High tackles

[Mellsblue]

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?

The real Mike Brown thinks he’s 6’ 9’’.

[Mikey Brown]

Well, I was speaking figuratively.

[fivepointer]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rugbys-d ... e-must-end

Another very good article, this time by Alex Shaw who is always worth reading.

He makes some very good points but doesnt address the one over riding issue facing the game: how can it be sustained in the light of the increasing physicality displayed by more powerful athletes that has led to greater injuries and the worrying rise in concussion.

[Mikey Brown]

I’m reading now that this falls under the banner of “too PC” according to Murphy.

I may have to go and look up what PC stands for.

[Puja]

Political correctness is a really weird term, cause it was actually invented by left wing people as a way of mocking someone who were overly dogmatic to their ideology and it suddenly morphed in the 90s into a rabid right wing scare story that minorities asking for greater equality was also a call for "Baa Baa Green Sheep", the banning of Christmas, and for gay people to take over everything.

Nowadays, I find that you can substitute "political correctness" for the phrase "being decent to everybody and treating them with respect" and you'll generally get the same meaning of the sentence.

Not sure what it has to do with high tackles though.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I’m reading now that this falls under the banner of “too PC” according to Murphy.

I may have to go and look up what PC stands for.

'Pansies' Charter'?

[Digby]

Bloody health and safety rubbish of a nanny state wherein we're expected to simply tolerate appliances in everyday life that don't blow up and maim or even kill us and further ancillary nonsense

[twitchy]

I’m reading now that this falls under the banner of “too PC” according to Murphy.

I may have to go and look up what PC stands for.

A term that lost all meaning through constant misuse.

High tackling in rugby offends lesbian muslims.

If we get out of the EU we will be able to high tackle to our hearts content.

[Which Tyler]

Political correctness is a really weird term, cause it was actually invented by left wing people as a way of mocking someone who were overly dogmatic to their ideology and it suddenly morphed in the 90s into a rabid right wing scare story that minorities asking for greater equality was also a call for "Baa Baa Green Sheep", the banning of Christmas, and for gay people to take over everything.

Nowadays, I find that you can substitute "political correctness" for the phrase "being decent to everybody and treating them with respect" and you'll generally get the same meaning of the sentence.

A bit like "Social Justice Warrior" as a perjury, even though I can't think of any better thing to become a warrior about then social justice (certainly not supporting Worcester).

[morepork]

Hard data that provides evidence for a linear relationship between the incidence of head trauma and long term brain damage is "politically correct".

What a plum duff.

[Raggs]

Hard data that provides evidence for a linear relationship between the incidence of head trauma and long term brain damage is "politically correct".

What a plum duff.

It may have been the hard data that shows that more concussions are caused per high tackle, than any other tackle type.

[bruce]

4 week ban.

[Stom]

BTW, I didn't see the incident, just heard the furore over it being harsh.

Well I've seen it now. That's about as straightforward a red as you're going to see...

[Puja]

While I support the ban, it does seem a bit laughable that Smith got away scot-free for pretty much the same thing.

Puja

[Stom]

While I support the ban, it does seem a bit laughable that Smith got away scot-free for pretty much the same thing.

Puja

While it is, of course, laughable, I do think Spencer's is worse. But both should be in the same ballpark ban figure...

[Mikey Brown]

I know I should just look this up but I kept hearing Smith’s red card had been rescinded. Was this an official position? It seems to me people often think no further punishment being required means that it wasn’t a red in the first place, as if an incident can never be worth exactly 1 red card.

[Stom]

I know I should just look this up but I kept hearing Smith’s red card had been rescinded. Was this an official position? It seems to me people often think no further punishment being required means that it wasn’t a red in the first place, as if an incident can never be worth exactly 1 red card.

I think it's because Smith's was deemed a red card offence and Spencer's worthy of a 4 week ban. Which seems a bit insane, considering they are extremely similar.

[fivepointer]

The panel ruled in favour of Smith, basically saying the officials screwed up and it shouldnt have been a red in the first place.
By the letter of the law, Spencer's red was right, but i'm not sure a 4 week ban following the red is entirely fair.
I note that Mark Lambert hasnt been cited for a tackle on Underhill that was almost a carbon copy of the Taylor/Spencer incident. If we want consistency then he should have been cited and been subject to a ban.

