WR recommendations for injury prevention

[Which Tyler]

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/2019/0 ... endations/

50:22 kick proposal. If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents’ 22 or from inside their own 22 into their opponents’ half, they will throw in to the resultant lineout. Rationale: To create space by forcing players to drop back out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

Not sure this will make much difference, a well organised back 3 should have this covered anyway, but it will amost guaranttee that turn-over ball is kicked instead of run. Worth a try though (if we must change), which is what they're doing - the law of unintended consequences will inevitably throw something unexpected out of this.

Reduction in the number of permitted substitutions. Rationale: To encourage more space and opportunities towards the end of the game as on-field players tire. Recommendation: For World Rugby to sponsor more research to determine if there is a player welfare benefit.

I quite like this - it will probably increase the risk of minor injuries; but I'm okay with that. We'll need to see how much that risk increases, and whether it does open up matches, or increase risk of more serious injuries. WR are going for more research before putting it to a trial anywhere - which seems fair.

Off feet at the ruck – players must move away from the ball without delay. Rationale: To ensure more space and time is afforded to the attacking side. Recommendation: Specialist working group should be formed to assess all issues regarding the ruck/ breakdown.

Theoretically, this is already the case; it's just not enforced. However, I fully support a working group looking at all issues of the ruck - there are many, most importantly the reckless charging in IMO.

Delaying the movement of the defensive line at the ruck until the ball has reached the first attacking player or until the receiver opts not to pass. Rationale: To give the team in possession more time and space on the ball. Recommendation: Not to approve for trial.

Meh, this seems like "if you're not going to enforce the offside line, then do this to give us more time/space" I'd rather they just enforced the offside line.

Reducing the tackle height to the waist. Rationale: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

The stats still show that the higher the tackle, the more likely it is to result in injury. So yes, the evidence does suggest that shoulder high tackles are more dangerous than hip or knee high tackle - especially for concussion, where the issue if the tackler being damaged, not the ball carrier. That latter point seems to be the bugger. IMO going to the waist is going too far - I'd be happy with armpit or nipple line, giving that leeway for a mis-judgement of an inch or so to still be "safe enough". I would make an allowance for seatbelt tackles though - I've not seen any evidence that they're dangerous for either player as they just get lumped in with "tackles above the shoulder". WR are suggesting a closed trial, I suspect this will be quietly swept under the carpet after a couple of months.

Ability to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play. Rationale: To ensure players who are guilty of serious foul play do not escape with a yellow card when they deserved red. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

Yes. Absolutely yes. Should probably be brought straight in (for after the RWC)

The introduction of an infringement (penalty and free-kick) limit for teams. Once a team has reached the limit, a mandatory yellow card is given to the last offending player as a team sanction. Rationale: To encourage teams to offend less. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.

Interesting - I'm never a fan of one-size-fits-all; and whilst not all offences are the same, the number "allowed" shouldn't be either. I guess it's worth a trial, but I instinctively don't like it.

The awarding of a goal line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player, who brings the ball into in-goal, is held up. Rationale: To reward good defence and promote a faster rate of play. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.

Isn't a 5m scrum enough of an advantage / reward for good defence? Seems like it's designed to award teams with less-good scrums.

One additional replacement per team be allowed during extra-time in a sevens match. Rationale: To manage player fatigue and workload. Recommendation: To approve for closed trial at the HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series and HSBC World Rugby Women’s Sevens Series.

I don't watch enough 7s to comment

The High Tackle Technique warning has been successfully trialled at the World Rugby U20 Championship for the last two years. Rationale: Head Injury prevention strategy. Recommendation: To approve further closed trials.

I haven't really got my head around the warning as it is, let alone any tinkering with it.

A number of potential changes to tackle law were discussed by the group, with a particular reference to the community level in France. Rationale: To reduce injury rates in the domestic game. Recommendation: Approve for closed trials in designated FFR competitions.

Seems to be a local issue with a local proposed solution.

[Puja]

A lot of that seems generally very sensible. The only one I'm not in favour of - the offside one - is the only one they've dismissed without trial. I wouldn't mind offside being tweaked so that you have to be actively behind, rather than level, in order to be onside. Making the defence take a pace back would make the world of difference

The awarding of a goal line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player, who brings the ball into in-goal, is held up. Rationale: To reward good defence and promote a faster rate of play. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.

