RugbyRebels

Research has clearly shown that high and upright tackles, lead to the greatest number of concussions for both tackler and tackled player, and that's per tackle.

So it really is as clear cut as getting those tackles lower to remove the most likely cause of concussion in the game.

Lambert one is interesting, I'd say no offence, but equally, if you're tackling upright like that, you're constantly going to be running the risk of sooner or later hitting high.

Smith got off because the footage didn't actually show the impact I believe, and he explained that by hitting the ball, it caused the whiplash to Wrays head, which made it appear that there was head contact. Wray also testified that there was no impact to the head.

Taylor gave an account for the Spencer one, so I'd be interested to see what that was. However Spencer tried to claim there was no contact with the head, when the footage clearly shows there was.

I see Bastareaud has received one week longer than Spencer for his forearm smash on a prone players head. Madness.

Good response from Murphy, although I wish this was reported as widely as his original comments rather than being down the bottom of another article: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... -ackermann

Having reflected on the high tackle which led to Spencer’s dismissal, Murphy accepts he should not have criticised the decision. “It’s really disappointing for me that in heat of the moment and as a young coach with no experience of that situation I shot my mouth a little bit when I needed to sit back and absorb a few things,” he said. “I felt afterwards that my comments may have belittled the laws and that wasn’t my intention.”

Puja

Kudos.

Adam_P wrote:I see Bastareaud has received one week longer than Spencer for his forearm smash on a prone players head. Madness.

Agree, but it's a different body administering the ban. It's like comparing fines for speeding in the Uk and in France. (quickly googles to check they aren't in fact the same)

4 pages....feck.

We'll adopt the below the nipple rule and it'll be fine.

Ben Kay has written a piece about this in today’s Times. The two notable things are that Smith had two ex-players on his disciplinary panel whilst Spencer had none. This difference, he argues, is why Smith’s red was overturned and Spencer was given a four week ban. Secondly, he argues that if there was no intent then the player should be sent off but replaced, thereby keeping his team at full strength. I think that is the orange card option? The stats:

Good stats, but presumably he means the tackled player, not the tackler - the tackler seems far more likely to hurt himself when contact is with a hip or knee

Which Tyler wrote:Good stats, but presumably he means the tackled player, not the tackler - the tackler seems far more likely to hurt himself when contact is with a hip or knee

That's not what World Rugby's data suggests: http://www.the42.ie/tackle-height-world ... =shortlink

World Rugby started by compiling a video library of 611 HIA events in games from 2013 until the end of 2015, taking in the World Cup, Pro12, Top 14, Super Rugby, European Cup, Challenge Cup and the Premiership.

One of the global body’s full-time analysts, a patient man named Ben Hester, then coded each of the incidents, demonstrating that 76% of the head injuries occurred in tackles.
...
One of the most interesting findings from the analysis was that 72% of the head injuries in tackles were sustained by the tackler.

The data also showed that the risk of injury to both players from a high-contact tackle ["when the tackler is upright"] is 4.3 times greater than a low-contact tackle.

Furthermore, head-on-head contact [again, "when the tackler is upright"] is 6.5 times more likely to result in a head injury than a lower head-to-hip tackle.

It's worth following the link (and the link inside the link for further raw data) as the study is reassuringly scientifically rigorous.

It's depressing how pleased I am by the idea of a powerful body using actual robust data and science to make policy decisions rather than going with what "feels right", what's politic, or (worst of all) using "common sense". Shows how rare it is in today's world.

Puja