Mellsblue wrote:I’m not sure anyone thinks it’s case closed, I certainly don’t, it was just a rebuttal to the certainty contained in ‘the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage’.
Id love to see the end of tactical subs and I do think that would make a significant impact on injuries in general.
Agreed on subs, or at least a limitation. Maybe 4 subs in total, including for blood/injury/our proposed white/orange card idea.
Puja
Subs for injuries as it used to be and blood replacements. Also happy for a sub after the 20 mins is up for an orange card. And thats it.
For the bench you would still need a replacement front row, plus one other replacement forward would be fair to cover the back 5. Perhaps also 2 backs, given the scrum half is such a specialist position in many ways? Thats 6, but unless you go uncontested scrums, you would need specialist LH and TH props, plus a hooker, so thats a constraint on reducing the number of subs. Big difference would be they would get used a lot less.
It would also open up space as big forwards would start getting tired ta the 60 minute mark, so backs would find more space on the pitch. Or forwards would become more athletic as a result. Either way it might make the game more open.
Sandydragon wrote:
Id love to see the end of tactical subs and I do think that would make a significant impact on injuries in general.
Agreed on subs, or at least a limitation. Maybe 4 subs in total, including for blood/injury/our proposed white/orange card idea.
Puja
Subs for injuries as it used to be and blood replacements. Also happy for a sub after the 20 mins is up for an orange card. And thats it.
For the bench you would still need a replacement front row, plus one other replacement forward would be fair to cover the back 5. Perhaps also 2 backs, given the scrum half is such a specialist position in many ways? Thats 6, but unless you go uncontested scrums, you would need specialist LH and TH props, plus a hooker, so thats a constraint on reducing the number of subs. Big difference would be they would get used a lot less.
It would also open up space as big forwards would start getting tired ta the 60 minute mark, so backs would find more space on the pitch. Or forwards would become more athletic as a result. Either way it might make the game more open.
The only problem with banning tactical and having injury and blood replacements separate is that it's an invitation for cheating. As it turns out, the big 24 stone prop always turns his ankle 55 minutes into the game and needs to come off for the young starlet. Then you get into enforcing whether he's really injured or not and that's a mess.
Better to say 4 subs all game - sure, you can use them tactically if you want, but if a player goes down injured, that's your problem for having used them and you go down to 14. Only exception is for head injuries to make sure people aren't being forced to play through and cheating that can be easily enforced by making any player going off for a permanent HIA must miss the next week's match.
Mellsblue wrote:Independent doctor to assess the injury and the player’s bag checked for joke shop receipts?
How can you check it an injury other than taking the player's word when they say, "Yeah, it hurts when I move it"?
Puja
Don’t know, I’m not a doctor, but there was a move to independent doctors for HIA, iirc.
Glad to see you’re not contending searching the injured player’s bag for joke shop receipts. That move is inarguable.
Mellsblue wrote:Independent doctor to assess the injury and the player’s bag checked for joke shop receipts?
How can you check it an injury other than taking the player's word when they say, "Yeah, it hurts when I move it"?
Puja
Don’t know, I’m not a doctor, but there was a move to independent doctors for HIA, iirc.
Glad to see you’re not contending searching the injured player’s bag for joke shop receipts. That move is inarguable.
Frankly, I'd say it would be laughable if anyone did try and argue against it.
Puja wrote:
Agreed on subs, or at least a limitation. Maybe 4 subs in total, including for blood/injury/our proposed white/orange card idea.
Puja
Subs for injuries as it used to be and blood replacements. Also happy for a sub after the 20 mins is up for an orange card. And thats it.
For the bench you would still need a replacement front row, plus one other replacement forward would be fair to cover the back 5. Perhaps also 2 backs, given the scrum half is such a specialist position in many ways? Thats 6, but unless you go uncontested scrums, you would need specialist LH and TH props, plus a hooker, so thats a constraint on reducing the number of subs. Big difference would be they would get used a lot less.
It would also open up space as big forwards would start getting tired ta the 60 minute mark, so backs would find more space on the pitch. Or forwards would become more athletic as a result. Either way it might make the game more open.
The only problem with banning tactical and having injury and blood replacements separate is that it's an invitation for cheating. As it turns out, the big 24 stone prop always turns his ankle 55 minutes into the game and needs to come off for the young starlet. Then you get into enforcing whether he's really injured or not and that's a mess.
Better to say 4 subs all game - sure, you can use them tactically if you want, but if a player goes down injured, that's your problem for having used them and you go down to 14. Only exception is for head injuries to make sure people aren't being forced to play through and cheating that can be easily enforced by making any player going off for a permanent HIA must miss the next week's match.
Puja
Someone will always try it on. When caught out bring on significant fines and bans for all concerned, even coaches. No system is perfect but having the occasional cheat is less of an issue to having a set of replacement running at tired players
That tackle today on Barrett by the Bok winger today demonstrates why a red card is needed which results in a permanent loss of player. That tackle was horrific and assuming it had happened on the 50th minute, and the player involved wasn’t injured himself, that didn’t deserve a return to the field.
I am of the opinion that introducing an "Orange" card is pointless, either the player has committed an offence which has a high level of danger or not, intent is not a mitigating factor as there are plenty of instances where players do reckless things and that just introduces another grey area, as it stands players should be aware that they will be sent off if they endanger another player.
If player welfare is to be taken seriously then this neess to remain in place.
England and Ireland have had a spate of red cards whereas I can't remember the last time Wales had one so perhaps this is coaching as much as anything else.
I would say that the Sanzar nations don't seem to have the same concerns, perhaps due to the macho cultures that predominate.
When you hear people saying the game is going soft it's particularly galling.
Numbers wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 1:44 pmWhen you hear people saying the game is going soft it's particularly galling.
Agreed. Cannot stand it when the commentators are sitting there grousing about a yellow card for head contact of "Oh, that's soft. That's a rubbish decision. Nothing intentional in that whatsoever. The ref's followed the framework exactly, so there's nothing he can do differently, but... no, that's never a yellow card" (almost word for word a David Flatman quote from the other week).
1) That's the laws of the game, so it's a yellow card.
2) That's the laws of the game specifically because if you stand upright in a tackle instead of bending at the waist like we teach 8 year olds, then it is officially **your** **fault** if head contact happens and we'd like to still have a sport in 10 years time thank you very much.
