RugbyRebels

Precisely Puja. That incident should have been punished too, it doesn't mean the tackle shouldn't be. Should we ignore punches/kicks/dropped knees too, since this shoulder barge wasn't punished?

Taller than Spencer, huge hit, safe height.

We should be consistent. If we are going to adopt a zero tolerance approach to one action in the interests of player safety, then we should apply that across the board.
There were other incidents over the weekend that, had they been looked at more closely, could have seen red cards issued, a point Ben Kay made during the telecast and others have made subsequently.
no one wants to see players hurt in tackles, and we're all agreed that high tackles need to be punished (we may quibble about the degree of sanction), but the issue of player safety does go beyond the occasional high hit.

fivepointer wrote:We should be consistent. If we are going to adopt a zero tolerance approach to one action in the interests of player safety, then we should apply that across the board.
There were other incidents over the weekend that, had they been looked at more closely, could have seen red cards issued, a point Ben Kay made during the telecast and others have made subsequently.
no one wants to see players hurt in tackles, and we're all agreed that high tackles need to be punished (we may quibble about the degree of sanction), but the issue of player safety does go beyond the occasional high hit.

Absolutely we should. Which is why I'm annoyed about the hue and cry about the Spencer red - the next time, a ref might bottle it in fear of being involved in a controversy and then you've got different rules being applied at different times.

Puja

If concussions really are at the fore front of this then why wasn’t Taylor given a HIA inspection? If an offence is deemed to make head contact that needs to be a HIA regardless of the circumstances.

What does world rugby do with the tackler getting concussed from runners thrusting their knees, Quads or hips into a tackler lowering themselves to make the tackle?

Tigersman wrote:If concussions really are at the fore front of this then why wasn’t Taylor given a HIA inspection? If an offence is deemed to make head contact that needs to be a HIA regardless of the circumstances.

What does world rugby do with the tackler getting concussed from runners thrusting their knees, Quads or hips into a tackler lowering themselves to make the tackle?

So it should only be red for high tackles that lead to HIA? Those players lucky enough not to cause one, shouldn't be carded?

High tackles cause a higher rate, per tackle, of concussion than any other tackle type. So world rugby might not be able to do much about hips or knees (except tackle technique), but it can come down harder on what is already an illegal tackle.

Raggs wrote:

Tigersman wrote:If concussions really are at the fore front of this then why wasn’t Taylor given a HIA inspection? If an offence is deemed to make head contact that needs to be a HIA regardless of the circumstances.

What does world rugby do with the tackler getting concussed from runners thrusting their knees, Quads or hips into a tackler lowering themselves to make the tackle?

So it should only be red for high tackles that lead to HIA? Those players lucky enough not to cause one, shouldn't be carded?

High tackles cause a higher rate, per tackle, of concussion than any other tackle type. So world rugby might not be able to do much about hips or knees (except tackle technique), but it can come down harder on what is already an illegal tackle.

Where did I say that?

Tigersman wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Tigersman wrote:If concussions really are at the fore front of this then why wasn’t Taylor given a HIA inspection? If an offence is deemed to make head contact that needs to be a HIA regardless of the circumstances.

What does world rugby do with the tackler getting concussed from runners thrusting their knees, Quads or hips into a tackler lowering themselves to make the tackle?

So it should only be red for high tackles that lead to HIA? Those players lucky enough not to cause one, shouldn't be carded?

High tackles cause a higher rate, per tackle, of concussion than any other tackle type. So world rugby might not be able to do much about hips or knees (except tackle technique), but it can come down harder on what is already an illegal tackle.

Where did I say that?

You seemed to be suggesting it was required, if not, what exactly was your point? We already know that not every high tackle causes concussion, I don't think it's exactly fair to the team that's been infringed against, that they have to replace a player for 13 minutes, regardless of requirement.

Raggs wrote:I have to say, for all the people that complain it's "ruined" a game when there's a red, I'm yet to remember too many games that felt ruined. For the most part it seems like the 14 man team put in a massive effort and it's bloody competitive.

TBF i think it ruined the Bristol v Sarries game last week.

although that being said nothing suggests that the score would have changed that much anyway.

