Why is charging down a kick OK? If it was from a thrown pass, rather than a kick then it be a knock on at best, probably deliberate knock on and yellow card.
Rugby rules make no sense.
So Ireland could now sub the pack, apart from the front row, with backs.
Just watched the start up to the red card. Italy got a surprising amount of success at the break down. Thought the ref got the red card slot on and handled everything very well. Couldn't be arsed to watch the rest.
He had plenty of time to get lower. He didn’t.
How much time did he have? Plenty in the slo-mo replay but how much in real life?
It's a sport where big fast blokes run at eachother and, with the best will in the world, sometimes heads will be involved in collisions. The ref was right in his decision (as the law stands) but, as A_A points out, you couldn't be bothered to watch any more.
The point of all this "protect the head" stuff is safety. That's somewhat misguided seeing as most concussions are suffered by the tackler not the tacklee. If refs don't have leeway to use their own judgement subjectively then you end up with farcical results like today.
I saw a Super rugby game last year where the ball carrier slipped and the tackler almost took his head off. The ref didn't even give a penalty and the whole crowd stood and applauded as they weren't subjected to interminable replays and a man getting sent off and the game being ruined.
The enforcement of the law is an ass. It's ruining the game. The key to avoiding concussions is monitoring and managing blows to the head not forensically examining every slo-mo detail so the refs can dish out cards like confetti.
The failure to manage Thomas Francis' head injury on Saturday was far more dangerous than anything else I've seen this weekend.
I saw a Super rugby game last year where the ball carrier slipped
allowed for in tbe rules. There is subjectivity and also also in some circumstances mitigation is allowed. Attempt at a legal tackle that gores wrong ie the tackled player slips - mitigation can be applied. No attempt at a legal tackle ie it was always high - no mitigation can be applied
Indeed. But hey, the game’s gone soft and the laws’ prevention of players injuring one another’s heads to the point of long term injury is hindering my enjoyment of the game!
“Are you not entertained?”
Indeed. But hey, the game’s gone soft and the laws’ prevention of players injuring one another’s heads to the point of long term injury is hindering my enjoyment of the game!
“Are you not entertained
What a pathetic response.
I made a perfectly reasonable point that monitoring and managing brain injuries is the way forward in minimizing concussions. There's no evidence at all that the current application of the laws regarding contact to the head is having ANY effect on concussion rates.
There should be a distinction between dirty or reckless play and accidental contact - but there isn't. As a result there are lots of nonsensical sendings off.
My 7 and 9yr old sons both play. I want them playing the safest game possible. The Italy red card and the failure to take Francis off the pitch demonstrate that World Rugby is getting it badly wrong.
There should be a distinction between dirty or reckless play and accidental contact – but there isn’t. As a result there are lots of nonsensical sendings off.
There is.
I read that post from DD as sarcasm BTW
There should be a distinction between dirty or reckless play and accidental contact
I don't think there should be (obviously if someone clotheslines someone that's different from being too knackered to get low enough in the tackle but the immediate outcome should be the same, let the citing commission decide on intent and length of punishment).
Players have to be strongly discouraged from going in high and risking a mis-timing in an attempt to make the dominant tackle or to wrap up the ball carrier.
We need to get away from this idea that a red card is a judgment on your character. It should be purely down to the fact that the way the player is playing is a danger to others.
I often see the argument that big players simply can't get low enough to tackle smaller players safely. Isn't rugby supposed to be a game for all shapes and sizes?
Where was the distinction on Sunday? There was nothing dirty or reckless in that tackle. There was contact between the head and shoulder. Why wouldn't it just be a penalty? Why a red card?
Cipriani got sent off for Gloucester a couple of seasons back. He kinda lent into the contact and pushed himself off to regain his position in the defensive line as another defender made the tackle. His shoulder happened to touch against the ball carrier's head. There was no impact as such. Contact to head - red card. Pointless.
Yes, I did get the sarcasm. I just didn't find it funny or helpful to the debate.
On the subject of slipping, that's already taken into account.
If a player is in a position to make a safe tackle and the ball carrier slips and there is contact with the head that's already not considered a penalty.
If the tackler is in a poor position and the ball carrier's head happens to dip 2 inches before that shouldn't be mitigation.
Where was the distinction on Sunday? There was nothing dirty or reckless in that tackle
A red card should not be a judgement on a player's character (that they are dirty or reckless). It should be a tool used to force players and coaches to adjust technique to minimize the chances of getting a red card.
. It should be a tool used to force players and coaches to adjust technique to minimize the chances of getting a red card
It's a valid point but the nature of the game dictates that it's impossible to completely avoid contact to the head at all times so should everyone be red carded all the time?
I don't know what % of concussions are suffered by the player being tackled but blows to the head occur all over the pitch in many, varying circumstances. Why single out the ball carrier alone?
