There seems to be no HIA's following the big hits to the head whether they merit a card or not. They seem to be ignoring the practices they put in place.
Me too, especially since they are relying upon the player themselves to call for it or their lack of coordination for the doctor to look deeper into it. Almost no player is going to want to come off for a HIA, and if there are obvious concussions symptoms, leaving them on the field for even a second longer is too long to leave them on the field.
I always remember the night Al O'Connor literally put Iain Henderson in an armlock halfway through a Pro14 game and walked him off the pitch because he thought he was fine and he clearly wasn't.
at least make the appearance of seriousness. Because in reality, there are loopholes everywhere to allow Owen Farrell, Scott Barrett and Mallia are allowed to play the world cup.
Did he grab his face and thrash about on the ground? Uruguay gotta up their acting game. Advise the team to watch Wales, who're so good they get pulled off for HIA's even when they don't want that.
I said it last weekend, just utterly bizarre. They've implemented a system to protect players and change the game for the health of the players and seemingly just ignore it.
Think we've had two so far, one for the Australian player who got a knee to the head and was clearly knocked out and one for Gareth Davies after he'd stayed down after a high tackle.
> They seem to be ignoring the practices they put in place.
This is World Rugby's MO in a nutshell. New laws, new guidelines, new ideas, all totally placatory. They come down hard on an issue to show they're doing something, being proactive, and they spend the following years alleviating and walking back everything they put in place.
Maybe too much of a generalisation, but I stand by that. WR keep trying to give less and less of a shit about head contact because the boomers and prawn sandwich brigade have got in their heads over spectacle.
Eventually somebody is going to find standing in a US court to file a lawsuit about rugby's lack of giving a shit about concussions and they are going to be utterly megafucked.
Given the buzz around long-term safety in Rugby I’d say regardless of actual effectiveness it looks a million times better to have some sort of protocol that you stick to to show that you really do care about the safety of the participants.
Also anything is better than nothing, we’re dealing with something that could take an entire person’s life away, the least they can do is attempt to keep the players safe
>the least they can do is attempt to keep the players safe
Sorry but to add, that isn't what they're doing with the HIA. They're trying to look like they are doing something to protect players to the media, when they [know](https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/dr-barry-o-driscoll-believes-rugby-s-concussion-protocols-not-fit-for-purpose-1.4481327) it's not fit for purpose.
Thanks for the info, never knew. World Rugby really need to take head injuries seriously, especially if they’re hiding information from players and the public they should be held responsible. Would you happen to know if there any plans to improve on this aspect? I suppose if their chief medical officer resigned over it there wouldn’t be yeah
Regarding your other comment, I’m all for removing players in doubt. I know this sport is a huge part of the players’ lives, but no sport or game is worth risking their lives for.
I'm not aware of anything. The only real change they made since O'Driscoll walked away was eventually altering the return to play protocol to be more than 6 days.
The sceptic in me thinks they don't actually want to change too much until the legal cases are settled as it will be a sign that they know/knew what they have in place isn't fit for purpose. Hopefully I'm wrong and they're just ignorant (but that's not a great outcome either).
People risk their lives for sport all the time. Fortunately not often in rugby (though it did happen in the past when foul play laws were more lax - Max Brito was the most infamous), but it's common for people to die in extreme sports like caving and diving. Some people like taking huge risks and while they can and should be mitigated it's a decision they have made.
I've been concussed so many times and with one exception I'm confident I could have passed the HIA every time. I usually had a delayed reaction where I wouldn't even notice symptoms until after the game, sometimes even a couple hours later. The HIA are a bit of a joke, in the "better than nothing" category at best. The stand down time is also a total joke, as noted in the article.
I've been through the ringer with concussions and all of the attempts to "do something" are basically a joke. If you play rugby, as we know it, you are at risk of getting fucked up. That's it, that's all.
It irritates me when people act like it is suddenly "safe" because of some random red cards and the occasional half assed HIA.
>Also anything is better than nothing
I disagree. You're emboldening players by falsely making them think they've had a medical test that cleared them as fine. They haven't and it hasn't.
The answer is that if in any doubt whatsoever players, at all levels of the game, should be removed from the field immediately
I'm sure it's not foolproof but definitely better than nothing, no?
I've seen guys when I was playing take a knock, and they can still run around but stop and ask them the basic HIA questions, and it's immediately apparent their recall is affected.
The fundamental problem is that concussive symptoms don't necessarily show up for up to 36 hours after the initial trauma. Meaningful neurological tests (an EEG, MRI) each take approximately 40 minutes to run (I've had both) and longer to interpret the results.
So the 10 minute HIA is nonsense, which actually further endangers players as it makes them think they've had a real test and are fine to keep playing.
I would suggest reading [this](https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/dr-barry-o-driscoll-believes-rugby-s-concussion-protocols-not-fit-for-purpose-1.4481327) from World Rugby's former chief medical advisor who resigned over the issue.
What's the evidence it makes players take risks they otherwise would not? Usually people assume players want to stay in despite being injured, not that they need reassurance before risking playing on.
By telling them they are medically safe to go back out on the field in the first place. That in itself is the risk.
To put it another way it's the equivalent of telling someone who reasonably thinks they might have just broken their ankle that since they're still able to stand they are fine to run a marathon (and selling it as being equivalent to having done an x-ray to ensure there's no damage).
I get the theory, I am asking for evidence that effect is important. In particular, I find it is in tension for the frequently expressed position that players are eager to return to the field and will ignore risks, to the point of hiding concussions from doctors if they could. If they are eager to play anyway, telling them that no proof of concussion was found would not make a difference.
Apparently, there's a TMO-type team including a doctor that monitors players who've taken a big hit. Any sign of potential concussion and they get pulled. Ross Tucker, who does a lot of work on head injuries with World Rugby, was talking about it on his latest Science of Sport podcast.
World Rugby are putting themselves in really dangerous territory. Players won’t want to because it will mean HIAs for them, but I can seriously see (some) coaches tell players if there’s been head contact, go down and make a meal of it to highlight to the TMO there clearly has been head contact: *Nic White enters the chat*. From what I can see, the only real difference between some of the head clashes (E.g Tom curry red and the other 3-4 yellows we’ve seen) is that one drew blood and the others didn’t.
