Wasps vs Toulouse

[Banquo]

Just got to the red. Don't think that's going to get overturned, I think the ref could have argued it to a yellow if he wanted to, but it's enough to be a red without much argument. That's 5-6 weeks for Umaga.

He got 4 weeks.

Bundee Aki got a warning.

Creevy got 3 weeks for an admitted head butt- though I can't find footage.

I think it's safe to assume that every Creevy game has a headbutt in there which you probably didn't see.

Puja

[Banquo]

I reserve the right to be wrong, cause my memory is shocking, but are there many injuries from collapsed scrums nowadays? I can't remember the last time a player went off the pitch as the result of a collapsed scrum, whereas I can think of a lot (including career enders) where they've gone off because of a tackle.

Puja

Well- a - we were talking accidental head clashes, not the whole gamut of tackling, b- there will be many injuries still from scrums collapsing (and definitely long term neck issues- many props and hookers have neck operations during and after their careers)..indeed, its amazing there aren't more. I'm not advocating much different in how the scrum is dealt with, though I think the whole 'set-up' piece is what causes current issues (no better answer). I'm quite surprised that as a hooker you'd think a scrum collapsing is less dangerous than a casual hit on the noggin, but maybe that's because you've been noggined a lot (that sounds offensive, but not intended that way). Maybe the scrum is safer since Matt Hampson in terms of risk management, but then players are a lot stronger for longer (which helps mitigate injury in its own way, but also adds back some potential for worse injury). This is a bit old, so feel free to say its all changed! https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... da7bd70b53

I'll open by saying that I am not in an entrenched position here. A lot of my arguments and feelings from this spring from personal experience and the plural of anecdote is not data.

However, I do think the scrum is a much safer beast than it used to be, both from knowledge in coaching and physio and the improvements in the laws, substitutions, and refereeing. It's notable that the two legal cases raised in that link are from 1996 (which was the big one that prompted the massive changes in the way the scrum was refereed and changed the law so that non-specialist players could no longer "just give it a go and see") and from 2003 (where it appears the ref allowed a non-specialist player to play front row in specific breach of the changes from 1996). Removing the hit and changing the engagement sequence has been massive as well - making players bind means that they've got centimetres to crash into each other, not a literal metre.

It may be that there is a plethora of quiet neck injuries and problems for future being stored up, but it doesn't *feel* that way - I don't remember a player retiring recently because of a hurt neck in a scrum collapse and there are props playing on to much older ages - look at Afoa and Cole still going strong and much less injury-prone than they used to be back in the 2000s.

From a personal perspective as a very low-level current player, I don't feel a collapsed scrum is that dangerous to me. Perhaps my props will reflect differently, but there's very little possibility of getting twisted up with the way the laws are at present and there's much less of the culture of trying to hurt people in the scrum that there was when I first started playing adult rugby (2002ish maybe?) - people will stop driving if the scrum collapses and there's more of a feeling of duty to your fellow players. However, I have absolutely no idea whether that translates even slightly to a higher level or not - I play Dorset and Wilts 2 Central level, so I'm hardly representative of the whole game.

Like I said, I've got no idea if I'm right or not, but I was just very surprised to see you rate scrummaging as a clear and present danger, when it doesn't feel that way to me at all. Mind, I'm rarely high tackled either - not quick enough or agile enough to surprise anybody!

Puja

In the light of our chat on this, I thought this might interest you....from the Times- its not the point I was really making, but its connected

World Rugby is implementing a law trial for the Six Nations to address a scrummaging technique that has left hookers suffering degenerative neck injuries and fearing paralysis.

An investigation by The Times in October revealed that elite male hookers are having to cope with an estimated 1,000 Newtons of force — the equivalent of 100kg — compressing their neck and spine at almost every scrum.

That “hidden” danger is known as axial loading and is the unintended consequence of a law change — the “crouch, bind, set” engagement sequence — that was introduced in 2013 to make scrummaging safer.

• What is axial loading and why is it so dangerous for hookers

Axial loading occurs when a pack leans forward on the bind phase, leading to enormous force being transmitted through the neck and spine of the hooker, whose head is being driven into the shoulder of his opponent.

World Rugby banned axial loading before the 2019 World Cup but were warned in March 2020 that the practice still persisted. The governing body has been under pressure from the Rugby Players Association (RPA) in England and the International Rugby Players (IRP) to take action.