Tigersman wrote:If concussions really are at the fore front of this then why wasn’t Taylor given a HIA inspection? If an offence is deemed to make head contact that needs to be a HIA regardless of the circumstances.

What does world rugby do with the tackler getting concussed from runners thrusting their knees, Quads or hips into a tackler lowering themselves to make the tackle?

Again, whatabouttism is a logical fallacy for a reason. Yes, Taylor should probably have been given an HIA and there is work to do there. Yes, there are other ways to get concussed other than a high tackle.

None of that changes this issue, or mean that it should be treated differently.

Puja

Raggs wrote:

Tigersman wrote:

Raggs wrote:
So it should only be red for high tackles that lead to HIA? Those players lucky enough not to cause one, shouldn't be carded?

High tackles cause a higher rate, per tackle, of concussion than any other tackle type. So world rugby might not be able to do much about hips or knees (except tackle technique), but it can come down harder on what is already an illegal tackle.

Where did I say that?

You seemed to be suggesting it was required, if not, what exactly was your point? We already know that not every high tackle causes concussion, I don't think it's exactly fair to the team that's been infringed against, that they have to replace a player for 13 minutes, regardless of requirement.

My point was suggesting that players who have had contact with the head should automatically go off for a HIA regardless of if the player thinks they are ok.

It isn't about being fair it's about the player welfare isn't it and concussion can be delayed longer than a quick go over a min after the event.

I think you can perfectly well argue a game is ruined by certain red cards, but the game as a whole probably won’t exist much longer if you can’t play it without risking serious brain damage. Obviously there’s always going to be the chance of freak accidents like Crotty’s most recent concussion, but I wouldn’t think that is massively different to any other contact sport.

I can see both sides of it. The orange card might save tight games from becoming a non-contest, but in that scenario are the coaches quite as keen to hammer correct/safe tackle technique in to their players in the next training session? The big ‘but’ is that I think the ruck is a far more dangerous area if the Bakkies/Skelton approach is accepted as safe/legal. I’d accept most high tackles only being yellows if there were more of a crack-down on flying heads/shoulders in the ruck.

I stopped playing because of concussions, which I often regret, but every time I read more about it (and in particular that Hape article a few years back) I’m glad that I did.

For what it’s worth I’m 6’9” and don’t think I high tackled anybody even once. It never seemed like a particularly effective approach.

Tigersman wrote:If concussions really are at the fore front of this then why wasn’t Taylor given a HIA inspection? If an offence is deemed to make head contact that needs to be a HIA regardless of the circumstances.

I was going to bring that up myself. With all the controversy over the red, this has been missed. How you can’t have an HIA after a shoulder to the jaw is beyond me.

Puja wrote:

Tigersman wrote:If concussions really are at the fore front of this then why wasn’t Taylor given a HIA inspection? If an offence is deemed to make head contact that needs to be a HIA regardless of the circumstances.

What does world rugby do with the tackler getting concussed from runners thrusting their knees, Quads or hips into a tackler lowering themselves to make the tackle?

Again, whatabouttism is a logical fallacy for a reason. Yes, Taylor should probably have been given an HIA and there is work to do there. Yes, there are other ways to get concussed other than a high tackle.

None of that changes this issue, or mean that it should be treated differently.

Puja

Yep.

Mikey Brown wrote:I think you can perfectly well argue a game is ruined by certain red cards, but the game as a whole probably won’t exist much longer if you can’t play it without risking serious brain damage. Obviously there’s always going to be the chance of freak accidents like Crotty’s most recent concussion, but I wouldn’t think that is massively different to any other contact sport.

I can see both sides of it. The orange card might save tight games from becoming a non-contest, but in that scenario are the coaches quite as keen to hammer correct/safe tackle technique in to their players in the next training session? The big ‘but’ is that I think the ruck is a far more dangerous area if the Bakkies/Skelton approach is accepted as safe/legal. I’d accept most high tackles only being yellows if there were more of a crack-down on flying heads/shoulders in the ruck.

I stopped playing because of concussions, which I often regret, but every time I read more about it (and in particular that Hape article a few years back) I’m glad that I did.

For what it’s worth I’m 6’9” and don’t think I high tackled anybody even once. It never seemed like a particularly effective approach.

