RugbyRebels

Spiffy wrote:

Digby wrote:I would like to say again we shouldn't allow tackles that target the knee. In this instance there was a lineout a few minutes before where Willis came down mostly on his right leg, and I did wonder if he'd jarred something then, but we still shouldn't allow the knees to be a target

If you tackle in the traditional way - around the legs - it's practically impossible to avoid the knees. A law forbidding it would be difficult to enforce. Cruel luck for young Willis, who looked as though he could play himself on to the test team.

Above the knees seems fine to me as a starting point just not on the knees (or below) other than when sliding down or a tap tackle say. And this already exists in similar sporting rules so it's hardly ground breaking.

If one wanted to take a simple first step, and this would sadly overlook dangerous chop tackles, you could work on the height of the tackler by penalising players who go off their feet. So for instance with the Willis injury Farrell was down on his knees whilst making the tackle, and it would start to encourage higher points of contact if players expected they'd be penalised playing whilst in theory being off their feet and out of the game

And just to be clear I don't blame Farrell in this instance, he's only doing what's normally allowed, it's what's normally allowed I have the problem with

Digby wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Digby wrote:I would like to say again we shouldn't allow tackles that target the knee. In this instance there was a lineout a few minutes before where Willis came down mostly on his right leg, and I did wonder if he'd jarred something then, but we still shouldn't allow the knees to be a target

If you tackle in the traditional way - around the legs - it's practically impossible to avoid the knees. A law forbidding it would be difficult to enforce. Cruel luck for young Willis, who looked as though he could play himself on to the test team.

Above the knees seems fine to me as a starting point just not on the knees (or below) other than when sliding down or a tap tackle say. And this already exists in similar sporting rules so it's hardly ground breaking.

If one wanted to take a simple first step, and this would sadly overlook dangerous chop tackles, you could work on the height of the tackler by penalising players who go off their feet. So for instance with the Willis injury Farrell was down on his knees whilst making the tackle, and it would start to encourage higher points of contact if players expected they'd be penalised playing whilst in theory being off their feet and out of the game

And just to be clear I don't blame Farrell in this instance, he's only doing what's normally allowed, it's what's normally allowed I have the problem with

I think its pretty unenforceable -as in determining whether the knee is targeted. Absolute pi55er for Willis, poor lad; hope he can come back as good as new, though I have reservations.

On the grass/artificial question, I have seen very similar injuries on grass, but its definitely worth an investigation as to whether the composition makes a difference.

I'd say it's more likely that him wearing a boot with 700 studs was more of a contributor to his foot sticking than the pitch.

Puja

Apparently ACL injuries are 4 x more likely on plastic pitches.

twitchy wrote:Apparently ACL injuries are 4 x more likely on plastic pitches.

Does that mean/include American Football pitches? I think their pitches are pretty different in general to the Allianz one. MInd, just guessing.

https://www.pitchcare.com/news-media/ir ... cerns.html


An admission that anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries were nearly four times higher on artificial turf than grass was described in the report as "not statistically significant" but a footnote said that the phenomenon was "worthy of further study".

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Spiffy wrote:
If you tackle in the traditional way - around the legs - it's practically impossible to avoid the knees. A law forbidding it would be difficult to enforce. Cruel luck for young Willis, who looked as though he could play himself on to the test team.

Above the knees seems fine to me as a starting point just not on the knees (or below) other than when sliding down or a tap tackle say. And this already exists in similar sporting rules so it's hardly ground breaking.

If one wanted to take a simple first step, and this would sadly overlook dangerous chop tackles, you could work on the height of the tackler by penalising players who go off their feet. So for instance with the Willis injury Farrell was down on his knees whilst making the tackle, and it would start to encourage higher points of contact if players expected they'd be penalised playing whilst in theory being off their feet and out of the game

And just to be clear I don't blame Farrell in this instance, he's only doing what's normally allowed, it's what's normally allowed I have the problem with

I think its pretty unenforceable -as in determining whether the knee is targeted. Absolute pi55er for Willis, poor lad; hope he can come back as good as new, though I have reservations.

On the grass/artificial question, I have seen very similar injuries on grass, but its definitely worth an investigation as to whether the composition makes a difference.

I don't care if the knee is targeted, I care if the knee or below is struck. So as with tackler slipping up it's on the tackler to get it right or they get pinged

Edit - Well I do care, but akin to the high tackle they can sort out intent after the match, during the match its either high or not and I'd allow it can be low or not

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Above the knees seems fine to me as a starting point just not on the knees (or below) other than when sliding down or a tap tackle say. And this already exists in similar sporting rules so it's hardly ground breaking.