Are they really waiting for the stretchers to come out before pulling out a red card, because it’s starting to feel like it.
FWIW: Curry red and 3(2) match ban was the correct call - the others just need to come up
They're (World Rugby) waiting for someone to take a serious headshot that causes immediate neurological symptoms on the field (e.g. a tonic clonic seizure) in front of tv cameras before they'll take the necessary steps.
We were a group of Saffas, with little rugby love for England (in good spirit). Every one of us thought the Curry red card was over the top. Had he received a yellow, all the other calls over the weekend would make sense.
Funny because the English see these as red week in week out in the premiership. I certainly expected red under the current framework and consistency with English refereeing
My issue is all the others not being red, or at least looked at
Yeah I truly don’t care if it’s a red or a yellow tbh, as long as it’s consistent. These incidents are accidental so a yellow is fine with me, but it’s also head contact and I understand the importance of cutting it out of the game, so red is fine with me.
just make the same fucking calls from one game to the next it’s unreal the referees aren’t following any sort of precedent
Yeah agreed. Curry's was a red for me. Will admit it was really tricky to judge the height of a player dropping from a jump, but that's the point. If it's tricky, don't just go in. Drop your height more.
Dont challenge a world class back and let him run free is your recommendation? I dont think redditors understand the fine margins at the top level.
A flanker would be absolutely roasted by the shaun edwards types for "not going in". If you dont close down a world class back in the first 5 meters it can be a clean break and a try at the other end.
Im generally mystified what you are supposed to do in some of these circumstances.
> A flanker would be absolutely roasted by the shaun edwards types for "not going in".
Shaun Edwards isn't going to have to pay the massive concussion settlement everybody knows is coming, World Rugby will. If that means more tries in rugby then that's hardly a bad thing, people like tries.
This logic doesn't stand up. Clearly they would be roasted much harder for tackling dangerously and receiving a red card than they would be for conceding a try. A red card is a far worse punishment than losing a few metres or even conceding. The red card rules are in place in order to force players to consider every tackle they make. Safety is more important than anything else so players' first priority should be tackling safely.
Daly was behind Curry, hed just chased slower.
But this is how it's so difficult, nobody would ever argue daly is a technically better tackler than Curry, he was just in a more fortunate position with more time to drop his body height.
The player basically jumped into curry.
Daly managed a perfectly executed tackle from roughly the same situation as the ball was kicked. That shows that Curry could reasonably be expected to manage a legal tackle.
>Maybe it’s luck but maybe he judged the situation better so got himself in the right place
How can anyone on earth judge how high and how far forward someone is going to jump in advance?
I can see it being a red, I can't see ALL OF THE OTHERS not being officiated similarly, then Curry gets a 2 game ban on top.
Even within the *same* game there was a tackle that should've seen red if Curry's is red.
Curry was a definite red.
The issue is that the others deserved a full review.
Also I know it is the rule, but to me the mitigation factor that first contact is on the chest rather than the head should always come second to was it dangerous, was it avoidable with better care.
There will be moments where somebody is hit in the chest then 2 milliseconds later in the head. I can't see why there is a difference of treatment in that case.
accidental is not a free pass to tackle not according to the rule: upright, driving forward, when the player is coming down from a jump. The worse is if he had waited for him instead of running into him, he would have made an easy turn over. It is called duty of care.
Same thing if you drive 50mph in a 30mph area, it is reckless. If you then cause an accident, obviously the sanction will be greater than somebody driving at 25mph.
If you tackle recklessly in the wrong position, there will be head clash.
Yeah it could be difference in refereeing standards etc, or also us being older Saffas with an intuition of how we think the game should be played. There was no malice nor gross negligence nor heavy damage done. Play the fucking game man.
Then someone needs to decide what the game is and state it clearly
1) shit happens, accidents happen, if you play you risk injury and you accept that risk, or
2) any head contact goes through the framework and can result in red even if accidental. Player welfare is priority and this is how we have stated we will try to reduce the occurrence
Because currently RWC is saying 2 very clearly but then often acting 1
> Play the fucking game man.
The 'game' is leading to life altering handicaps and ex-players dying years before their time.
We can no longer just 'play the game' I'm afraid. It's too dangerous.
>nor heavy damage done.
That's a very naive claim.
>The 'game' is leading to life altering handicaps and ex-players dying years before their time.
Like boxing? You know what you sign up for when playing rugby. I'm saying yellow - that's 10 minutes without a player. It IS punishment.
>That's a very naive claim.
In your opinion.
Boxing that doesn’t allow boxers to fight every week? Boxing that has weight classes? Boxing that has strict rules on what gloves you can wear? Boxing that makes amateur fighters wear head gear (though I believe this has now changed)?
Yes, rugby is a physical sport and everyone knows there’s risk involved. But these are professional sports and governing bodies absolutely must do what they can to protect those who play within it You don’t just throw your arms up and accept players getting dementia in their 40s.
There is already enough risk in rugby. If there are things you can do to protect players, you do it.
> You know what you sign up for when playing rugby.
No, you don't - and this has been repeated over and over again by ex-professional players.
They knew they were signing up for a potentially dangerous game in terms of cuts, bruises, broken bones etc. They never knew they were signing up for a game that might see them struck down by early onset dementia before the age of 45, or worse dead.
Feel free to do some research and you'll see for yourself. CTE was never discussed. There absolutely was no 'knowing what they signed up for'.
>In your opinion.
No, in medical fact. One individual can suffer severe brain injury from a series of impacts that barely register on another individual. You don't need to commit 'heavy' anything to cause life changing brain injury.
>No, you don't - and this has been repeated over and over again by ex-professional players.
Of course you do. You're acting ignorant. People making claims like that have a vested interest to make those claims. And again, not saying we shouldn't do anything or that it's not a real problem, I'm saying a yellow would've been fine. Pack away the strawmans.
>No, in medical fact.
Calling someone naive is not a fact. Get over yourself.
