The Rugby Union Thread

crunchman

Another article today on concussion:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/09/michael-lipman-if-i-knew-then-what-i-know-now-id-have-been-a-lot-more-careful

Here are a couple of quotes from it:

There is an old interview with Lipman from 2009, which he gave after he had suffered several concussions in a short space of time. In it, he says he had passed the mandatory cognitive tests, but still felt disorientated and after taking advice from a neurologist decided he should take some time off. He said then that he didn’t want to take a chance “not when the risks are of brain damage, memory loss, the shakes and all those sort of things”. He later admitted that around this time, two experts told him in private that he should retire. In the end, he played on for three more years. And now here he is.

Lipman remembers instances when he was concussed, and would find an excuse to go off to the blood bin “you’d get 10 minutes and that would help you” and then he’d go back on. “As a player, you’re not thinking straight, you’re always going to say: ‘I’m fine, I’m fine.’ I used to do it. You say whatever you need to say to get back on the field and help your friends.

Hopefully that blood bin kind of stuff wouldn't still happen now, but the passing the cognitive tests thing is worrying.  Unless the tests are more sophisticated, that kind of stuff could still happen.

Jalapeno

Rocker said:

crunchman said:

Just read that.  Not good.

The game has been heading down the tubes in the past number of years.  'Taking it into contact' is what the players are trained to do.  This has made Rugby a dangerous game.  The hits are getting harder.  Guys are all bulked up.  Everyone seems afraid to speak out about the dangers.  A classic 'Kings Clothes' situation.  Someone high up in the game is going to have to point out that the King is naked.  Before it is too late.

They are starting to ping it, but the crashes into ruck for "clear outs" look the most dangerous to me.  Admittedly most pings are for sealing-off, rather than reckless barrelling in head first.

As for footie, I think they are starting to take it seriously, most of the outright heading damage was caused by the older wet, thick leather balls which weighed a ton !  But it is still worth researching it in the modern game.

fretmeister

Jalapeno said:

Rocker said:

crunchman said:

Just read that.  Not good.

The game has been heading down the tubes in the past number of years.  'Taking it into contact' is what the players are trained to do.  This has made Rugby a dangerous game.  The hits are getting harder.  Guys are all bulked up.  Everyone seems afraid to speak out about the dangers.  A classic 'Kings Clothes' situation.  Someone high up in the game is going to have to point out that the King is naked.  Before it is too late.

They are starting to ping it, but the crashes into ruck for "clear outs" look the most dangerous to me.  Admittedly most pings are for sealing-off, rather than reckless barrelling in head first.

As for footie, I think they are starting to take it seriously, most of the outright heading damage was caused by the older wet, thick leather balls which weighed a ton !  But it is still worth researching it in the modern game.

I suspect they'll ban heading completely for under 18s reasonably soon. There's always more of an acceptance of change to protect kids.

Then a few years later do away with heading in the pro game as well, probably on the back of the NFL and RU litigation noting that the damage level may well be lower in football but a smaller risk is still a risk and the potential payouts in football may well get close to NFL levels (compensatory damages - not punitive ones because we don't have them. Thankfully).

crunchman

Jalapeno said:

As for footie, I think they are starting to take it seriously, most of the outright heading damage was caused by the older wet, thick leather balls which weighed a ton !  But it is still worth researching it in the modern game.

Just googled it and water repellent polyurethane coatings were used on leather balls from the 1970s.  By the late 80's they were using synthetic materials.

Some players who played in the 70s and 80s would be in their 60s by now.  That's older than Geoff Astle was when he died.  Are they exhibiting the same kind of symptoms as the players from 15 years earlier?  That's research that needs to happen urgently.

It does seem to affect some people worse than others.  If you look at Mohammed Ali, he was badly affected, but George Foreman seems mostly ok.  It's the same in the NFL.  You have MIke Webster dead at 50, but other members of that same Steelers team still seem to be going strong in their 70s.  The problem is that you don't know who will be ok, and who won't. 

Getting back to rugby, they have taken action, but they need to do more.  The first thing they should do is make George North retire yesterday.

fretmeister

barnstorm said:

crunchman said:

barnstorm said:

It's really sad. I wish they'd make major changes now and be done with it instead of fiddling at the edges while brains get scrambled and the sport gets slated.