If one wanted to take a simple first step, and this would sadly overlook dangerous chop tackles, you could work on the height of the tackler by penalising players who go off their feet. So for instance with the Willis injury Farrell was down on his knees whilst making the tackle, and it would start to encourage higher points of contact if players expected they'd be penalised playing whilst in theory being off their feet and out of the game

And just to be clear I don't blame Farrell in this instance, he's only doing what's normally allowed, it's what's normally allowed I have the problem with

I think its pretty unenforceable -as in determining whether the knee is targeted. Absolute pi55er for Willis, poor lad; hope he can come back as good as new, though I have reservations.

On the grass/artificial question, I have seen very similar injuries on grass, but its definitely worth an investigation as to whether the composition makes a difference.

I don't care if the knee is targeted, I care if the knee or below is struck. So as with tackler slipping up it's on the tackler to get it right or they get pinged

Edit - Well I do care, but akin to the high tackle they can sort out intent after the match, during the match its either high or not and I'd allow it can be low or not

To be clear, you originally said ban tackles that target the knee, now you are saying that knee or below is struck? Again I think near unenforceable and a sledgehammer to crack a grape.

twitchy wrote:https://www.pitchcare.com/news-media/ir ... cerns.html


An admission that anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries were nearly four times higher on artificial turf than grass was described in the report as "not statistically significant" but a footnote said that the phenomenon was "worthy of further study".

Hmm. Very old study on tiny numbers. As I said though, needs a look to see if pitch technology can be improved.

Sanderson being linked to the vacant coaching spot. I'd be happy with that he seems like a really good guy to have around the camp in a world cup.

We could also hopefully get him straight in on the SA tour.

Sarries/McCall have issued a hands off, though.

There's an aussie defence coach now on the market...

Phil Blake has left Wasps now his contract has expired, clearly not planned for though, and very likely as a result of the last month or so getting worse and worse. The defensive effort of the final last season probably bought him some grace, and I suspect is why they didn't start looking to replace him immediately.

Mellsblue wrote:Sarries/McCall have issued a hands off, though.

That didn't mean too much last time.

That would actually be a cast iron way of telling if Gustard's left because the Quins job was just too good an opportunity to pass up or because Jones was pissing him off. Presumably Sanderson and Gustard still get on and I'd imagine the first thing that would happen after an approach would be a phone call to check out why Gustard had left. If Sanderson signs up, everything's okay with the camp.

Mind, this would be the third Saracens defensive coach that England have poached and the previous two have failed to bring the defensive attitude across with them.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think its pretty unenforceable -as in determining whether the knee is targeted. Absolute pi55er for Willis, poor lad; hope he can come back as good as new, though I have reservations.

On the grass/artificial question, I have seen very similar injuries on grass, but its definitely worth an investigation as to whether the composition makes a difference.

I don't care if the knee is targeted, I care if the knee or below is struck. So as with tackler slipping up it's on the tackler to get it right or they get pinged

Edit - Well I do care, but akin to the high tackle they can sort out intent after the match, during the match its either high or not and I'd allow it can be low or not

To be clear, you originally said ban tackles that target the knee, now you are saying that knee or below is struck? Again I think near unenforceable and a sledgehammer to crack a grape.

Ah, I wasn't intending to imply an intentional strike, so as per usual that was poor phrasing. I've some sympathy with the idea going after all tackles which result in impacting the knee or lower (that aren't tackles which slide down or are tap tackles) is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but for me I prefer that to the odd mangled knee

And tbh we've got people talking about replacing 4G pitches with grass based on Farrrell piling into the inside of a knee not looking where he was going, and banning that sort of tackle seems more relevant than changing the pitch in this instance

This doesn't really fit here; but it's not really worth a thread of its own; and we are talking about injuries in here; so...


https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/sport/ot ... rs-1596374
56 players used
9 managed to play 50% of the available minutes
4 of whom would have been considered first choice in their positions during pre-season.

Of course, we don't know what these stats are for everyone else.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I don't care if the knee is targeted, I care if the knee or below is struck. So as with tackler slipping up it's on the tackler to get it right or they get pinged

Edit - Well I do care, but akin to the high tackle they can sort out intent after the match, during the match its either high or not and I'd allow it can be low or not

To be clear, you originally said ban tackles that target the knee, now you are saying that knee or below is struck? Again I think near unenforceable and a sledgehammer to crack a grape.

