The Rugby Thread

Arnoldtoo said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

E17yid said:

It was a fair contest, imo.

Should have played on. No pen.

Click to expand...

talkshowhost86 said:

Well not should have played on as there was an unconscious person on the field of play...

But yes I think that's the debate. It's either a foul in the air, in which case it's a red card, or it's not, in which case it isn't anything. I think there's an argument either way depending on whether you think he pulls him down, but I'm not sure how in either case it can be a yellow card, and the only way it could be just a penalty is if some sort of offence was committed once they were on the ground (which I don't think was really possible as Brown was out cold at that point).

Click to expand...

E17yid said:

It’s Mike Brown, though.

Obviously joking and, yes, should always stop when a player is sparked out and glad he’s not seriously hurt but there was no foul play there, certainly no deliberate foul play.

What with the new high tackle laws as well we might as well ban all players contesting any up and unders as well. They’ll probably bring in a new rule next season that states you have to give any player you’ve just tackled a hug and a kiss.

Click to expand...

talkshowhost86 said:

Jonathan Davies out until after the 6 nations. Huge blow for Wales and leaves them with a big gap now.

Click to expand...

talkshowhost86 said:

Yeah I don't think we're far away from that.

I'm torn on it to be honest.

It's obviously a shame not to see the contest, and as I said earlier it would change the way scrum halves are forced to kick, but at the same time it's really really dangerous when players get taken out in the air. The fact that it's accidental or not doesn't really help the player who gets concussion, so if they can do something to stop that risk? Surely they have to do it.

Click to expand...

E17yid said:

I think too much is made out of concussion to be honest. Players know the risks, you won’t see Mike Brown stop doing what he’s doing and nor should he. He loves the game, knows the risks and that’s all that matters.

Goes without saying that if someone isn’t contesting, or even looking at the ball, when going for a high ball, which has resulted in dangerous play then it should be a yellow/red but when you’ve got 2 players going for a 50/50, both jumping at the same time and both men’s eyes fixed on the ball but resulted in a concussion then it should just go down as a hazard of the game.

Click to expand...

Arnoldtoo said:

I think you have to allow the referee to use his judgement. We've now had opinions covering all four options, so no option is definitive however much we support our own conclusion. The referee gave what he thought was the right decision. So be it.

Click to expand...

talkshowhost86 said:

I'm not sure you can say too much is made out of concussion. It can cause to quite serious brain damage and other lifelong debilitating issues when players have finished playing.

I think ethically the sport has to make it a serious consideration, and financially the sport has to be sensible about it because if someone sues the authorities for not doing enough to prevent concussion (something which is more than possible) then that could be the end of the sport all together.

I agree with your assertion that in a 50/50 situation it's fair enough, but how often do you see an actual 50/50 situation? The Brown one wasn't 50/50 as he gets up in the air first, so it's immediately him who is at more risk of getting injured.

It's a very tricky one to balance because you don't want to ruin the spectacle of the sport which includes the physical nature of the game, but the players do need protecting, particularly in this era of massive and quick players.



I completely agree, but the point is that the powers that be have said that refs shouldn't be using their own judgment in areas such as this. Before the sort of stringent directives that are now in place came into force, then I think the ref would have had those four options. But based on the directives (boring as it sounds) that has to be nothing or a red card.

Click to expand...

E17yid said:

If we really want to minimise the risk of concussion then we should ban lifting in the lineout too. We should also make scrums no contest. Actually just ban scrums all together as there’s always the risk of breaking someone’s neck. We should ban clear outs at the ruck, in fact, again, ban rucks all together. We should probably ban jumping and restarts as well.

Basically, to minimise any risk of serious injury, we should just get two 10s to kick 20 penalties each, whoever kicks the most wins. That’d be fun.

Click to expand...

Arnoldtoo said:

Kruis dropped for Saturday. Can't say I'm surprised.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/41988265

Click to expand...

talkshowhost86 said:

I think that's being a bit histrionic about it (although you're not alone believe me).

It will always be the way that sports adapt, and the differences between the game now and the amateur game are huge (mostly because of the incredible changes in the size and speed of the players involved).

Nobody is saying we should ban lifting in the lineout. Nobody is saying we should make scrums no contest. People are saying the punishments should be higher for people who drag people down in the lineout and injure them, and the rules of the scrum have been changed to make it so that people don't have such a high risk of breaking their neck. I really don't think how either of those things can be seen as a bad thing.

And on the ruck, only last year I remember you being very upset about an England player clearing a ruck by kicking the ball (and then the player who was offside which was perfectly legal at the time). Thinking about it that was probably Mike Brown That law has now been changed to prevent that happening, which I think is a good thing.

