refereeing decisions

[Derpus]

Serious question: how long until headgear becomes mandatory? I remember reading somewhere a long while back that headgear doesn't actually have any material affect on reducing concussions. Is that right? Seems odd to me - surely it does?

Probably one for Cyclo - but i thought CTE is caused by the brain bouncing against your skull due to the sudden change in velocity, repeatedly. The cushioning provided by the headgear is pretty negligible. To do anything it'd have to provide sufficient cushioning to notably reduce the rate of deceleration and i don't see how half an inch of fairly stiff padding will do that.

Probably help with cauliflowering though?

 

[Pfitzy]

How effective are scrumcaps at preventing concussion?

Zero.

Mouthguards also close to zero for concussion in terms of direct impact. Minor benefit for indirect impact. Major benefit for jaws and teeth.

 

[cyclopath]

How effective are scrumcaps at preventing concussion?

Little to no effect. Minimise scalp wounds, and that's about it.

 

[drewprint]

Thanks all. Very interesting. Shows how little I know and understand about concussion.

 

[Rebel man]

People need to accept that the high tackle laws are here to stay and that something being accidental is not an excuse.

The defender carries the overwhelming duty of care in a tackle situation and needs to ensure they don't come into contact with the ball carrier's head.

Certain techniques such as the front on, chest to body tackle creates a far greater risk that you will contact the ball carrier's head either with your head or body and runs the risk of getting you sent off.

Alongside this I firmly believe that the 20 minute red card is essential so policing these issues isn't too impactful on matches.

But this is where the rules fail.

You lower your tackle height and the tackling player is then placed at a higher risk of concussion

So then what? What do we then do when you see more people copping stray knees, do we then look to address the concussion issue again?

Ultimately you make an informed decision when you play at any level it’s a collision sport and accidents are unavoidable

 

[Braveheart81]

Ultimately you make an informed decision when you play at any level it’s a collision sport and accidents are unavoidable

This doesn't remove liability though.

It is correct that tacklers get concussed at a higher rate than ball carriers and we are never going to remove concussions from the game.

Issues that are avoidable through changing player behaviour are going to be dealt with though. This is why we've arrived at the current situation. I can't see that reversing and no amount of hand-wringing about accidents happen etc. is going to change that.

 

[Derpus]

This doesn't remove liability though.

It is correct that tacklers get concussed at a higher rate than ball carriers and we are never going to remove concussions from the game.

Issues that are avoidable through changing player behaviour are going to be dealt with though. This is why we've arrived at the current situation. I can't see that reversing and no amount of hand-wringing about accidents happen etc. is going to change that.

Which is the crux of it. They aren't really trying to improve the safety of the game. They are creating a defense to a claim of negligence by taking steps 'a reasonable person' would take to address the obvious risks. Whether they actually are the best steps for the game is irrelevant as long as it mitigates their legal risk.

 

[swingpass]

Which is the crux of it. They aren't really trying to improve the safety of the game. They are creating a defense to a claim of negligence by taking steps 'a reasonable person' would take to address the obvious risks. Whether they actually are the best steps for the game is irrelevant as long as it mitigates their legal risk.

exactly this, "we did all we could", its mitigating the legal impact, any reduction in longterm head injury is a bonus (a very, very important one). i can see the rationale behind the head clash = red card stance, but the variable interpretation is what really irks me, and obviously many others. Nigel Owens comments are spot on, an accidental clash gets red, a deliberate attempt to hit someone defenceless gets a yellow. my personal opinion is the TMO now has far too much influence, i'd be happy if they were consigned to history, but thats not going to happen, so the protocols around their input really need to to be a lot better. they were introduced to negate howlers and monitor foul play, but both are still occurring and the end result is not always the correct one. the best games on the weekend were refereed not TMO'd !