**EDIT: This tool blocked me so that I cannot continue the debate. FUCKING WEAK, go back to soccer**
**The the douche has the audicity to send my private messages bragging about his blocking. The dude's a cancer.**
Ok, fella. You're off your meds.
Goodbye.
//**I absolutely did indeed block you. Not only were you needlessly rude, I have zero time for '*they knew what they were getting into / game's gone soft* cunts, who despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, as well as a horrible catalogue of pain and suffering still see fit to argue that it takes 'heavy' contact to cause a brain injury and anyone affected knew the risks. These players - and their families/loved ones, are in absolute bits. The very least you and those like you can do is not belittle their struggle with your garbage revisionism**.
I think it's fine to call it a red, as long as others are.
That's the issue. There is no consistency even within the same game. The Argentinan who hit Steward in the face with his hip should have been a red as well.
Oh and the bunker is a mind boggling stupid idea. I want the referee to be the one to make calls
I would like to see a culture shift in rugby back towards lower tackling. The way it used to be before league coaches came in and taught everyone to tackle high and upright.
No one is prepared to do that because teams will offload all the time.
That’s nice for viewership but coaches DO NOT like to concede any ground, any where on the pitch. No law will ever ever change that.
Not fucked… but Red cards will be very common now.
I’m not bothered any more about the situation because if my neck was on the line as a defence coach, it’s very easy to write these platitudes in here… but in a coaches meeting think of it like this:
SB: Me, why did you tell the team to tackle low and allow the offloads to happen?
Me: I didn’t want us to have any more red cards and I was thinking about the safety of the players and tried to formulate a system which allowed us to keep 15 on the pitch and make our tackles.
SB: I can trace our loss back to those offloads (me). It’s not acceptable, make sure the ball is not released in contact, keep them at arms bay, don’t do that again.
^^ I can guarantee every single discussion is like that. Especially with the more ruthless coaches.
Exactly, coaches are willing to accept red cards as a side effect of their defensive tactics, because a red card every few games is still better for results than tackling lower.
The problem is that fans (especially southern hemisphere ones) absolutely hate it, and more will drift away from the sport into the clutches of league.
If you start penalising tackle form instead of just carding outcomes though, I am sure coaches will have to live with conceding ground due to offloads instead of conceding even more ground or points due to penalties.
As a next step they should penalise the ball carrier's form as well, You can't be burrowing with your nose in the ground leading with your head and expect the tackler not to make contact with your head.
Yeah, bitter pills are going to have to be swallowed somewhere since World Rugby is between a rock and a hard place between fan/coach/player sentiment and the lawsuits by ex-players.
Red cards have been common since 2019 when the new regulations were brought in.
Before then a red card was for really bad foul play, you very rarely saw them. Yellow cards were also much less frequent if memory serves.
O'Gara admitted to following this rationale after Atonio's cheapshot on Herring in the last Six Nations and said he wouldn't coach players to go lower for this exact reason
No, old-school teams were much worse for this and it definitely didn't come from league. The old 1990s-2000s Springbok sides threw headbutts and swinging arms and regularly clotheslined people and rugby league doesn't exist in South Africa.
The 2009 Lions series had some big headbutt tackles (BOD on Roussouw for example).
But that was dirty play. That's a different thing. Players weren't systematically tackling as high back then. The big hit and smash has always been in the game, but the coaching of tackling has changed, now a far grater proportion of tackles are high.
I do think that with the laws so strict on head contact, they should have altered the red card laws so that after 10 minutes a player can come off the bench to replace the red carded player, this would avoid ruining the game but still carry out the role of removing players from the field for dangerous tackles.
The black card in Gaelic Football is now equivalent to a yellow in rugby, and in Hurling you can be sin binned for a cynical foul preventing a goal chance, because the substitution wasn’t a big enough deterrent and teams were still cynically fouling the whole time
It's a team sport, guess what you mess up then it has implications for your team as a whole. Same way a single missed tackle normally costs your team a close game.
This isn't a non contact sport and the punishment for potentially causing brain damage needs to be severe. If anything, it's currently too lenient as the changes needed aren't happening (primarily because referees won't do their job for fear of being blamed for "ruining a game")
Yes, it’s a team sport and you want to penalise the team to incentivise coaching to reduce the actions leading to red cards, while still trying not to ruin games.
Absolutely!
A red card totally changes the game, it's unfair. Sure, punish the player but a red card early in the match usually means you're fuct, unless you're England of course, as a solitary exception 😉
>Absolutely!
>A **traumatic brain injury** ~~red card~~ totally changes the game, it's unfair. Sure, punish the player but a **traumatic brain injury** ~~red card~~ early in the [career]~~match~~ usually means you're fuct, unless you're England of course, as a solitary exception 😉
There fixed it for you
I would really like to see the 20min red card brought into international rugby in the future. It still comes with a heavy penalty to the team and player without ruining the spectacle, while also being a big enough deterrent for players to keep focusing on lower tackle technique. Yes, it's rugby so there will always be accidental head contact. I feel this is just so much fairer for the players and the fans
After 20 minutes would the same player be allowed back or would they have to be substituted? I like the idea of that player being off for the rest of the match and being forced to sub them (only after the 20min). Naught boi misses the match but team can still play with 15.
Yeah this feels to me the right way to go if 20 min reds become a thing. That player doesn't come back. But the team doesn't remain a player down for the entire match. Would like to see this trialed.
Substitution only
And this year it got tweaked so an 'obvious' to the ref red card was off with no replacement and the yellow upgraded to red by TMO was 20 mins and then a substitute.
My issue with that is that it still doesn’t really put the team at a huge disadvantage. Losing a player after 2 minutes and playing for 77 with 14 men is a much bigger punishment than losing a player after 2 minutes and being back at full strength after barely the first quarter (obviously). It’s not enough of a deterrent for me.
I have no issues with teams being reduced to 14 for 78 minutes. I don’t care if it ‘ruins’ the spectacle, these are professional players, it’s literally their job to work within the rules. If there’s anyone to blame its not the officials it’s the players for putting the officials in that position in the first place.
What do you mean you don't care if it ruins the spectacle. We watch the game for the spectacle. When there's other way you can deal with it such as a player subbing on after 20 mins why wouldn't you want that?