It’s a valid point but the nature of the game dictates that it’s impossible to completely avoid contact to the head at all times so should everyone be red carded all the time?
The idea is that everyone gets red carded until players and coaches adjust their technique.
The problem is that southern hemisphere refs are not applying the laws in the same way as northern hemisphere refs. Refs need to get an absolute bollocking for ignoring head contact but it just doesn't seem to be happening. The inconsistency is causing confusion which is why a Georgian referee is getting dogs abuse for making a 100% correct decision in his first 6 Nations game.
Look at tip tackles. It was an issue for a while until players and coaches adjusted and now it's very uncommon to see anyone doing it.
Same with the hit in the air. when did you last see a player being cartwheeled? Used to be common ow it is no more. Players will adapt and stop the tackling high but it will take a season or two
Players will adapt and stop the tackling high but it will take a season or two
If it's applied consistently which, at the moment, is not happening.
Or rather, it's being applied fairly consistently on a hemisphere basis but not across the entire world, imo.
What actually causes most rugby concussion? The biggest impacts I see are forwards smashing in headfirst at rucks.
Personally I would like to see a maximum team total weight allowance, to stop the arms war of player bulk. The current carding rules are just tinkering at the edges instead of tackling the root cause.
Watching a Rugby League game makes me wince these days, as they seem to be ignoring the whole issue.
a Georgian referee is getting dogs abuse for making a 100% correct decision
The ref applied the laws as he's instructed. No criticism there.
But if anyone thinks Italy going down to 13 men for 60 minutes was a satisfactory outcome for the incident then maybe they've had too many blows to the head.
In the Francis incident, he and Watkin both took blows to the head. They were both tackling Ewels. Francis should've been removed from the pitch based on the fact that he fell over whilst trying to get to his feet and then staggered against the post once he'd got to his feet. These are "Criteria 1 Symptoms" and a player should be removed immediately and not return. The ref subsequently sent him for an HIA which he passed but 20% of Criteria 1 players pass HIAs anyway - the point being he shouldn't have had an HIA at all.
The vast majority of concussions are not suffered by the ball carrier. Red carding every slightly high tackle, no matter how inocuous, is not the way forward. Identifying and monitoring blows to the head and managing subsequent brain injuries is.
Personally I would like to see a maximum team total weight allowance, to stop the arms war of player bulk. The current carding rules are just tinkering at the edges instead of tackling the root cause.
That's one option but I think that finding ways to get the players running around more would help a lot.
Thing is, you could potentially kill two birds with one stone here. Often the reason players go in high is to wrap and prevent the ball carrier off-loading in the tackle. Misjudging these types of tackles is what leads to head contact.
If players were carded everytime they made contact with the head, regardless of intent, then they would have to start getting lower in the tackle which would lead to more off-loads in the tackle which would mean more time running back and less time sprinting forward when the ball is out of the ruck, resetting the line when the next ruck forms, and then sprinting forward again. This style of play favours larger players whereas a game where the ball is being kept alive is going to favour players who aren't carrying as much bulk.
Or maybe not, who knows.
But if anyone thinks Italy going down to 13 men for 60 minutes was a satisfactory outcome for the incident then maybe they’ve had too many blows to the head.
Classy.
It doesn't really matter if an individual game is 'ruined'. The idea is that all games are better in two or three seasons time.
I assume you remember Sam Warburton's red card in the WC semi-final? How many tackles do you see like that these days?
Red carding every slightly high tackle, no matter how inocuous, is not the way forward.
It worked for tackles in the air and tip tackles. Could we not try this for a season or two before we call the experiment a failure?
Mostly good points Bruce.
Whilst I obviously disagree with red carding every contact to the head by the tackler - if you want to be consistent then why not red card every player who makes contact to the head of any other player at any point no matter what they're doing?
Otherwise, I agree. We need lighter players which could be achieved by - No subs except for injuries (max 3) and maybe fewer players on the field altogether?
. It doesn’t really matter if an individual game is ‘ruined’. The idea is that all games are better in two or three seasons time
Yeah but I don't think this will make all games better in a few years time.
Tip tackling is a very specific issue but concussion is a broad issue. There will always be contact to the head when thirty big blokes are colliding with eachother for 80 minutes. You can't legislate for everything.
if you want to be consistent then why not red card every player who makes contact to the head of any other player at any point no matter what they’re doing?
I think the question you have to ask is, is there a fundamental technique that we can change to reduce the instances of head contact?
If there is and players aren't making that adjustment then yes, change the rules and red card to your heart's content until that fundamental behaviour is changed
Tip tackling is a very specific issue but concussion is a broad issue
Concussion is a broad issue but reducing head contact in the tackle is a specific issue (as is reducing head contact in the ruck).
Remember, tip/dump tackles were also part of the concussion issue.