The law trial is designed to ensure that the packs hold their own weight on the bind phase, retaining a small gap between the front rows, and do not begin applying pressure until they engage. It will be mandatory for hookers in the men’s, women’s and under-20 Six Nations to keep one foot forward during the bind phase of the scrum engagement sequence, acting as a brake.

If the hooker has both feet back it is impossible for the pack to hold its weight and axial loading is the inevitable outcome. The punishment for a hooker not using a brake foot will be a free kick.

“I know concussion gets all the headlines but this is a serious player safety issue. It needs to be resolved,” David Quinlan, head of legal and player welfare for the IRP, said.

“This law trial is definitely a positive step. We’ve had players very strongly advocating for it. We need to applaud World Rugby for moving on it. Ideally, we would have done it a year ago but the point is there is progress.”

The “crouch, bind, set” engagement sequence was introduced in 2013 to reduce the risk of catastrophic injuries by closing the gap between the two front rows, thereby reducing the speed of engagement and increasing stability.

It has been successful, but many hookers preferred the old system — when the two packs would charge together across a wider gap — because of the pressure they are having to withstand through their necks.



Players fear neck injuries and potential paralysis due to scrum laws

The RPA, Rugby Football Union and Premiership Rugby presented a scientific paper to World Rugby in 2019 which contained contributions from international hookers including Jamie George (England) and Ken Owens (Wales). The practice was outlawed in the build-up to the World Cup that year but never eradicated.

Christian Day, head of player affairs at the RPA, has been instrumental in driving through this law trial. “The evolution of the scrum engagement sequence was a huge success. By removing the hit as much as possible the catastrophic neck injuries have reduced markedly. But by doing that we have created this other problem,” Day told The Times in October.

“It used to be an unwritten rule that hookers would get neck issues at the end of their career. Now we are seeing younger and younger hookers needing surgical correction.”

Baldwin required a disc replacement and was told he would have been paralysed had the bulge been three millimetres to the left. He said: “When I went to see the surgeon, the surgeon said that since the law change [in 2013] he has seen a significant increase in operations on upper necks of hookers.”

Baldwin was one of the hookers advocating for the brake foot to be mandatory when The Times investigated this issue in October. But there is not a universal belief that it will solve the problem. One of the issues, as Day outlined, is that players and coaches will always look to find a competitive advantage.

“I feel we have to do something,” Quinlan said. “Let’s give this a go. Let’s sit down after the Six Nations and review it, and if something else needs to be done then we can look at that as well.”

One of the potential factors for further examination is whether the locks need to take a split stand — with only one knee on the floor — because rising up from both knees pushes weight forward on to the front row. “This is a complicated area. There is no quick fix,” Quinlan said.

[Raggs]

Collapsing is still different to axial loading though.

And this also just shows that more than one thing can be made safer at a time.

[Banquo]

Collapsing is still different to axial loading though.

And this also just shows that more than one thing can be made safer at a time.

I know, hence my opening line - but collapsing still has to be an issue, no?. And I agree, but still think the emphasis is currently not quite right.

[Puja]

In the light of our chat on this, I thought this might interest you....from the Times- its not the point I was really making, but its connected

That is really interesting, thanks.

From personal experience, I always have a brake foot out, but that's because at my level, one cannot trust the second rows to hold their balance and so you need it to prevent from giving away early engages every single time. Our refs are also pretty hot on keeping a gap at "Bind" and, when there isn't, I tend to interleave my head under the shoulder because pressing the top of my neck to the other guy's shoulder just seems strikingly uncomfortable and dangerous. So I haven't experienced this myself and I don't know I really get why anyone would do that - what's the advantage? Is it literally using your head like a door stop to hold back the entire pack from engaging rather than using a brake foot? Cause, if so... that seems incredibly dumb. Like, shoving your head in a closing lift door because your hands are full levels of dumb. That's so dumb that the fault's actually going back on the hookers as well as the coaches because if someone suggests a brilliant idea where you hold back the entire weight of a pack using just your head, then it's your responsibility to point out that it's ridiculous and we're absolutely not doing that.

Please tell me I've misunderstood this practice, for my own faith in humanity.

The law change seems like the obvious riposte. Although I pity the sanity of the people on the laws board at the IRB. "They're doing what? {sighs} Seriously? Fine, whatever, let's make a new law trial stopping them from using one player's neck to hold two packs apart. Next week, probably outlawing them tackling with their testicles."

Puja