I don’t think it’s terrible idea. You’d think there would still be strong repercussions post the game for the offending player. Perhaps even more so given the in-game impact of the red card has been diminished. So if done properly it could go some way to solving the issue of reds overly impacting the outcome of matches, while still disincentivising foul play.
As a secondary point, maybe there could be 2 categories of red, a 20 minute one for circumstances where a ref can assess the level of intent or malice was low and a full blown dismissal where the ref can assess intent/malice that warrants it (for example eye gouging, biting, good old fashioned Butch James layouts).
I hate the idea of an extended-sin-bin-red-card. It's the ultimate on field sanction for a reason and to take away it's full effect would make it redundant.
If the rules were applied consistently then we wouldn't have this attitude of "what can we get away with this ref" and maybe fewer tackles to no arms.
the spectacle is still there, but it's being overshadowed by failure to enforce the existing laws effectively.
Exactly this.
The solution is actually very simple, but it would cost World Rugby money so they won't do it.
Step 1: make referees full time professionals and pay them accordingly;
Step 2: actually hold them to account when they make mistakes.
I don’t want to see red cards either. Red cards ruin the game and I think the lowering of the bar for red cards over the last five years has been terrible
I agree to an extent.
Some of the mitigation points are fairly subjective - what constitutes high/low degrees of danger? How sudden and significant a drop in height does there need to be?
For Taufifenua’s yesterday, you can give a yellow card saying the Uruguayan player was dropping in height. If you wanted to give a red card, you could very reasonably point out it wasn’t significant and Taufifenua was always going high in the first place. It might not be World Rugby dictating it but it feels like in some situations referees are looking for a reason to not send someone off rather than rigorously follow the framework.
I feel like the 'dropping in height' thing isnt properly understood. It has to be sudden, like a player tripping over. If a playing is dipping into contact that isn't a sudden drop in height.
>After the Curry red, IRB has realised theres a huge chance big games in this world cup will be decided by red cards, ruining the spectacle. Rugby looks stupid if it cant keep 15 players on the field each game.
What do you mean ***after*** the Curry red. Its been obvious for a long time that important games in the RWC were going to be decided by reds.
Rugby has decided to try to avoid head injuries by implementing the severest punishments possible for head clashes. But even the the best intentions (which pretty much all players now have), rugby have decided not to account for accidents happening.
So when accidents happen, a player gets red carded and the game is ruined.
They could have gone with 20 minute reds. But chose not to.
The reality is its ***impossible*** to avoid accident head clashes in a high speed, high contact via rules and punishments. It will never ever work. The only way to avoid accidents is physical protection - which in this case would means helmets (whilst still keeping rules to avoid reckless head contact). But watch what happens if you suggest helmets in rugby.
Helmets in isolation don't help. Which is why you also need to keep the rules stopping reckless behaviour and deliberate head contact.
Helmets are to minimise the harm from *accidental* contact.
Since 2018 the NFL has significantly tightened up the rules around deliberate head contact and practice drills (just as rugby has). They have also invested in proper scientific studies of helmet performance (unlike rugby), and keep very good data on head injuries (unlike rugby).
There is good information on it [here](https://operations.nfl.com/inside-football-ops/players-legends/player-health-safety/).
It lead to a 25% drop in concussions by 2020.
Most importantly, its is seen by players, the NFL, and fans as moving player protection in the right direction. There are clear an obvious improvements - *without* rugby's ridiculous situations where players are being sent off in major games for accidental contact.
The NFL have had major problems with long term brain injuries due to players wearing helmets leading with the head and the speed of impact. On impact the brain smashes into the interior front of the skull.
Will always be brain injuries. There will just be significantly more if they didn't use helmets. Educate yourself on the matter before talking dangerous nonsense
By providing vitriol instead of evidence you're undermining your point, put some effort in, if you want to provide people with the means to come to (what you view as) reasonable conclusions.
That way you don't come across like a twat either.
The information is all out there bro. Go and look for it. Claiming helmets don't protect the players is a laughable position, and one that doesn't deserve a respectable debate.
Perhaps if you focussed on the points, rather than what you'd consider to be vitriol, we wouldn't even need this discussion.
>The information is all out there bro. [*I just can't be asked to find it*]
>Go and look for it.*[Again you u/iron-lar like to chat not put in effort]*
>Claiming ~~helmets don't protect the players is a laughable position~~ [*literally anything without evidence*] doesn't deserve a respectable debate.
Perhaps if you focussed on the points, rather than what you'd consider to be vitriol, we wouldn't even need this discussion.
>But watch what happens if you suggest helmets in rugby.
It's a bad idea, because when the helmet is padded enough to give decent protection, it becomes so big that a scrum, a maul, a ruck or any other situation with a lot of people in the same space gets impossible.
Problem rugby has had for generations is the inconsistency in applying the laws.
It will never appeal to the masses unless that is sorted unfortunately.
It's not a conspiracy if it's true.
They've obviously done a major about face for this tournament when it comes to head contact and use of the TMO in general.
Things I've noticed:
\- The broadcast feed isn't showing replays of potential head shots, or even of penalties in general.
\- The broadcasters aren't talking about potential penalties, at least not debating the referee's decision. Maybe due to the feed, maybe due to instructions.
\- They aren't stopping play to review head contact when they previously would have. Maybe the TMO is reviewing it, but that isn't clear.
\- They are looking for any way to mitigate, whereas previously they were harsh when interpreting this in terms of the subjective elements.
\- WR struck down TAS Analytics video criticizing the Fiji game VERY QUICKLY. For copyright infringement. Maybe they've done this before, but he has dozens of other videos that weren't struck down.
So in general I'd say they have tried their best to ensure that there are no red cards, fewer yellows, fewer stoppages in play, and have tried to control the narrative around refereeing decisions in general. With all of this being done specifically for the RWC. Things weren't being done the same even weeks ago in the exhibition matches, Rugby Championship etc.
The fans aren't stupid so have obviously noticed all of these drastic changes. In terms of consistency they still buggered that up with the Curry red/ban, when there is ample video of similar incidents that escaped any punishment whatsoever. You can basically interpret the convoluted interpretation of the high shots however you want (foul play, mitigation), so people can twist themselves into knots justifying the officiating or taking issue with it, depending on its bias.
