rugbyleague88 wrote:Were the Burrow head knocks / concussions caused by high tackles or in defence because of his height, he had to tackle low and thus, took stray knees and hips when tackling as well as getting his head in the wrong position.
I suspect he suffered more head knocks as a defender rather than an attacker. We seem to be encouraging players to tackle lower but in my view, this will increase head knocks not reduce them.
You may well be right. I got KO'd a couple of times and KO'd a couple of opponents - all were poorly executed low tackles. And many other players say the same. Whether that still holds true is something the gumshield technology may confirm. But assuming it does, where does the game go then? A ban on tackles below the waist? Can't say the spectacle of unionesque mauling until a player is halted appeals much.
"Look, I'd never use injuries as an excuse..." Daryl Powell
Union has loads of issues with aggressive rucking and mauling - laying prone beneath five 110kg angry men isn't my idea of head injury heaven.
More force through the front rowers in the scrums too (significantly).
Rugby is a risky game by its nature, you cannot remove that risk. You can only reduce it, or just not have a game any more. The question is how much we can reduce the risk without killing the game itself - they are trying to spin it but ultimately these changes harm the game.
We're not the only sport to face similar issues but... how the heck boxing and MMA/UFC can be OK and RL isn't, is beyond my tiny intelligence to understand.
In GB boxers have an annual brain scan and blood tests to check for deterioration. I'm guessing the cost of testing all playing staff in similar way wouldn't be insignificant.
"Look, I'd never use injuries as an excuse..." Daryl Powell
Agree with the majority of what's been said here. The proposals are the ultimate knee jerk reaction and incredibly poorly thought out. Even a casual observer over a number of games would see that the overwhelming majority of HIA's are caused by poor tackle technique (head in the wrong place) or tackling so low that contact with the ball carriers hip/elbow is inevitable. If this is the way we're going as a society, I really don't understand how a sport where the aim is to physically hurt your opponent by hitting them in the, amongst other places, head, isn't mired in litigation. Yet it isn't. It's almost as if the risks associated with boxing are so overt that any claim would be doomed to failure. Perhaps RL, and RU, are taking the lazy way out, and in turn, condemning the sports to oblivion in the process.
We could do more to penalise foul play - if someone intentionally takes your knees out or whatever it can still lead to significant injury. Then we had ridiculous bans robbing our international team of players. They have just got it wrong at the moment on a number of levels.
YosemiteSam wrote:Agree with the majority of what's been said here. The proposals are the ultimate knee jerk reaction and incredibly poorly thought out. Even a casual observer over a number of games would see that the overwhelming majority of HIA's are caused by poor tackle technique (head in the wrong place) or tackling so low that contact with the ball carriers hip/elbow is inevitable. If this is the way we're going as a society, I really don't understand how a sport where the aim is to physically hurt your opponent by hitting them in the, amongst other places, head, isn't mired in litigation. Yet it isn't. It's almost as if the risks associated with boxing are so overt that any claim would be doomed to failure. Perhaps RL, and RU, are taking the lazy way out, and in turn, condemning the sports to oblivion in the process.
Agree with that. Boxing is an inheritently dangerous business, yet the sport and its practioners seem to have made peace with that years ago. They did away with 15 round bouts in the late 80's and weigh ins on the day of the fight not long after. Beyond that not much has changed rules wise since. The risks are self evident yet despite the chaotic proliferation of world titles it retains its appeal.
ArthurClues wrote:What really bothers me us that all this is on the back of a four game/week trial. Seems a very short period in which to arrive at such sweeping conclusions. Were the players and coaches who took part consulted? Were the fans? The big worry for me is that these recommendations change the game so profoundly that it completely loses it's appeal to fans and broadcasters. It feels like this could hasten the sports demise rather than safeguard it's longevity.
Spot on mate. totally agree. I really do now fear for the future of the game. This has the potential to kill it, no doubt about it
I suspect if you polled the players and supporters, an overwhelming majority would be against these significant rule changes on top of others in recent years which have been frustrating.
What is the point in running "trial" games under these new rules, which I can confirm were disastrous, if the decision had clearly already been made? Where is the consultation? Totally agree with those posting on the risks of head injury in D, which in my view outweighs the now small risk of head high tackling. Are we going to outlaw tackling too? Where are they going with this?
I don't personally want to see a return to the Mick Cassidy outrageous elbow to Adrian Morley's head acts... I'm glad that kind of thuggery is disappearing. But that was always illegal. They would do better improving the quality of refereeing under the existing rules rather than introducing more rules to make their jobs even harder.
I've only just watched the video introducing the rule change, wow. Loads of penalties and when a tackler actually manages to not commit an offence how do they wrap up the ball and prevent offloads without conceding a penalty?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