[Stom]

The panel ruled in favour of Smith, basically saying the officials screwed up and it shouldnt have been a red in the first place.
By the letter of the law, Spencer's red was right, but i'm not sure a 4 week ban following the red is entirely fair.
I note that Mark Lambert hasnt been cited for a tackle on Underhill that was almost a carbon copy of the Taylor/Spencer incident. If we want consistency then he should have been cited and been subject to a ban.

I'm not sure it was a carbon copy at all, tbh... He looked like he came in on shoulders and slipped up. If we're comparing the 3, his is the "least".

But if we are meant to be clamping down on high tackles, it should have been cited.

[Peej]

I imagine Murphy's comments may have done something to result in this ban. The commission aren't going to appear to back such outward criticism against one of their own refs, and probably likely to double down.

So basically, Murphy, you've been a dick twice in less than a week.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I imagine Murphy's comments may have done something to result in this ban. The commission aren't going to appear to back such outward criticism against one of their own refs, and probably likely to double down.

So basically, Murphy, you've been a dick twice in less than a week.

That doesn't affect in any way.

Spencer pleaded not guilty, so auto loses a week.

[Epaminondas Pules]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rugbys-d ... e-must-end

Another very good article, this time by Alex Shaw who is always worth reading.

He makes some very good points but doesnt address the one over riding issue facing the game: how can it be sustained in the light of the increasing physicality displayed by more powerful athletes that has led to greater injuries and the worrying rise in concussion.

Alex, who I really like, has been citing Lawes, Retallick etc on twitter as they tackle low. Well yes, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, it depends wholly on the circumstance of the tackle. Same as Spencer hitting high once doesn't mean he always hit's high, otherwise he'd constantly be in the dock m'lud. Which he isn't. It is not as simple as just tackle lower. That's not how defence works.

I still think it all oversimplifies the nature of how the brain makes contact with the hard case it lives in. It isn't simply a case of a head shot. There is a lot to do with head movement, which can be caused in many ways. Head movement can have significantly different effects. Back and forth, side to side and of course the bell ring effect. All have different potential repercussions.

I don't think in any way it is a simple problem, nor a simple solution and I don't think that red carding an already illegal offence will make too much difference. Nor will it ruin the game, as I don't see that many head shots as it is.

[oldbackrow]

Alex, who I really like, has been citing Lawes, Retallick etc on twitter as they tackle low. Well yes, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, it depends wholly on the circumstance of the tackle. Same as Spencer hitting high once doesn't mean he always hit's high, otherwise he'd constantly be in the dock m'lud. Which he isn't. It is not as simple as just tackle lower. That's not how defence works.

I still think it all oversimplifies the nature of how the brain makes contact with the hard case it lives in. It isn't simply a case of a head shot. There is a lot to do with head movement, which can be caused in many ways. Head movement can have significantly different effects. Back and forth, side to side and of course the bell ring effect. All have different potential repercussions.

I don't think in any way it is a simple problem, nor a simple solution and I don't think that red carding an already illegal offence will make too much difference. Nor will it ruin the game, as I don't see that many head shots as it is.

Very good points. I'd add that some of the research identifies 2/3 of incidents of concussion being from 'whiplash' type injuries and direct contact injuries (knee and hip to the head) to the tackler or by another tacklers head. So not as clear cut as "get those tackles lower".

[Mikey Brown]

I get the argument that other kinds of tackles can cause concussion, but that's surely a risk within a necessary part of the game (it'd have to be non-contact to avoid this entirely) whereas tackles that hit people in the head are already dangerous and unnecessary?

The Lambert one is interesting. There's a lot of head to head clashes that seem like bad luck, but I couldn't tell you why that is any less reckless from a tackler than if they hit the head with their shoulder. I guess you have to assume the intended point of impact is always with the shoulder.

[morepork]

Any sudden acceleration or deceleration that results in the brain moving position in your skull is defined as trauma. Suppose intent and risk is the issue, because you will never eliminate trauma entirely.