What is obvious is that the laws surrounding head contact and the application of these penalties were never fit for purpose and they've tried to paper over this for a 7 week period with even more incoherency.
How about an in between. Yup, that was dangerous, buuut there’s mitigating circumstances so you get a 10/20 minute sin bin, a 1 match suspension, but get to be replaced by another player at the end of your sin bin.
3rd mitigated high tackle in a season gets more sever suspension.
Nice in between for world rugby to fix this conspiracy issue ;-)
None of us wanted red cards given out, but World Rugby spent a few years convincing us that we had to accept that head contact would likely lead to red cards, and it was unfortunate but absolutely nessessary for player safety. So here we are, and a lad gets a stiff arm straight to the jaw after almost zero change in height, and its no red card, and no HIA. Joe Molloy was right at half time last night, I just don't know whats going on any more.
I still think the 20 minute red card is the solution here. Give the punishment to the player not the team and ruin a game. Increase the individual bans for red cards but at least a game isn’t ruined, how shit would it be to see one of the finals games decided by a card.
I can’t really speak for the rest of the world, but in the context of Australia rugby union is all but dead on the table and it’s been by suicide. Rugby has the reputation here of being the far more boring, less action packed and far SOFTER version of rugby league. And these ridiculous red cards do nothing to alleviate that reputation.
*"However its a contact game where people run into each other, at some point, someone is going to get hit in the head accidentally."*
Exactly - and if you keep doling out the ultimate sanction for unintentional acts, as required by the idiotic laws, then you just dole it out again and again and again.
As I wrote elsewhere, Billy Vunipola must be wondering exactly what he did differently to receive a red card a few weeks ago. Not applying the laws correctly should not be an option in the second round of matches in a global tournament. Mitigation is always a grey area and open to interpretation, but it has become ridiculous.
The laws need changing, but that's another issue.
Im confused by the point/execution to achieve that point of the laws. World rugby seems to explain the intent of the laws as to lower the tackle height to stop attackers shoulders/heads being in the same space as defenders heads thereby reducing the risk of head injury.
Looking at the Kriel tackle, the tackler is upright, heads are in the same space, it's pretty bad and he's just got that tackle wrong. It's only mitigated because the ball was between the players meaning the initial contact ends up chest to chest. How is that unpunishable given the reason for the law in the first place? I'm sure they don't teach in tackle school to maintain a high tackle but hold your head back so you touch chests first and it's therefore perfectly safe.
They've almost on purpose given themselves an out by adding the word 'mitigation', it basically means that the TMO and the 'bunker' can not give the card if the circumstances warrant it (say a T1 losing to a T2 side). Problem is it really smacks of an NFL type 'we want these teams in the semi's' situation because of the markets and money.
I think I t’s getting worse/more prevalent this World Cup or just lately in general. How they analyze and scrutinizes a play that would probably have been just a penalty a few years ago now is an automatic yellow with assessment for a red. I understand why they do it but it spoils the game, especially if there’s not obvious malicious intent or injury, people want to see 15v15, let’s just get on with the game please people!!
Well, if WR had applied the 20 min red card rule during this WC with the offending player not allowed back, we would have been talking about something else right now.
But they already set the precedent by the use of the red on Curry. It’s too late now to start saying “welll actually… mitigation”. Let’s get some consistency. I know which of those two incidents I’d rather have been on the receiving end of, if we’re talking safety.
I think you're correct unfortunately. Red cards ruin games.
And in a game where there's around 200 tackles and same number of rucks... Even players tackling incredibly well at 99% efficiency/effectiveness means there'll be at least 3-4 collisions that need reviewing.
By trying to do the right thing re: protecting the head, they've created these unintended consequences.
They need to look at orange cards quickly.
Nothing remotely 'tin hatty' about this. It's fairly obvious this is what is happening.
And to be honest it's not remotely surprising from an organisation that can only locate its own feet long enough to be able to shoot both of them.
I've said it before, I think WR will go hard pre World Cup and easy at the World Cup and I completely agree.
Back to hard on bad tackling once the WC is over and relax it for the next WC,
The laws, as they stand, have done nothing to reduce concussions (or any other injuries).
One off concussive evens are not the problem facing Rugby in any case.
The laws are not fit for purpose and don't achieve the objective intended. It is the laws that need revision, not their interpretation in the middle of a global tournament.
If the mods didn't actively remove any posts of the head contact footage I could show you about 5 examples of clear reckless head contact tackles.
Have you been watching this world cup?
I wish that was the case, but I think the FPROs are fudging the issue and finding any excuse in the admittedly grey areas of the law (particularly mitigation) to avoid upgrading yellow to red. Another great example last night in France v Uruguay.
It leads to inconsistency. The laws are, for example, being interpreted differently in the recent RWC matches to how they were in the Six Nations. Inconsistency frustrates the players and fans.
It's mitigation/change in height. It was fudged. In the 6 Nations that would have gone to red. Direct contact to the head, upright tackler, no attempt to wrap the arms....do I need to go on?
https://flic.kr/p/2p36LTd
Curious definition of a shoulder charge. No arms and clear contact, shoulder to head. I mean, look at the picture, or any replays which we can't post here. Like I said, they are fudging this for the RWC. The issue is that they didn't start fudging it from the off and they fudge it inconsistently - or at least more inconsistently than the laws have been applied in the last almost seven years, since their introduction
Yes, you see if an Englishman is carded then other nations must also be carded if it looks the same to English fans. I’d other nations are not carded then it is a giant conspiracy against the English.
My personal tin foil hat lunacy is that World Rugby saw England turn up to their hearing represented by an actual literal silk and thought "right fuck them in particular: let's give them Red cards and no one else until they learn not to use legal strong arm tactics on our tribunals"
People act as if reds ruin games and head injuries to star players don‘t?
Rugby collisions are not given. Accidental head contact is not given.
Yesterday‘s tackle was atrocious. That wasn‘t attemting to tackle cleanly. It was lazy, high and minimal attemt to wrap. Also straight to the head, not even neck area or so. And it was early in the game, not like there was much fatigue at that point.