Scrums have become pointless except as a way of tying up eight opposition players and could be replaced by line-outs (where the ball still goes in straight at least some of the time…).

I'd more or less scrap the ruck, too, by making the tackler (having released and got back up) the only person allowed to compete at the breakdown.

The contact point for tackles wants to be midriff or below to stop upright tackles and car-crash two-man hits, and I'd be in favour of straight yellows for obvious infractions even if innocuous, because it's the only way players will take it seriously.

I accept I'm at one extreme of a spectrum on the issue!

You have to make rules that work at all levels of the game. Ditching scrums isn't an option. 

In a 'they'd never go for it' sense or in a 'scrums are a vital part of the game' sense? Agree with the former!

They've become so disruptive to the flow with all the resets; they result in penalties half the time slowing the game further; the reffing of them is confusing/maddening for spectators, commentators and players alike (I hate the modern 'painting a picture for the ref' aspect of the game); and even with the hit gone there's a non-trivial danger of neck/spinal injuries given how often the scrum collapses.

Just not sure what purpose they can really serve anymore, and if you get rid of them along with the serious punishment dished out at the breakdown, the game becomes faster, more accessible to new players and more acceptable to all the parents who currently think 'not my kids'. It's a pretty different game, though, for sure.

No objection to the idea of fewer players to open things up – especially since I see no need for a traditional front row! – but if teams were forced to defend differently and make low and largely one-up tackles, line breaks would be more frequent anyway.

I guess what I really want to see is a professional version of the running schoolboy rugby I remember, where everybody was moderately dedicated to defence at best!

I wonder how much of a reduction in neck pressure there would be if the back row were removed.

Allow scrums but losing 3 heavy people from the pushing could make a massive difference on spine health for the front row. With lower pressures the front row wouldn't have to be so massive either, further lowering the weight and pressure.

Ban feeding on the put in so it becomes a hooking contest again - stops the hooker pushing like a prop. Then allow the locks to break and pick up the ball as if they were back row - that might cause locks to generally be lower in weight and more agile.

That would leave only 12 on the field but also probably lead to 5 of the fat ones being more agile.

Could be a great mix of traditional and sevens.

crunchman

fretmeister said:

I wonder how much of a reduction in neck pressure there would be if the back row were removed.

Allow scrums but losing 3 heavy people from the pushing could make a massive difference on spine health for the front row. With lower pressures the front row wouldn't have to be so massive either, further lowering the weight and pressure.

Ban feeding on the put in so it becomes a hooking contest again - stops the hooker pushing like a prop. Then allow the locks to break and pick up the ball as if they were back row - that might cause locks to generally be lower in weight and more agile.

That would leave only 12 on the field but also probably lead to 5 of the fat ones being more agile.

Could be a great mix of traditional and sevens.

I think that might be the way forward.  I'd keep 6 forwards, so you still have a number 8.  As the only loose forward, he would have to be mobile and fulfill the role of the openside though, so you wouldn't have great big lumps like Vunipola.

I'd be tempted to lose a back as well.  That would make more space from set pieces.  12 a side with 6 forwards and 6 backs would give a lot more space on the field, although smaller, more mobile forwards might close down some of that space.

The problem is what you do with the grass roots of the game.  My brother still plays at 49.  He plays Hooker these days, and can trundle from set piece to set piece ok.  Not sure he'd like the extra running that a 12 a side game would give.

fretmeister

crunchman said:

fretmeister said:

I wonder how much of a reduction in neck pressure there would be if the back row were removed.

Allow scrums but losing 3 heavy people from the pushing could make a massive difference on spine health for the front row. With lower pressures the front row wouldn't have to be so massive either, further lowering the weight and pressure.

Ban feeding on the put in so it becomes a hooking contest again - stops the hooker pushing like a prop. Then allow the locks to break and pick up the ball as if they were back row - that might cause locks to generally be lower in weight and more agile.

That would leave only 12 on the field but also probably lead to 5 of the fat ones being more agile.

Could be a great mix of traditional and sevens.

I think that might be the way forward.  I'd keep 6 forwards, so you still have a number 8.  As the only loose forward, he would have to be mobile and fulfill the role of the openside though, so you wouldn't have great big lumps like Vunipola.