 

[Dan54]

Mate we win with those 7 points. It killed our momentum

Ok mate, I wouldn't of given the YC, but felt it was a penalty for AAA coming off his feet at ruck, so never thought 7 points were there. WR (World Rugby) only said the YC was wrong didn't they? But regardless I understand that every decision the ref or any player makes can change how a game pans out.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I also feel that a Test Referee will accept a post match press conference spray when he/she has made some bad calls. The referee knows that the post match discussion with that coach is going to be a more difficult experience. There are going to be very few referees who are not affected by a video questioning their integrity.

 

[Brumby Runner]

This doesn't remove liability though.

It is correct that tacklers get concussed at a higher rate than ball carriers and we are never going to remove concussions from the game.

Issues that are avoidable through changing player behaviour are going to be dealt with though. This is why we've arrived at the current situation. I can't see that reversing and no amount of hand-wringing about accidents happen etc. is going to change that.

Might not reverse any of the current laws/interpretations, but surely highlights the need to examine the actions of the tackled player as well as the tackler as the tackler is the one apparently most at risk.

 

[Braveheart81]

Might not reverse any of the current laws/interpretations, but surely highlights the need to examine the actions of the tackled player as well as the tackler as the tackler is the one apparently most at risk.

Which is why we have laws regarding raising forearms, elbows, closed fists and knees.

And why a tackler's liability decreases if the ball carrier has a sudden drop in body height.

 

[Rebel man]

This doesn't remove liability though.

It is correct that tacklers get concussed at a higher rate than ball carriers and we are never going to remove concussions from the game.

Issues that are avoidable through changing player behaviour are going to be dealt with though. This is why we've arrived at the current situation. I can't see that reversing and no amount of hand-wringing about accidents happen etc. is going to change that.

Well then in 50 years the game will be dead. Nobody has ever successfully sued rugby over concussion issues either. The governing body has to stop jumping at shadows

If we continue to red card incidents like Valetini and and Koroibete then the game is in a terrible shape

 

[D-Box]

How effective are scrumcaps at preventing concussion?

Here is the paper showing the dont help with concussion

Does padded headgear prevent head injury in rugby union football? - PubMed

Padded headgear does not reduce the rate of head injury or concussion. The low compliance rates are a limitation. Although individuals may choose to wear padded headgear, the routine or mandatory use of protective headgear cannot be recommended.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Namerican]

Well then in 50 years the game will be dead. Nobody has ever successfully sued rugby over concussion issues either. The governing body has to stop jumping at shadows

If we continue to red card incidents like Valetini and and Koroibete then the game is in a terrible shape

It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

To save rugby we are doing to ruin it. Strange reasoning.

I'm not sure how a 20 minute red/orange card is going to increase legal liability vs. a straight red.

 

[Rebel man]

It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

To save rugby we are doing to ruin it. Strange reasoning.

I'm not sure how a 20 minute red/orange card is going to increase legal liability vs. a straight red.

You don’t need to be sending players off especially for accidentally contact. It’s a joke. Red cards ruin the game, they should only be given out for intentional foul play

 

[Braveheart81]

You don’t need to be sending players off especially for accidentally contact. It’s a joke. Red cards ruin the game, they should only be given out for intentional foul play

It might have affected the result but the Wallabies lost by a point due to a penalty goal at the death. It hardly ruined the game.

In fact the two matches where the Wallabies received a red card in 2021 were two of the best tests all year.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Intent is often hard to judge and very subjective. I believe you would see a lot of referee inconsistency for intent judgments.

 

[Rebel man]

It might have affected the result but the Wallabies lost by a point due to a penalty goal at the death. It hardly ruined the game.

In fact the two matches where the Wallabies received a red card in 2021 were two of the best tests all year.

Beating South Africa was better

 

[Brumby Runner]

It might have affected the result but the Wallabies lost by a point due to a penalty goal at the death. It hardly ruined the game.

In fact the two matches where the Wallabies received a red card in 2021 were two of the best tests all year.

Strange comment. Are you suggesting team numbers should be reduced to provide a better spectacle?