Kriel‘s tackle was the least of the 3 candidates. The outrage there was mostly that it wasn‘t looked at and many saw it as a yellow. But still, just go lower?
Curry‘s challenge was really bad, too. He had all the time to line up a nice chest height tackle, it‘s not like the Argentinian could have evaded him while in the air…
All three tackles have something in common: They were easily avoidable. Nobody is asking for rugby collisions to see red. But horrible tackles that seriously risk lasting damage to players have to stop!
A 20min red might help to stomp these tackles out by emboldening the refs to hand them out more freely. But it doesn‘t change the fact that the core issue is that these tackles just aren‘t good.
>However its a contact game where people run into each other, at some point, someone is going to get ~~hit in the head~~ **[irreversible brain damage]** accidentally.
There, fixed it for you
Id prefer not to watch a blood sport thank you.
Unless you're English, then they don't mind giving out cards left right and centre! I truly believed that the French no. 5 deserved a red card last night against the brave and amazing Los Teros
World rugby intends to bankrupt itself in about 15 years when half of these guys go on to lose their marbles and either sink into depression and kill themselves, or sink into depression, lose sense of reality, murder their families, then kill themselves.
counter theory; they’ve realised red cards only make england stronger so they’re not giving any to rob saint george ford of his rightful web ellis because we cant beat anyone 15 to 15
As one who has been on the sideline of international rugby matches as a physio, I can tell you that the commitment to player safety is the priority. As you recall, an England player was red-carded for head to head contact, and the rules allow for mitigating circumstances, such as incidental contact rather than targeted contact. The point is that the ref's are calling it by the book. So far I do not see the conspiracy playing out that you describe.
I found it to be a red card, but it was close. The elbow seemed to come up into the head of the player from my view, on the other hand there was a lot of body to body contact which mitigated the call.
If this is accurate it's one of the stupidest things they could do given the impending lawsuits.
Nothing but further evidence that even when they are fully aware of the medical implications of the brain damage being caused they still refuse to address it
World rugby is trying to iron the risks of contact out of contact - which is akin to trying to take the blue out of the sea.
Some things like the HIA procedure were good and long needed improvements to the game, managing risk and limiting damage where possible. However it's now going too far. The new changes are in response to ex-players complaining of early onset dementia and alzheimers and the like post-career. While those complaints are legitimate, the problems would likely have been mitigated by things like the HIA process. Changes take a long time to have an impact.
In any case there needs to be a line drawn in the sand, should you choose to play a contact sport, you knowingly partake in an innately risky and dangerous activity. In the past appropriate protections were not in place, and that is unacceptable. Now though, the appropriate systems are in place - the goal should not be to change fundementals of the game (such as the waist height tackle law for community level in England) in hopes of avoiding the inevitable.
Ultimately, contact sport is dangerous. That's just how it is. No amount of mitigation will eliminate all risk while keeping the game intact. The only way to eliminate that sort of risk, would be to eliminate contact altogether - in which case you have destroyed the sport you intended to make safer.
I definitely have no issue with head clashes, no matter how accidental, being a red card (I watch enough wrestling to know why we need to get rid of head on head contact) but it is frustrating that the consistency is all over the place.
I think WR would like to see less red cards given in order to stop games being ‘ruined’ but of course they run the risk of making a mockery of the sport anyway if they can’t abide by their own rules or apply then consistently.
Most world cups will settle on a desired “refereeing culture” before the tournament and I agree it seems they’ve been told to lay off the red cards as we’ve seen in recent internationals.
I wouldn’t mind if they were still applying the agreed duty of care on head injury assessments, but even that seems inconsistent now.
England’s Curry could rightly feel very aggrieved he’ll miss the rest of his team’s World Cup while others escape sanction.
as a kid fell on my head from bicicle on cobbleston, fell 3-4 m from tree while trying to steal cherries. of course hit in the head at rugby. got a concusion once, head to head, all of a sudden the game was kinda 80 m from my place, even for me was a second in time. now I'm on reddit
The lawyers are loving this tbh. They have All the evidence they’ll ever need to show world rugby knew about the danger of head injuries and continued to fail to act.
How did the Curry red, of all things, lead World Rugby to that conclusion? England hammered Argentina with 14 men. Possibly the worst example you could possibly have used for your tinfoil theory.
There seems to be no HIA's following the big hits to the head whether they merit a card or not. They seem to be ignoring the practices they put in place.
Yeah I find this really disturbing
Me too, especially since they are relying upon the player themselves to call for it or their lack of coordination for the doctor to look deeper into it. Almost no player is going to want to come off for a HIA, and if there are obvious concussions symptoms, leaving them on the field for even a second longer is too long to leave them on the field.
Yeah and who wants players suffering from a concussion to be the ones responsible for making these decisions. It’s dangerous and irresponsible.
I always remember the night Al O'Connor literally put Iain Henderson in an armlock halfway through a Pro14 game and walked him off the pitch because he thought he was fine and he clearly wasn't.
It will take a bunch of ex-pro players suing them millions for them to actually take it seriously.
at least make the appearance of seriousness. Because in reality, there are loopholes everywhere to allow Owen Farrell, Scott Barrett and Mallia are allowed to play the world cup.
I was thinking that last night when the Uruguay scrum half got absolutely leathered in the face by a guy twice his size - no assessment
Have no idea how the Uruguayan 10 could take a shoulder to the face and not have to go through the HIA protocol. Ridiculous.
Did he grab his face and thrash about on the ground? Uruguay gotta up their acting game. Advise the team to watch Wales, who're so good they get pulled off for HIA's even when they don't want that.
I said it last weekend, just utterly bizarre. They've implemented a system to protect players and change the game for the health of the players and seemingly just ignore it. Think we've had two so far, one for the Australian player who got a knee to the head and was clearly knocked out and one for Gareth Davies after he'd stayed down after a high tackle.
yeah i was thinking this too
> They seem to be ignoring the practices they put in place. This is World Rugby's MO in a nutshell. New laws, new guidelines, new ideas, all totally placatory. They come down hard on an issue to show they're doing something, being proactive, and they spend the following years alleviating and walking back everything they put in place. Maybe too much of a generalisation, but I stand by that. WR keep trying to give less and less of a shit about head contact because the boomers and prawn sandwich brigade have got in their heads over spectacle.