I'd be tempted to lose a back as well.  That would make more space from set pieces.  12 a side with 6 forwards and 6 backs would give a lot more space on the field, although smaller, more mobile forwards might close down some of that space.

The problem is what you do with the grass roots of the game.  My brother still plays at 49.  He plays Hooker these days, and can trundle from set piece to set piece ok.  Not sure he'd like the extra running that a 12 a side game would give.

I'm not sure 49 year olds are the grass roots really. I've played most forward positions but at 47 I'm definitely not a root for the future. I stopped playing years ago when work got in the way.

But the young players might also get another 5 years playing with less damage.

sev112

Yes, I also think lose 1 back and 1 or 2 forwards.  

I also think we should ref the IMMEDIATE release of the ball by the tackled player.  We do not seem to ever look or talk about this, but it is because the tackled player spends so long releasing (or holding on) that the modern style of jackling and clearing out exists.  If the ball is really immediately available, then it requires old style rucks and driving over and a more fair contest.

and while we are on it, as you can’t touch the ball with your hands if you are lying on the floor, we should ref that person handing the ball backwards to their own player after they have been lying on it for ages.

koneguitarist

Bath getting a serious pasting tonight, I like Bristol and Bath generally bein* most local big clubs, but Bath seriously underpowered. The Old Bath pack of the 80’s must be embarrassed by this display. 

VimFuego

if it were a boxing match they'd have to stop it. As a neutral it's actually boring, I want to see a contest, swapped over to watch the tigers sale match

scrumhalf

Bath have lost their two starting locks after HIAs at the same time and in the early minutes of the game. That's bounf to have an effect, even if one of the replacements is Faletau. But they look like a team that hasn't been together for a while whereas Bristol are flying.

We at Wasps had Charles Piutau for only a short time but he was sheer class. He's retained that class, he's been great to watch.

I fear that Bath are going to get battered like a Mars bar in a Glaswegian chippie.

rsvmark

Bristol are on fire this season. 

On another note, covid restrictions and a fixture log jam resulted in bigger squad rotation and limited game time for the first choice XV. We saw second string and academy players getting match time. Training was also limited. Is another option to continue this and limit full contact training in the week- an approach iirc endorsed by some pros and thereby reduce the ferocity of and frequency of impacts overall....

VimFuego

wow, now that was a great match, Quins really on fire. How good was Smith, he has to be the form 10 in England right now. Not sure Quins have the depth in their squad to go all the way, but that was a fantastic performance. 

crunchman

rsvmark said:

Bristol are on fire this season. 

On another note, covid restrictions and a fixture log jam resulted in bigger squad rotation and limited game time for the first choice XV. We saw second string and academy players getting match time. Training was also limited. Is another option to continue this and limit full contact training in the week- an approach iirc endorsed by some pros and thereby reduce the ferocity of and frequency of impacts overall....

That's what the NFL has done.  They are only allowed one day of full contact padded practices per week (with the rules stipulating a couple of weeks off towards the end of the season).  They have also limited the number of padded practices in the pre-season training camp as well.

They are quite hot on it.  There have been some quite hefty fines handed out to teams, and to head coaches as individuals.  At least one team has had a draft pick taken away as a punishment as well.

scrumhalf

Speaking as a Wasp I have to admit that we stank the place out, too many players had poor games. We were a collection of blokes wearing the same kit rather than a team.

However, Luke Pearce was also very poor. We were on the wrong end of some truly crap refereeing. 

ewal

 

Never seen us both dominate AND win! Normally only manage one of the two. 

scrumhalf

England were dire. All of the Sarries contingent were coming into the game relatively cold, and with Farrell at 10 we had the imagination and flair of, well, buggerall.

I'd like to think we can't be that bad again, but you never know with Eddie.

digitalscream

That was the kind of performance England have been working towards for the last four years or so, so you have to give them props for achieving their goal.

Can't help feeling that Eddie's run his course here. He just doesn't have any other ideas, and neither do the players.

ewal

George Turner 3rd choice hooker - didn't lose a lineout. That sort of characterised Scotland's performance - they just didn't make the individual mistakes, mis-throws, knock-ons, over-ambitious touch finders (thinking of you Hoggie), we've come to expect. Will enjoy it this evening, but means nothing if they don't back it up with more wins.

cj73

Aye but I’m sending them the laundry bill for that drop goal attempt