You aren't going to find a silver bullet for the concussion issue. Once head contact in the tackle has been eliminated/reduced you go looking for the next behaviour that can be changed.
I think the question you have to ask is, is there a fundamental technique that we can change to reduce the instances of head contact
If the answer was a "yes" then I'd agree totally.
Tackles don't always happen like an RFU instructional video though. The tackler gets hurt more than the tacklee but I've rarely seen a ball carrier penalised for dipping a shoulder into a tackler's head.
Players are different sizes. People come in at different angles. People are off balance. People duck or stand up more going into contact. It's impossible to legislate for it all.....
You aren’t going to find a silver bullet for the concussion issue. Once head contact in the tackle has been eliminated/reduced you go looking for the next behaviour that can be changed
It's a good point but how are you going to stop the tackler banging his head?
Players are different sizes. People come in at different angles. People are off balance. People duck or stand up more going into contact. It’s impossible to legislate for it all…..
That's true, but in the case we are talking about here it seems clear that the player went in high to wrap and prevent the offload. This is a specific behaviour we can and should change.
And yes, players are different sizes. As I said, one of the complaints I often hear is that it's too difficult for large players to get down low enough to tackle smaller players safely every time.
We've just been talking about how the size of players needs to be reduced. Isn't this the perfect opportunity to encourage more Peter Stringers and Shane Williams into the game if we make it an advantage to be tiny?
Isn’t this the perfect opportunity to encourage more Peter Stringers and Shane Williams into the game if we make it an advantage to be tiny?
I totally agree but you still need your Martin Bayfield types to win the lineout so when they run into eachother - there'll be trouble! 😆
It’s a good point but how are you going to stop the tackler banging his head?
You can't but this is where it becomes even more important to reduce the mass and energy of the collisions.
I've given two examples of how continuing to enforce this rule may lead to a reduction in the size of players.
I’ve given two examples of how continuing to enforce this rule may lead to a reduction in the size of players
You have. I appreciated it.
The size\weight needs to be reduced. 7s is now a better game to watch than XVs.
7s is now a better game to watch than XVs.
If Marcus Smith isn't involved, can it even really be called rugby?
If Marcus Smith isn’t involved, can it even really be called rugby?
😆😆😆
Methinks you've been paying too much attention to the English media.....
He just has a man crush on Smiths hair! Romaine Ntamack for me - the best hair in the 6N
......certailnly better than the latest round of front row hairstyles !!!
Romaine Ntamack for me – the best hair in the 6N
I concur. I watched him closely at Murrayfield and never a hair out of place.
However, best hair in 6N history? Has to be Dimitri Szarzewski. How you can stick your head into the middle of a scrum yet still emerge as if you've just walked out of a L'Oréal advert is beyond comprehension....
I think it was Rapheal Ibanez who when asked about Szarzewski said - " a very good player but too pretty for the front row but a few scrums will change that"
the failure to take Francis off the pitch demonstrate that World Rugby is getting it badly wrong
He did go off and then came back on as he was fine...
He did go off and then came back on as he was fine
The protocol is that if you're clearly dazed and have a loss of balance you go straight off and do not return. No HIA is administered.
If you watch the video of him after the tackle, he clearly wasn't fine.
If you watch the video of him after the tackle, he clearly wasn’t fine.
Fair enough I didn't see that.
Fair enough I didn’t see that
Yeah I hadn't realised either until I read a piece about it and went back and looked.
There are supposed to be medics watching and intervening if they see such things. Even if a player passed an HIA doctors can still order the player to stay off if they've seen such symptoms.
The question has to be, why wasn't that done on Saturday?
If that was your kid you wouldn't want them playing on after stumbling around like that, would you? Be they an Under 9 or a seasoned international.
HIAs seem to be considered differently by different countries / leagues / clubs. some seem to see the 15 mins as time to get them fit to return rather than an assessment of if they are fit to return although this has reduced over the years.
Scotland and the two clubs here seem very cautious over this - Price on Saturday is the only time I can remember a Scots player returning after an HIA and he was clearly fine with no HIA needed even.
Its time to ramp up the seriousness with which this is taken IMO
and start fining / blacklist coaches who do not take it seriously
As an aside does anyone know what the fallout was over that disgraceful nonsense over an HIA in the u20s?
I completely agree about reducing the number of players on the field. More space will create more mobile players. Speed and power will still be important, but so will endurance. Reduce the number of subs. Maybe get rid of the flankers?
Also as scrums aren’t working, they just become a set piece, allow feeding straight to the back row.
Maybe get rid of rucks, allow the ball to be played backwards between the tackled players legs…..
Yes, I do prefer RL….sorry!!
You mean "run and wriggle" ?
You mean “run and wriggle” ?
In stereotypical northern accent “big men who run straight!”
