RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:I think the point is that the players want to play. Certainly the two I know about want to stake claims early in the season. As above, a blanket rest period doesn’t suit some players.

I'd argue, strongly, that the point is that players want to play - and need to be protected from themselves.

Players also want to play after a head knock - that doesn't make it okay to do so.

Mellsblue wrote: Take the example of England’s three fullbacks on England’s summer tour. Furbank played no matches, Freeman played two and Steward played three. All had totally different loadings throughout the tour, not to mention the entire season. With all the GPS and smart gumshield data a blanket rest period is years out of date.

There's more to it than just physically playing. I've allowed elsewhere that I don't mind eating into the 10 weeks for those not playing in the last test - but they're still training, they're still in the gym, they're still in analysis meetings... they're still psychologically knackered.

As above, players need to be protected from themselves, and from their coaches. A blanker break may be out of date, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other option.

Mellsblue wrote: The players should have some autonomy. Given they’re on record that they would like shorter seasons and were brought in to discussions on the new ‘global’ season, it seems strange to completely remove them from this decision.

Obviously nowhere near my area of expertise, but I fail to see how tailoring breaks for each individual based on their, accurately measured, workloads can’t be achieved and can’t be the best case scenario. Sale did it with Tuilagi and kept him fit long enough for Jones to break him. Quins managed players workload so well, based on gps and smart gumshields, that they came from nowhere to win the Prem final.

Mellsblue wrote:Further to that, concussion protocols are based on each individual rather than a blanket rest period. Whether you think the current rules are too strict, too soft or about right nobody is asking for a one size fits all model.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:I think the point is that the players want to play. Certainly the two I know about want to stake claims early in the season. As above, a blanket rest period doesn’t suit some players.

I'd argue, strongly, that the point is that players want to play - and need to be protected from themselves.
Coaches also want their players to play - and players need to be protected from their coaches too.

Players also want to play after a head knock - that doesn't make it okay to do so.

As for my Fry clip - this sort of thing is literally the job of the RPA.

Mellsblue wrote: Take the example of England’s three fullbacks on England’s summer tour. Furbank played no matches, Freeman played two and Steward played three. All had totally different loadings throughout the tour, not to mention the entire season. With all the GPS and smart gumshield data a blanket rest period is years out of date.

There's more to it than just physically playing. I've allowed elsewhere that I don't mind eating into the 10 weeks for those not playing in the last test - but they're still training, they're still in the gym, they're still in analysis meetings... they're still psychologically knackered.

As above, players need to be protected from themselves, and from their coaches. A blanker break may be out of date, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other option.
If you've got an alternative, with any sort of science behind it, then I'm all ears. As it is, a continuous break is by far the best thing for these players.


On the one hand, we've got Genge banging the drum for player welfare, and being better looked after (and better paid) by the club. On the other hand, we've got Ellis Genge refusing to look after himself because welfare be damned, he wants to play.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The players should have some autonomy. Given they’re on record that they would like shorter seasons and were brought in to discussions on the new ‘global’ season, it seems strange to completely remove them from this decision.

Obviously nowhere near my area of expertise, but I fail to see how tailoring breaks for each individual based on their, accurately measured, workloads can’t be achieved and can’t be the best case scenario. Sale did it with Tuilagi and kept him fit long enough for Jones to break him. Quins managed players workload so well, based on gps and smart gumshields, that they came from nowhere to win the Prem final.

I'm not denying them autonomy, nor am I preventing tailoring things based on individual needs.
I'm applying a minimum requirement as being a minimum requirement.

I'm also saying that players and coaches are absolutely terrible at tailoring things to an individuals needs, because they're simply not qualified to do so - that's down the medical (physical and mental) health staff to do, it's literally their job.

Examples of players requiring more than the minimum is a terrible argument for suggesting that the minimum is too much.

Mellsblue wrote:Further to that, concussion protocols are based on each individual rather than a blanket rest period. Whether you think the current rules are too strict, too soft or about right nobody is asking for a one size fits all model.

And thank you for providing me with proof of my point.
There's a compulsory minimum, with "tailoring" beyond that - exactly as I'm suggesting.

Timbo wrote:With concussion there’s also guarding against the (strong) possibility that players will be cognitively impaired. They need someone to take the decision making burden off of them. Nowell and Genge are very experienced players in full knowledge of how a long professional season impacts their bodies. If they want to play then they are fully capable of giving informed consent, unlike somebody recovering from brain trauma.

The returning England players couldn’t have any more leverage over their clubs/coaches. They are all at the top of their sport, most on multi year guaranteed contracts worth hundreds of thousands of £££’s. There’s very little a coach could say to force them back on the field before the 10 weeks are up.

Mellsblue wrote:Quins asked the RFU for permission to play Smith this weekend but were rebuffed.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Quins asked the RFU for permission to play Smith this weekend but were rebuffed.

While Sarries were given permission to play Itoje, the Vunipolae, George, and Farrell...

Stinks.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Quins asked the RFU for permission to play Smith this weekend but were rebuffed.

While Sarries were given permission to play Itoje, the Vunipolae, George, and Farrell...

Stinks.

Think it’s based on workload last season.

Which Tyler wrote:I'm sure Marcus's 1550 minuteswere a lot more wearing than Owen's 1990 minutes

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I'm sure Marcus's 1550 minuteswere a lot more wearing than Owen's 1990 minutes

How sure? You’ve included 20/21 mins. Quick maths as I’m watching the match but Smith played approx 170 more mins in 21/22.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I'm sure Marcus's 1550 minuteswere a lot more wearing than Owen's 1990 minutes

How sure? You’ve included 20/21 mins. Quick maths as I’m watching the match but Smith played approx 170 more mins in 21/22.

I literally linked it.
If statbunker have it wrong, then that's on them

Which Tyler wrote:https://www.bathrugby.com/club-news/inj ... eno-obano/