Ah, I wasn't intending to imply an intentional strike, so as per usual that was poor phrasing. I've some sympathy with the idea going after all tackles which result in impacting the knee or lower (that aren't tackles which slide down or are tap tackles) is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but for me I prefer that to the odd mangled knee

And tbh we've got people talking about replacing 4G pitches with grass based on Farrrell piling into the inside of a knee not looking where he was going, and banning that sort of tackle seems more relevant than changing the pitch in this instance

I'm not advocating either. Knee-jerk, springs to mind, pardon the pun.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Above the knees seems fine to me as a starting point just not on the knees (or below) other than when sliding down or a tap tackle say. And this already exists in similar sporting rules so it's hardly ground breaking.

If one wanted to take a simple first step, and this would sadly overlook dangerous chop tackles, you could work on the height of the tackler by penalising players who go off their feet. So for instance with the Willis injury Farrell was down on his knees whilst making the tackle, and it would start to encourage higher points of contact if players expected they'd be penalised playing whilst in theory being off their feet and out of the game

And just to be clear I don't blame Farrell in this instance, he's only doing what's normally allowed, it's what's normally allowed I have the problem with

I think its pretty unenforceable -as in determining whether the knee is targeted. Absolute pi55er for Willis, poor lad; hope he can come back as good as new, though I have reservations.

On the grass/artificial question, I have seen very similar injuries on grass, but its definitely worth an investigation as to whether the composition makes a difference.

I don't care if the knee is targeted, I care if the knee or below is struck. So as with tackler slipping up it's on the tackler to get it right or they get pinged

Edit - Well I do care, but akin to the high tackle they can sort out intent after the match, during the match its either high or not and I'd allow it can be low or not

Sounds as though you advocating no high and no low tackles. Much of the stuff that gets pinged for high tackling these days is actually harmless and results from a player falling into the tackle with no nasty intent on the part of the tackler. I think we are in danger of over-regulating what happens on a rugby pitch and destroying the physical game as we know it.
Maybe all jerseys should have a target area highlighted - say four inches below and four above the belly button, and all other tackles outlawed? But that might just lead to even more technical problems on the precise position of individual bellly buttons.

lol

Other than needing to prove he can catch and tackle, I can see Woodward’s point.

Spiffy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think its pretty unenforceable -as in determining whether the knee is targeted. Absolute pi55er for Willis, poor lad; hope he can come back as good as new, though I have reservations.

On the grass/artificial question, I have seen very similar injuries on grass, but its definitely worth an investigation as to whether the composition makes a difference.

I don't care if the knee is targeted, I care if the knee or below is struck. So as with tackler slipping up it's on the tackler to get it right or they get pinged

Edit - Well I do care, but akin to the high tackle they can sort out intent after the match, during the match its either high or not and I'd allow it can be low or not

Sounds as though you advocating no high and no low tackles. Much of the stuff that gets pinged for high tackling these days is actually harmless and results from a player falling into the tackle with no nasty intent on the part of the tackler. I think we are in danger of over-regulating what happens on a rugby pitch and destroying the physical game as we know it.
Maybe all jerseys should have a target area highlighted - say four inches below and four above the belly button, and all other tackles outlawed? But that might just lead to even more technical problems on the precise position of individual bellly buttons.

I'm in favour of just that, above the knee and below the armpit would be my mantra

Mellsblue wrote:Other than needing to prove he can catch and tackle, I can see Woodward’s point.

I wonder if Eddie's blitz wouldn't suit Ashton more, there's less decision making involved as everyone defaults to a go forward stance

Didn’t he just break the top 14 try record?

Oh yeah, no advantage to keeping as many of the EPS in England as possible at all, apart from release and training days, not having to release them back to their clubs mid-6N, not having the summer tour stamped on by the fact that the Top14 is *still* going, not having our domestic league weakened by a diaspora, and weakening what few club combos we have. Totally worth throwing all that out for a player who's not as good as Daly or May and so wouldn't be in the starting XV anyway.

Tl;dr - Fuck off Clive.

Puja

There isnt an argument any more. Its now well established that if you decide to play outside England you rule yourself out of consideration for selection.
The policy is the right one and has undoubtedly helped the national side, as well as the Premiership by keeping most of our top player here.
Woodward knows this and I bet would have supported it if it was in place when he was England coach.