RugbyRebels

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... hing-good/

Good, informed chat. worth a listen.

He makes an interesting point about impact subs being conditioned to only play 25 mins coming up against tired players and this contributing to injuries.

My only question with that (and I genuinely don't know). At what period of the match so most injuries occur (any stats on this)? From just the top of my head I seem to remember injuries happening loads in the first half and even the first few minutes of many of the games I've seen this season.

I'd be inclined to think it's a unintended consequence of the laws being changed to keep the ball in play more.

twitchy wrote:He makes an interesting point about impact subs being conditioned to only play 25 mins coming up against tired players and this contributing to injuries.

My only question with that (and I genuinely don't know). At what period of the match so most injuries occur (any stats on this)? From just the top of my head I seem to remember injuries happening loads in the first half and even the first few minutes of many of the games I've seen this season.

I'd be inclined to think it's a unintended consequence of the laws being changed to keep the ball in play more.

He's been banging on about this for years. Not that I'm saying he's wrong but it has nothing to do with the current spike, I'd suggest.

I favour the idea of reducing the number of subs. Like Moore I don't exactly have the science to back up that viewpoint, but it makes sense to me, far more so than the idea of rolling subs which I recall Johnno getting behind a few seasons back.

I think the subs coming on in the last quarter when players are taking still more hit would likely play into a greater likelihood of injury, we know fatigue is a factor, and it must mean you're more often not quite in the right position to make a tackle. That doesn't always mean an injury will occur in that instance, but on face value I'd accept it adds to the niggles which can continue to become injuries. Still, for all I know the 4G pitches are making a bigger contribution.

Does any one have access to actual stats on the main injury time periods though?

The only problem with restricting the number of subs is that teams will play silly beggars to still get what they want. If you say that there's only 3 non-injury subs, you'll get people "limping" off. If you say that there's only 5 subs but that has to cover all injuries as well, you'll get people suddenly needing HIAs like in the France vs Wales game.

Plus restricting subs is more likely to see players playing through injuries cause they can't come off, which wouldn't be ideal.

Puja

Totally agree it would be a disaster in the current climate.

This week's Rugby Pod......Narroway is a disgusting human being.......who is nicknamed A Bow?

If teams need HIA or players coming off injured let them, and they can just play with 14 if they've used up subs. If teams allow a player to stay on when they need an HIA they can be demoted from whatever tournament they play in.

Digby wrote:If teams need HIA or players coming off injured let them, and they can just play with 14 if they've used up subs. If teams allow a player to stay on when they need an HIA they can be demoted from whatever tournament they play in.

As can be seen from many examples, the authorities haven't got the minerals for such a stance.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If teams need HIA or players coming off injured let them, and they can just play with 14 if they've used up subs. If teams allow a player to stay on when they need an HIA they can be demoted from whatever tournament they play in.

As can be seen from many examples, the authorities haven't got the minerals for such a stance.

Puja

The various physios and doctors likely have an ethics code though

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If teams need HIA or players coming off injured let them, and they can just play with 14 if they've used up subs. If teams allow a player to stay on when they need an HIA they can be demoted from whatever tournament they play in.

As can be seen from many examples, the authorities haven't got the minerals for such a stance.

Puja

The various physios and doctors likely have an ethics code though

As can be seen from the many examples, the physios' and medics' codes appear flexible. Cf. Ryan, Matu'u, North, et al.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
As can be seen from many examples, the authorities haven't got the minerals for such a stance.

Puja

The various physios and doctors likely have an ethics code though

As can be seen from the many examples, the physios' and medics' codes appear flexible. Cf. Ryan, Matu'u, North, et al.

Puja

And yet in the Tom Williams case, minor damage in relative terms and even a cut he asked for and they properly went to town, so it can be done.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
The various physios and doctors likely have an ethics code though

As can be seen from the many examples, the physios' and medics' codes appear flexible. Cf. Ryan, Matu'u, North, et al.

Puja

And yet in the Tom Williams case, minor damage in relative terms and even a cut he asked for and they properly went to town, so it can be done.

I'd proffer that that actually backs my point a little bit more - the physio and the medic were both willing to bend their code of ethics for the team. And that one only went somewhere because Williams was such an appalling actor and made it so obvious that there couldn't not be an outcry. Leicester literally got away with claiming that Ryan stayed down after smacking his head because he was winded, and he was only wobbling his head and reeling because he was a bit overdramatic - anything even remotely credible and the authorities are desperate not to take action.

Don't get me wrong - I think your principle is right, I just think that all the unions and the IRB are cowardly and spineless.