I'm 5'10 and I don't think I've high tackled. Mind, that's less virtuous and more that I've never been massive and might get laughed at if I tried chest-on-chest tackles.

Puja

I played mostly at 9 and thus wasn't presented with many front on tackles, but playing 10 and even at 5'9" showed it's very easy to catch someone high with a swinging arm even if I wouldn't have had many chances to put a shoulder into someone's head

It is a really tough area of the game. Not least because of size differentials and technique. It is simply false to think that tackles should be lower. It just isn’t realistic. I’ve coached kids for years and although everything is about technique and height he reality of a game situation is that most tackles are well above waist height. If you watch the pro game then the ratio of below waist and above waist is skewed massively. It is the way defence and natural instincts dictate, until you get close in / pick and drive.

I’m a Tigers fan and of course think it’s harsh in one sense, but by letter it is the right decision. I totally agree with that as things stand. What I will say is that it doesn’t take a head shot to cause concussion. All you need is head movement as that lovely brain that hangs semi loose in a cage moves into contact with said cage. I think we have over simplified the cause of concussive injury. A good chest shot can rattle the brain as much as a head shot, though angle and circumstance is always a factor.

From a personal perspective I’m in favour of serious foul play resulting in red, regardless of Sunday. Head shots happen. Always have, always will, and then add in height and movement etc. I don’t think it is as simple as stamping down on contact with the head for the tackler alone. There is much more to it.

It is not simple in any way. We do need to protect players, from themselves as much as anything.

So in short fuck knows

Oh and anyone that puts their child in a head guard and thinks it protects against concussions should be treated like an anti vaccination advocate.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Oh and anyone that puts their child in a head guard and thinks it protects against concussions should be treated like an anti vaccination advocate.

This.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Oh and anyone that puts their child in a head guard and thinks it protects against concussions should be treated like an anti vaccination advocate.

QFT. I'd be in favour of backs being banned from wearing them altogether. The clue is in the name as to what they're useful for.

Puja

Excellent article outlining some of the research into the tackle area. well worth a read - http://www.the42.ie/tackle-height-world ... =shortlink

fivepointer wrote:Excellent article outlining some of the research into the tackle area. well worth a read - http://www.the42.ie/tackle-height-world ... =shortlink

That is a good article. Very encouraging that they're being so data-led in their plans, rather than going off anecdotal ideas and what "feels right".

Puja

twitchy wrote: Also, just reading all these comments about how the "game has gone soft" from old ex players? How can they even say this when people are getting knocked out left right and centre and injuries are at an all time high.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Oh and anyone that puts their child in a head guard and thinks it protects against concussions should be treated like an anti vaccination advocate.

fivepointer wrote:Excellent article outlining some of the research into the tackle area. well worth a read - http://www.the42.ie/tackle-height-world ... =shortlink

I loved the shark attack/selfie example of misleading statistics.

One simple way to reverse the head injury trend is to ban all backs over 12 stones in weight and all forwards over 16 stones. The laws of the game were written when that was more or less the situation. Can simple momentum in impact be too much for flesh and bone with players 4 or 5 stones heavier? Obviously, bigger players are here to stay so the laws have to change. It may not suit traditionalists but realism must rule.

Mikey Brown wrote:I think you can perfectly well argue a game is ruined by certain red cards, but the game as a whole probably won’t exist much longer if you can’t play it without risking serious brain damage. Obviously there’s always going to be the chance of freak accidents like Crotty’s most recent concussion, but I wouldn’t think that is massively different to any other contact sport.

I can see both sides of it. The orange card might save tight games from becoming a non-contest, but in that scenario are the coaches quite as keen to hammer correct/safe tackle technique in to their players in the next training session? The big ‘but’ is that I think the ruck is a far more dangerous area if the Bakkies/Skelton approach is accepted as safe/legal. I’d accept most high tackles only being yellows if there were more of a crack-down on flying heads/shoulders in the ruck.

I stopped playing because of concussions, which I often regret, but every time I read more about it (and in particular that Hape article a few years back) I’m glad that I did.

For what it’s worth I’m 6’9” and don’t think I high tackled anybody even once. It never seemed like a particularly effective approach.

Wait a minute ... so you’re not the real Mike Brown?