Isn't a 5m scrum enough of an advantage / reward for good defence? Seems like it's designed to award teams with less-good scrums.

This one could be a game changer. A 5m scrum isn't a reward - it's a prime attacking opportunity for the onslaught to continue, whereas this gives a dropout that could be belted 30-40m downfield. It massively disincentivises picking and driving round the corner when 5m from the line (or Exeter's main try scoring routine) - at the moment, if you're held up, then you just get to reset and start again from the scrum. Under this, the defence just needs to get underneath you and the attack is over.

I don't necessarily know that it's a problem that especially needs solving, but I'm fascinated to see what the ramifications of that trial are.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The nipple/armpit line (think it was armpit) for the high tackle line was trialled in the Champ Cup last season and injury rates went up. Not read anything beyond the headline figure, so could be due to small sample size/non tackle related injuries etc.

I didn’t watch too much of the u20 WC but the high tackle warning seemed to work quite well. To me, it seems more like a law during a transition season, if/when the legal tackle height is changed, rather than a long term solution.

The FFR only recommendation will be off the back of the four of deaths in the country last season.

[Puja]

The nipple/armpit line (think it was armpit) for the high tackle line was trialled in the Champ Cup last season and injury rates went up. Not read anything beyond the headline figure, so could be due to small sample size/non tackle related injuries etc.

That trial was utter trash though. The Champ Cup games were scattered amongst the season, so players were literally changing laws from one week to the next - there's no way any consistent change in technoque was accomplished or any reasonable deterrent effect maintained. Plus, the Champ Cup is lower down the priority levels of some clubs and so you were more likely to get professional/amateur mismatches where sides rotated. Frankly, I can't see there's any usable data there - it needs to be trialled for a whole season in a country's competition.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The nipple/armpit line (think it was armpit) for the high tackle line was trialled in the Champ Cup last season and injury rates went up. Not read anything beyond the headline figure, so could be due to small sample size/non tackle related injuries etc.

That trial was utter trash though. The Champ Cup games were scattered amongst the season, so players were literally changing laws from one week to the next - there's no way any consistent change in technoque was accomplished or any reasonable deterrent effect maintained. Plus, the Champ Cup is lower down the priority levels of some clubs and so you were more likely to get professional/amateur mismatches where sides rotated. Frankly, I can't see there's any usable data there - it needs to be trialled for a whole season in a country's competition.

Puja

I agree with your sentiment - do it properly or don’t do it at all - but the group matches, ie a very large %, were played in a block across Nov and Dec.

Edit:
The trial was stopped after the group stages as, although high tackle incidents were down, the rate of concussions went up due to ‘an unanticipated increase in concussion risk to the tackler where contact was made above the armpit line with a bent at the waist ball carrier’.

https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/new ... nship-cup/

[Puja]

The nipple/armpit line (think it was armpit) for the high tackle line was trialled in the Champ Cup last season and injury rates went up. Not read anything beyond the headline figure, so could be due to small sample size/non tackle related injuries etc.

That trial was utter trash though. The Champ Cup games were scattered amongst the season, so players were literally changing laws from one week to the next - there's no way any consistent change in technoque was accomplished or any reasonable deterrent effect maintained. Plus, the Champ Cup is lower down the priority levels of some clubs and so you were more likely to get professional/amateur mismatches where sides rotated. Frankly, I can't see there's any usable data there - it needs to be trialled for a whole season in a country's competition.

Puja

I agree with your sentiment - do it properly or don’t do it at all - but the group matches, ie a very large %, were played in a block across Nov and Dec.

Edit:
The trial was stopped after the group stages as, although high tackle incidents were down, the rate of concussions went up due to ‘an unanticipated increase in concussion risk to the tackler where contact was made above the armpit line with a bent at the waist ball carrier’.

https://www.championshiprugby.co.uk/new ... nship-cup/

Useful knowledge. Thank you.

