I think we can all agree on the need to keep players as safe as possible. Nobody wants to see degenerative brain disease (although again the causal link is very difficult to establish scientifically).
The question is how we go about it. To what extent is risk inherent in the game? Is it possible to reduce the risk to nil, and if not what is an acceptable level? This is a pragmatic approach.
Also we have the refereeing of said rules. Because they are over-complicated and too broad at the same time, games are frequently being spoiled due to interpretations.
Show me a game of under-armpit level tackling that looks anything like rugby league, or which is any way refereeable and I might change my view. It turns games into penalty-fests and the result a lottery. There were lots of academy games trialling this last year and they were pretty much horrendous. I also still saw some head knocks despite the new rules.
Jack Burton wrote:I can't say I've seen all the cards, but the red card in the Hull game on Friday is the only one I've seen that I've found questionable, but head to head contact is the form of head contact that causes the most damage, so it's the form of head contact that the RFL wants to reduce the most, accidental, or not, so I can understand, to a point, but most contacts like that go unnoticed anyway unless a player goes down injured, and unfortunately they can't determine the force of the impact until they get the data from the mouth guard at the MRP, so I think they should just send both players for an automatic HIA and then determine if a charge is warranted at the MRP.
Regarding your point on just enforcing the rules as they are, you could argue that's what they're doing, but to me, the issue is they've known about the potential for increased risk of brain injuries in RL for over a decade, but instead of doing something about it then, they've allowed stand up tackles and higher initial contact to become ubiquitous to a point where players are going to have to completely change their tackle techniques, and coaches are going to have to completely change how they coach the game, it's going to completely change the game, and it will take time to adjust, but they are full-time professionals, it shouldn't be beyond them to do it. It should be something that they've already started doing because next season will only get tougher.
I have to say (somewhat grudgingly) that last nights WCC tended to support a lot of the points you've been making. Lots of excellent tackling technique on show and scarcely anything round the head. My big worry is that next year will be a completely different and far, far less watchable ball game. Memories of the Academy trial games last year still bring me out in hives.
KaeruJim wrote:I think we can all agree on the need to keep players as safe as possible. Nobody wants to see degenerative brain disease (although again the causal link is very difficult to establish scientifically).
The question is how we go about it. To what extent is risk inherent in the game? Is it possible to reduce the risk to nil, and if not what is an acceptable level? This is a pragmatic approach.
Also we have the refereeing of said rules. Because they are over-complicated and too broad at the same time, games are frequently being spoiled due to interpretations.
Show me a game of under-armpit level tackling that looks anything like rugby league, or which is any way refereeable and I might change my view. It turns games into penalty-fests and the result a lottery. There were lots of academy games trialling this last year and they were pretty much horrendous. I also still saw some head knocks despite the new rules.
Great points. It's impossible to mitigate the risk completely. Regardless of the rules around the tackle, if there is tackling of any sort in the game then there will always be head knocks. Changing the game to remove any chance of head knocks means no tackling of any sort. If that comes to pass, there'll be no need to worry about insurance costs.
YosemiteSam wrote:Great points. It's impossible to mitigate the risk completely. Regardless of the rules around the tackle, if there is tackling of any sort in the game then there will always be head knocks. Changing the game to remove any chance of head knocks means no tackling of any sort. If that comes to pass, there'll be no need to worry about insurance costs.
I heard a professor on the radio the other day. He was of the view that letting children play contact rugby below the age of 18 is tantamount to child abuse.
And he may have a point. It might just be too dangerous to allow youngsters to play with full contact: but then is it more dangerous as adults when and if they do, without the technique being learned?
I suspect we need to scan all pro players brains when they start a career, look for any abnormalities or susceptibility (your brain basically rattles around inside a bony structure), and maybe regular / annual scans too. If we’re serious about the science we need to look at individuals as well as broad rules - e.g. it is possible Ward might have had susceptibility or maybe Gannon does. Brain scanning technology has come on so far in the last decade.
KaeruJim wrote:And he may have a point. It might just be too dangerous to allow youngsters to play with full contact: but then is it more dangerous as adults when and if they do, without the technique being learned?
I suspect we need to scan all pro players brains when they start a career, look for any abnormalities or susceptibility (your brain basically rattles around inside a bony structure), and maybe regular / annual scans too. If we’re serious about the science we need to look at individuals as well as broad rules - e.g. it is possible Ward might have had susceptibility or maybe Gannon does. Brain scanning technology has come on so far in the last decade.
I think tag rugby only until 18 effectively sends the sport the way of the dinosaurs. Maybe that's the reality of modern life and I should take up pottery classes to occupy my leisure time.
KaeruJim wrote:I think we can all agree on the need to keep players as safe as possible. Nobody wants to see degenerative brain disease (although again the causal link is very difficult to establish scientifically).
The question is how we go about it. To what extent is risk inherent in the game? Is it possible to reduce the risk to nil, and if not what is an acceptable level? This is a pragmatic approach.
Also we have the refereeing of said rules. Because they are over-complicated and too broad at the same time, games are frequently being spoiled due to interpretations.
Show me a game of under-armpit level tackling that looks anything like rugby league, or which is any way refereeable and I might change my view. It turns games into penalty-fests and the result a lottery. There were lots of academy games trialling this last year and they were pretty much horrendous. I also still saw some head knocks despite the new rules.
If you think about any changes that are made are on a spectrum, and the easiest to do is to do nothing and leave things as they are, and the hardest thing to do would be to ban tackling above the belly button, as they were originally going to do in union, then lowering the tackle height to the armpit seems an ok compromise. The trial games were definitely a mess, but the data from those games showed it did significantly reduce the number of head contacts and accelerations, which is the primary objective. But a lot of work and dialogue is going to have to happen by all involved in order to make it watchable.
The coaches seemed pretty optimistic that the changes would be positive in the long-term, prior to the trial, but they'll know it will be a huge task to adjust in time for next season. I just hope they've started incorporating it into their training sessions.
Last edited by Jack Burton on Sun Feb 25, 2024 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ArthurClues wrote:I heard a professor on the radio the other day. He was of the view that letting children play contact rugby below the age of 18 is tantamount to child abuse.
Clearly he meant rugby union.
"Look, I'd never use injuries as an excuse..." Daryl Powell
ArthurClues wrote:I heard a professor on the radio the other day. He was of the view that letting children play contact rugby below the age of 18 is tantamount to child abuse.
Check his funding. Am absolutely sick of banal statements in particular anti scientific statements being passed off as facts.
ArthurClues wrote:I think tag rugby only until 18 effectively sends the sport the way of the dinosaurs. Maybe that's the reality of modern life and I should take up pottery classes to occupy my leisure time.
Agree 100%. I'll leave it here. If that's the future it's bleak. If folk are happy to sacrifice the game in pursuit of a perfectly safe future (never achievable, by the way) then crack on. Well done on achieving utopia. A joyless utopia, but who cares, eh?
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