I agree with what @Arnoldtoo says that the refs should be given a bit more leeway to judge a particular situation rather than having to go with the letter of the law. The very strict laws around high tackles are a particular issue here.

But I don't think that trying to make the game a bit safer is the same as turning it into netball, which some people seem to be afraid of.

Click to expand...

E17yid said:

Where do you draw the line though? If the letter of the law is followed in every instance then you’ll have 10 red cards a game the way the rules are changing.

If we want to minimise risk, and be consistent, then we should be changing a lot more laws. Like:

Ban tackling
Ban jumping
Ban rucks
Ban mauls

All of these are perfectly legal and safe but like anything else can be dangerous when players are being dirty. Of course in those instances we should be dealing with the player but we can’t just completely fuck off the game because a few people get knocked out and some players abuse the laws of the game otherwise what’s the point? We’ll should all play tiddlywinks or netball, like you say.

It’s like the twats who think boxing should be banned because it’s dangerous. Of course it’s fucking dangerous, that’s part of the reason we fans love it (and I imagine the boxers/rugby players too)

To being us back to the Brown incident over the weekend: the Argue guy did nothing wrong, he competed well, was fully entitled to do so but because Brown landed badly and got knocked out the Argie guy got binned and, really, should’ve been sent off if we’re going by the letter of the law. And this is all
I’m objecting to l, the letter of the law is BS and it’s all born out of “protecting the player” if all we care about is protecting the players then we should just ban rugby (and boxing) but that would be outrageous to most people (but would make some very happy)

The new high tackle stuff is a perfect example. You can’t even tackle people at chest/shoulder height anymore coz if you arm even slides up by an inch and grazes some blokes head it’s deemed as dangerous. People are getting binned for the most ridiculous stuff now.

I’m up for making it as safe as we can but only up to a point. Fuck players safety my enjoyment is far more important.

Click to expand...

talkshowhost86 said:

You've argued against your own point though.

Nobody is saying ban tackling, jumping, rucks or mauls. Just ban the players who make them dangerous.

Nobody is actually saying ban the high ball, or the contest for the high ball, but if you're not sure you're in an equal contest then don't go up for the ball (an easy coaching point) and if you do go up for the ball then don't grab at the player instead.

The Brown incident is perhaps a bad one to look at because it's debatable whether there was any foul play at all.

A better example is the Daly one against Argentina last season where his eyes were on the ball, but he wasn't really paying attention to where the player was. He believed he had a chance to get it, but the player jumped forwards, Daly ran into him accidentally, and it was a red. There was no intent from Daly, but the point is he should have been taking more care of a fellow player in what is a very dangerous situation.

I actually think the high ball is a separate situation from the rest anyway due to how dangerous it can be. Rucks, mauls, lineouts etc generally don't end in such dangerous situations (in terms of head smashes at least) unless someone is particularly dirty, and in that situation the player gets banned, and nobody says lets ban the maul etc.

But with the high ball, even a small foul can result in a big injury, so I think it's right that it's looked at in detail by the authorities. But I do think you're right that the letter of the law approach leads to some unfair decisions.

I do agree with you on the high tackle stuff in particular which is where I think refs need to be given the chance to make a judgment call rather than sticking to the letter of the law. We've seen numerous players get red-cards for tackling falling players, meaning they make contact with the face when they were aiming at the chest, and that doesn't seem right.

It's a fine line and one that the sport has to look at very carefully. You can't simply say 'they know the risks' and then brush off any responsibility for looking after the players. But you also have to keep the physicality within the game.

I think they do an okay job at treading that line, and I think the 'it was better in the old days' brigade just like a bit of a moan every now and again.

Click to expand...

E17yid said:

I’m not saying people are saying we should ban tackling, rucks etc etc. I’m saying if all we care about is player safety then we should ban those aspects of the game (in fact we should ban the game all together).

I’m also making the point with specific reference to the high tackle/high ball stuff as a kind of slippery slope/where do you draw the line kind of way.

The Daly incident is a much better example. I remember it exactly how you describe. My personal opinion is that it was clumsy but there was no intent to hurt him so, IMO, should’ve been a yellow. Reds should only be dished out for players that have clearly, and deliberately, intended to hurt a player.

Thankfully I think those incidents are rare in the modern game (Marler aside) and most bad injuries are totally innocuous and accidental and I think it’s a shame that out of that we’ll be watching a totally different game in the next 10-20 years.

It’s like football. Some people these days get so prissy about broken legs. I mean, so ducking what, it’s a broken leg. Most broken legs I’ve seen in football have looked alright (especially in real time) and it would be a real shame if we see slide tackling banned as everyone loves a good, meaty challenge. I haven’t watched this Alan Shearer thing about heading the ball and I’m sure he raises son good points but what are we supposed to do? Ban heading?

Click to expand...