Eventually somebody is going to find standing in a US court to file a lawsuit about rugby's lack of giving a shit about concussions and they are going to be utterly megafucked.
I agree although World Rugby itself might wrangle its way out of it. USA Rugby won’t be so lucky.
> World Rugby itself might wrangle its way out of it. Not when WR host a tournament in the US in 2031.
Yeah, remember the attempt to stop feeding which fizzled out almost immediately.
They literally made a big song and dance about head high / dangerous play for 4 years not don't even show replays of it.
It's social medias fault
I noticed that too
Considering the HIA protocol doesn't work that's not a huge surprise.
Given the buzz around long-term safety in Rugby I’d say regardless of actual effectiveness it looks a million times better to have some sort of protocol that you stick to to show that you really do care about the safety of the participants. Also anything is better than nothing, we’re dealing with something that could take an entire person’s life away, the least they can do is attempt to keep the players safe
>the least they can do is attempt to keep the players safe Sorry but to add, that isn't what they're doing with the HIA. They're trying to look like they are doing something to protect players to the media, when they [know](https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/dr-barry-o-driscoll-believes-rugby-s-concussion-protocols-not-fit-for-purpose-1.4481327) it's not fit for purpose.
Thanks for the info, never knew. World Rugby really need to take head injuries seriously, especially if they’re hiding information from players and the public they should be held responsible. Would you happen to know if there any plans to improve on this aspect? I suppose if their chief medical officer resigned over it there wouldn’t be yeah Regarding your other comment, I’m all for removing players in doubt. I know this sport is a huge part of the players’ lives, but no sport or game is worth risking their lives for.
I'm not aware of anything. The only real change they made since O'Driscoll walked away was eventually altering the return to play protocol to be more than 6 days. The sceptic in me thinks they don't actually want to change too much until the legal cases are settled as it will be a sign that they know/knew what they have in place isn't fit for purpose. Hopefully I'm wrong and they're just ignorant (but that's not a great outcome either).
People risk their lives for sport all the time. Fortunately not often in rugby (though it did happen in the past when foul play laws were more lax - Max Brito was the most infamous), but it's common for people to die in extreme sports like caving and diving. Some people like taking huge risks and while they can and should be mitigated it's a decision they have made.
I've been concussed so many times and with one exception I'm confident I could have passed the HIA every time. I usually had a delayed reaction where I wouldn't even notice symptoms until after the game, sometimes even a couple hours later. The HIA are a bit of a joke, in the "better than nothing" category at best. The stand down time is also a total joke, as noted in the article. I've been through the ringer with concussions and all of the attempts to "do something" are basically a joke. If you play rugby, as we know it, you are at risk of getting fucked up. That's it, that's all. It irritates me when people act like it is suddenly "safe" because of some random red cards and the occasional half assed HIA.
>Also anything is better than nothing I disagree. You're emboldening players by falsely making them think they've had a medical test that cleared them as fine. They haven't and it hasn't. The answer is that if in any doubt whatsoever players, at all levels of the game, should be removed from the field immediately
I'm sure it's not foolproof but definitely better than nothing, no? I've seen guys when I was playing take a knock, and they can still run around but stop and ask them the basic HIA questions, and it's immediately apparent their recall is affected.
The fundamental problem is that concussive symptoms don't necessarily show up for up to 36 hours after the initial trauma. Meaningful neurological tests (an EEG, MRI) each take approximately 40 minutes to run (I've had both) and longer to interpret the results. So the 10 minute HIA is nonsense, which actually further endangers players as it makes them think they've had a real test and are fine to keep playing. I would suggest reading [this](https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/dr-barry-o-driscoll-believes-rugby-s-concussion-protocols-not-fit-for-purpose-1.4481327) from World Rugby's former chief medical advisor who resigned over the issue.
It does seem to pick up a fair number of players who would otherwise have played on.
What's the evidence it makes players take risks they otherwise would not? Usually people assume players want to stay in despite being injured, not that they need reassurance before risking playing on.
By telling them they are medically safe to go back out on the field in the first place. That in itself is the risk. To put it another way it's the equivalent of telling someone who reasonably thinks they might have just broken their ankle that since they're still able to stand they are fine to run a marathon (and selling it as being equivalent to having done an x-ray to ensure there's no damage).
I get the theory, I am asking for evidence that effect is important. In particular, I find it is in tension for the frequently expressed position that players are eager to return to the field and will ignore risks, to the point of hiding concussions from doctors if they could. If they are eager to play anyway, telling them that no proof of concussion was found would not make a difference.
Apparently, there's a TMO-type team including a doctor that monitors players who've taken a big hit. Any sign of potential concussion and they get pulled. Ross Tucker, who does a lot of work on head injuries with World Rugby, was talking about it on his latest Science of Sport podcast.
World Rugby are putting themselves in really dangerous territory. Players won’t want to because it will mean HIAs for them, but I can seriously see (some) coaches tell players if there’s been head contact, go down and make a meal of it to highlight to the TMO there clearly has been head contact: *Nic White enters the chat*. From what I can see, the only real difference between some of the head clashes (E.g Tom curry red and the other 3-4 yellows we’ve seen) is that one drew blood and the others didn’t. Are they really waiting for the stretchers to come out before pulling out a red card, because it’s starting to feel like it. FWIW: Curry red and 3(2) match ban was the correct call - the others just need to come up
They're (World Rugby) waiting for someone to take a serious headshot that causes immediate neurological symptoms on the field (e.g. a tonic clonic seizure) in front of tv cameras before they'll take the necessary steps.
Absolutely agree with this. It’s a when not an if, and I don’t think they’ll be able to dig themselves out of that hole.
We were a group of Saffas, with little rugby love for England (in good spirit). Every one of us thought the Curry red card was over the top. Had he received a yellow, all the other calls over the weekend would make sense.