Puja

[fivepointer]

Backfoot offside can easily be policed by the officials. It's become routine for players close to the breakdown to be 2/3 feet offside, while further out in can easily be 2/3 yards. Just enforce the laws as they exist for goodness sake.
The same can be said for going off feet at the ruck. This is so flagrantly ignored that its become farcical with players flopping down all the time and refs just waving play on.
Lowering the number of subs is an idea I like.
Dont like the idea of the attacking side losing the ball if they cannot ground the ball over the line. Surely they deserve the reward of an attacking 5m scrum for almost scoring?

[Which Tyler]

This one could be a game changer. A 5m scrum isn't a reward - it's a prime attacking opportunity for the onslaught to continue, whereas this gives a dropout that could be belted 30-40m downfield. It massively disincentivises picking and driving round the corner when 5m from the line (or Exeter's main try scoring routine) - at the moment, if you're held up, then you just get to reset and start again from the scrum. Under this, the defence just needs to get underneath you and the attack is over.

Oops, that'll teach me to read and write up a reply in 5 minutes between patients.
Yes, completely changes the complexion of the game close to the try line.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Pretty much what WT says, except for the misunderstanding about goal line drop outs. I'd be interested to see the effect of the drop outs. It might stop the interminable 1 inch drives round the corner on the goal line which would be no bad thing but a loss of 30-40m seems a heavy price to pay for it not being entirely clear that you have in fact grounded the ball.

[Banquo]

Again - what’s the problem they are trying to solve?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Again - what’s the problem they are trying to solve?

I'm presuming injuries, judging by the title. The goal line attacks round the corner tend to involve people people point themselves towards the ground with defenders firing towards the back of the head and neck with their shoulders, sometimes with the weight of 2 large men combined. I wouldn't be surprised were stats to show a considerable number of injuries including concussions coming through this mode of play.

[Banquo]

Again - what’s the problem they are trying to solve?

I'm presuming injuries, judging by the title. The goal line attacks round the corner tend to involve people people point themselves towards the ground with defenders firing towards the back of the head and neck with their shoulders, sometimes with the weight of 2 large men combined. I wouldn't be surprised were stats to show a considerable number of injuries including concussions coming through this mode of play.

be helpful to actually know the scale of issue before further fiddling about, and the title doesn't really cover a number of the proposals WT has listed. Mind, given the number of people paid to fiddle about with the laws, its not surprising there is constant fiddling; just frustrating given the real issues in the game that could be fixed merely by enforcing what is there already.

[Puja]

The law trials are due to go into the lawbook full-time - 50:22, goal-line dropout, only one pre-bind and that latched player having to stay on their feet (although that one seems to have fallen out of being enforced of late). I have to say, all of them have been an unmitigated success to my eyes - the 50:22 has definitely opened up more space in the middle of the pitch, the goalline dropout has done the same by encouraging grubbers and chip kicks, and there's been a definite reduction in the amount of grinding at the line over previous years.

Puja

[Cameo]

The law trials are due to go into the lawbook full-time - 50:22, goal-line dropout, only one pre-bind and that latched player having to stay on their feet (although that one seems to have fallen out of being enforced of late). I have to say, all of them have been an unmitigated success to my eyes - the 50:22 has definitely opened up more space in the middle of the pitch, the goalline dropout has done the same by encouraging grubbers and chip kicks, and there's been a definite reduction in the amount of grinding at the line over previous years.

Puja

I agree - good news. I had heard there was some opposition to the goal line dropout one being made permanent, but I suspect that was from forwards frustrated at being held up. I like it, especially as it has had the added bonus of encouraging people to attack from behind their goalline, which is one of the most fun things in rugby.

[Banquo]

The law trials are due to go into the lawbook full-time - 50:22, goal-line dropout, only one pre-bind and that latched player having to stay on their feet (although that one seems to have fallen out of being enforced of late). I have to say, all of them have been an unmitigated success to my eyes - the 50:22 has definitely opened up more space in the middle of the pitch, the goalline dropout has done the same by encouraging grubbers and chip kicks, and there's been a definite reduction in the amount of grinding at the line over previous years.

Puja

I don't like the goal line drop out- it seems invidious that being held up over the line when trying to score is 'rewarded' by getting the ball back on the half way line or so....pros (as you say) and cons (as I say) though, its just a personal taste thing I guess.