Puja

I'd also point out that in medical terms, there's a huge difference between missing a diagnosis (didn't see the video; had a different opinion to absolutely everyone else) and actively doing harm (I cut him with a scalpel for no good reason).

The Williams case goes to show just how far some medics / physios will go to put the team's interest ahead of the patient's; and as said, nly got investigated because Williams was such a dick about it (acutally, IIRC the medical negligence itself only happened because Williams was such a dick about it).

I''d still reduce the size of the bench and the number of allowed subs. With a hope it would over time change the culture of what's possible in terms of player size given a likely need to play 80 minutes.

Digby wrote:I''d still reduce the size of the bench and the number of allowed subs. With a hope it would over time change the culture of what's possible in terms of player size given a likely need to play 80 minutes.

Why not just go back to the old days & have 'replacements' & not 'substitutes' & as has been said 'replace' only
for an injury. So if your TH doesn't get injured you can't replace him.

belgarion wrote:

Digby wrote:I''d still reduce the size of the bench and the number of allowed subs. With a hope it would over time change the culture of what's possible in terms of player size given a likely need to play 80 minutes.

Why not just go back to the old days & have 'replacements' & not 'substitutes' & as has been said 'replace' only
for an injury. So if your TH doesn't get injured you can't replace him.

Because then everyone would develop a horrible limp as they were "replaced"?

Puja

Puja wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Digby wrote:I''d still reduce the size of the bench and the number of allowed subs. With a hope it would over time change the culture of what's possible in terms of player size given a likely need to play 80 minutes.

Why not just go back to the old days & have 'replacements' & not 'substitutes' & as has been said 'replace' only
for an injury. So if your TH doesn't get injured you can't replace him.

Because then everyone would develop a horrible limp as they were "replaced"?

Puja

Yup.

To be honest, I'd like to go to rolling subs. I get there's massive problems with that, but right now there's enough of an open door for people to cheat over substitutions by claiming injury that I'd like to bolt it and the only way to do it is allow everyone to do what they want.

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote:

belgarion wrote:
Why not just go back to the old days & have 'replacements' & not 'substitutes' & as has been said 'replace' only
for an injury. So if your TH doesn't get injured you can't replace him.

Because then everyone would develop a horrible limp as they were "replaced"?

Puja

Yup.

To be honest, I'd like to go to rolling subs. I get there's massive problems with that, but right now there's enough of an open door for people to cheat over substitutions by claiming injury that I'd like to bolt it and the only way to do it is allow everyone to do what they want.

Definitely against that. That way lies having a 25st behemoth who you only bring on for 10 minutes at a time. Injury doesn't currently allow you to make subs anywhere but the front row and so I don't see a huge issue with fakery currently.

Puja

Apols for resurrecting this but I was reading it during h/t of the American football. Haven't listened to the podcast.
The 'story' of a rugby game is a critical part of the entertainment factor and the last 10 mins can be the most fun, when everyone is knackered the gaps appear and the gutsy, technical or skilful players can all exploit the situation. Individually or collectively. Too many subs damages the story for me.

this weeks edition here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... abit-know/

Ritchie gray (Montpelier coach) is very interesting on the issue of reducing injuries. Basically manage the players better during the week and keep full contact work to a minimum. That, and work to develop first class technique.

its a good listen.

fivepointer wrote:this weeks edition here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... abit-know/

Ritchie gray (Montpelier coach) is very interesting on the issue of reducing injuries. Basically manage the players better during the week and keep full contact work to a minimum. That, and work to develop first class technique.

its a good listen.

BOD was saying the other day in the last few years of his career he hardly did any contact work in training other than preseason, and that once the season proper had started you're getting more than enough bashing on a Saturday and that with video work, and with work on getting into the right positions to effect a tackle and be in the right position over the ball there was no point in following through with contact in training.

Basically from an Irish perspective us English are luddites, and it's hard to argue against such a view.

fivepointer wrote:this weeks edition here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... abit-know/

Ritchie gray (Montpelier coach) is very interesting on the issue of reducing injuries. Basically manage the players better during the week and keep full contact work to a minimum. That, and work to develop first class technique.

its a good listen.

Yes, that part of the broadcast I found fascinating. The rest of it was rather less interesting with the guests seemingly trying to outdo each other in the number of times that they "totally agree(d)" with Brian Moore.

Still, it really is worth a listen each week.

Recently I've come round to the idea that we can't reduce the subs as HIA checks are needed

What I would propose is some sort of endurance test to prevent some players being conditioned for 25 mins.

It could be something as simple as running a 10K in 50 mins on grass or a treadmill

Some players would argue their knees couldn't take it so another way to measure endurance for an hour.

That would prevent specific conditioning of guys for 25-60 mins.