[Puja]

The law trials are due to go into the lawbook full-time - 50:22, goal-line dropout, only one pre-bind and that latched player having to stay on their feet (although that one seems to have fallen out of being enforced of late). I have to say, all of them have been an unmitigated success to my eyes - the 50:22 has definitely opened up more space in the middle of the pitch, the goalline dropout has done the same by encouraging grubbers and chip kicks, and there's been a definite reduction in the amount of grinding at the line over previous years.

Puja

I don't like the goal line drop out- it seems invidious that being held up over the line when trying to score is 'rewarded' by getting the ball back on the half way line or so....pros (as you say) and cons (as I say) though, its just a personal taste thing I guess.

I guess the answer to that is that, if you don't like being held up, go round someone rather than through them. It's been less negativeyl impactful than most people thought as well, as a goal-line drop-out still give the attack a decent attacking position - it's either a competition for the ball in the 22 or it's free ball with a disrupted defence and a 10m run up around 40m out.

Puja

[Banquo]

The law trials are due to go into the lawbook full-time - 50:22, goal-line dropout, only one pre-bind and that latched player having to stay on their feet (although that one seems to have fallen out of being enforced of late). I have to say, all of them have been an unmitigated success to my eyes - the 50:22 has definitely opened up more space in the middle of the pitch, the goalline dropout has done the same by encouraging grubbers and chip kicks, and there's been a definite reduction in the amount of grinding at the line over previous years.

Puja

I don't like the goal line drop out- it seems invidious that being held up over the line when trying to score is 'rewarded' by getting the ball back on the half way line or so....pros (as you say) and cons (as I say) though, its just a personal taste thing I guess.

I guess the answer to that is that, if you don't like being held up, go round someone rather than through them. It's been less negativeyl impactful than most people thought as well, as a goal-line drop-out still give the attack a decent attacking position - it's either a competition for the ball in the 22 or it's free ball with a disrupted defence and a 10m run up around 40m out.

Puja

....except that isnt how the hold up happens every time. Plain do not love it, even witth h perceived upsides.

[Puja]

I don't like the goal line drop out- it seems invidious that being held up over the line when trying to score is 'rewarded' by getting the ball back on the half way line or so....pros (as you say) and cons (as I say) though, its just a personal taste thing I guess.

I guess the answer to that is that, if you don't like being held up, go round someone rather than through them. It's been less negativeyl impactful than most people thought as well, as a goal-line drop-out still give the attack a decent attacking position - it's either a competition for the ball in the 22 or it's free ball with a disrupted defence and a 10m run up around 40m out.

Puja

....except that isnt how the hold up happens every time. Plain do not love it, even witth h perceived upsides.

Fair enough. I suppose you are still allowed a dissenting opinion.

Puja

[Banquo]

I guess the answer to that is that, if you don't like being held up, go round someone rather than through them. It's been less negativeyl impactful than most people thought as well, as a goal-line drop-out still give the attack a decent attacking position - it's either a competition for the ball in the 22 or it's free ball with a disrupted defence and a 10m run up around 40m out.

Puja

....except that isnt how the hold up happens every time. Plain do not love it, even witth h perceived upsides.

Fair enough. I suppose you are still allowed a dissenting opinion.

Puja

crikey, a reasonable internet reply .

[Puja]

....except that isnt how the hold up happens every time. Plain do not love it, even witth h perceived upsides.

Fair enough. I suppose you are still allowed a dissenting opinion.

Puja

crikey, a reasonable internet reply .

You're as bad as Hitler, by the way. Just to even things out.

Puja

[Banquo]

Fair enough. I suppose you are still allowed a dissenting opinion.

Puja

crikey, a reasonable internet reply .

You're as bad as Hitler, by the way. Just to even things out.

Puja

Harsh but fair, Mr Godwin.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

Fair enough. I suppose you are still allowed a dissenting opinion.

Puja

crikey, a reasonable internet reply .

You're as bad as Hitler, by the way. Just to even things out.

Puja

Eddie Hitler?

[Mellsblue]

crikey, a reasonable internet reply .

You're as bad as Hitler, by the way. Just to even things out.

Puja

Eddie Hitler?

We’re scrapping the Bottom of the barrel with this one.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

You're as bad as Hitler, by the way. Just to even things out.

Puja

Eddie Hitler?

We’re scrapping the Bottom of the barrel with this one.

Leave the punnery to the young ones.