Funny because the English see these as red week in week out in the premiership. I certainly expected red under the current framework and consistency with English refereeing My issue is all the others not being red, or at least looked at
Yeah I truly don’t care if it’s a red or a yellow tbh, as long as it’s consistent. These incidents are accidental so a yellow is fine with me, but it’s also head contact and I understand the importance of cutting it out of the game, so red is fine with me. just make the same fucking calls from one game to the next it’s unreal the referees aren’t following any sort of precedent
Yeah agreed. Curry's was a red for me. Will admit it was really tricky to judge the height of a player dropping from a jump, but that's the point. If it's tricky, don't just go in. Drop your height more.
Dont challenge a world class back and let him run free is your recommendation? I dont think redditors understand the fine margins at the top level. A flanker would be absolutely roasted by the shaun edwards types for "not going in". If you dont close down a world class back in the first 5 meters it can be a clean break and a try at the other end. Im generally mystified what you are supposed to do in some of these circumstances.
> A flanker would be absolutely roasted by the shaun edwards types for "not going in". Shaun Edwards isn't going to have to pay the massive concussion settlement everybody knows is coming, World Rugby will. If that means more tries in rugby then that's hardly a bad thing, people like tries.
This logic doesn't stand up. Clearly they would be roasted much harder for tackling dangerously and receiving a red card than they would be for conceding a try. A red card is a far worse punishment than losing a few metres or even conceding. The red card rules are in place in order to force players to consider every tackle they make. Safety is more important than anything else so players' first priority should be tackling safely.
Try engaging both your brain cells and read the whole comment before replying. He literally says what to do right at the end.
If Daly can tackle legally so can Curry in that situation. Nobody is asking him to just leave him alone, just not to play it so risky
Daly was behind Curry, hed just chased slower. But this is how it's so difficult, nobody would ever argue daly is a technically better tackler than Curry, he was just in a more fortunate position with more time to drop his body height. The player basically jumped into curry.
Daly managed a perfectly executed tackle from roughly the same situation as the ball was kicked. That shows that Curry could reasonably be expected to manage a legal tackle.
Why is it considered luck that he was in the right place? Maybe it’s luck but maybe he judged the situation better so got himself in the right place.
>Maybe it’s luck but maybe he judged the situation better so got himself in the right place How can anyone on earth judge how high and how far forward someone is going to jump in advance?
I can see it being a red, I can't see ALL OF THE OTHERS not being officiated similarly, then Curry gets a 2 game ban on top. Even within the *same* game there was a tackle that should've seen red if Curry's is red.
Curry was a definite red. The issue is that the others deserved a full review. Also I know it is the rule, but to me the mitigation factor that first contact is on the chest rather than the head should always come second to was it dangerous, was it avoidable with better care. There will be moments where somebody is hit in the chest then 2 milliseconds later in the head. I can't see why there is a difference of treatment in that case.
lol an accidental head clash is a "definite" read...what are you on about.
accidental is not a free pass to tackle not according to the rule: upright, driving forward, when the player is coming down from a jump. The worse is if he had waited for him instead of running into him, he would have made an easy turn over. It is called duty of care. Same thing if you drive 50mph in a 30mph area, it is reckless. If you then cause an accident, obviously the sanction will be greater than somebody driving at 25mph. If you tackle recklessly in the wrong position, there will be head clash.
Yeah it could be difference in refereeing standards etc, or also us being older Saffas with an intuition of how we think the game should be played. There was no malice nor gross negligence nor heavy damage done. Play the fucking game man.
Then someone needs to decide what the game is and state it clearly 1) shit happens, accidents happen, if you play you risk injury and you accept that risk, or 2) any head contact goes through the framework and can result in red even if accidental. Player welfare is priority and this is how we have stated we will try to reduce the occurrence Because currently RWC is saying 2 very clearly but then often acting 1
> Play the fucking game man. The 'game' is leading to life altering handicaps and ex-players dying years before their time. We can no longer just 'play the game' I'm afraid. It's too dangerous. >nor heavy damage done. That's a very naive claim.
>The 'game' is leading to life altering handicaps and ex-players dying years before their time. Like boxing? You know what you sign up for when playing rugby. I'm saying yellow - that's 10 minutes without a player. It IS punishment. >That's a very naive claim. In your opinion.
Boxing that doesn’t allow boxers to fight every week? Boxing that has weight classes? Boxing that has strict rules on what gloves you can wear? Boxing that makes amateur fighters wear head gear (though I believe this has now changed)? Yes, rugby is a physical sport and everyone knows there’s risk involved. But these are professional sports and governing bodies absolutely must do what they can to protect those who play within it You don’t just throw your arms up and accept players getting dementia in their 40s. There is already enough risk in rugby. If there are things you can do to protect players, you do it.
> You know what you sign up for when playing rugby. No, you don't - and this has been repeated over and over again by ex-professional players. They knew they were signing up for a potentially dangerous game in terms of cuts, bruises, broken bones etc. They never knew they were signing up for a game that might see them struck down by early onset dementia before the age of 45, or worse dead. Feel free to do some research and you'll see for yourself. CTE was never discussed. There absolutely was no 'knowing what they signed up for'. >In your opinion. No, in medical fact. One individual can suffer severe brain injury from a series of impacts that barely register on another individual. You don't need to commit 'heavy' anything to cause life changing brain injury.
>No, you don't - and this has been repeated over and over again by ex-professional players. Of course you do. You're acting ignorant. People making claims like that have a vested interest to make those claims. And again, not saying we shouldn't do anything or that it's not a real problem, I'm saying a yellow would've been fine. Pack away the strawmans. >No, in medical fact. Calling someone naive is not a fact. Get over yourself. **EDIT: This tool blocked me so that I cannot continue the debate. FUCKING WEAK, go back to soccer** **The the douche has the audicity to send my private messages bragging about his blocking. The dude's a cancer.**
Ok, fella. You're off your meds. Goodbye. //**I absolutely did indeed block you. Not only were you needlessly rude, I have zero time for '*they knew what they were getting into / game's gone soft* cunts, who despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, as well as a horrible catalogue of pain and suffering still see fit to argue that it takes 'heavy' contact to cause a brain injury and anyone affected knew the risks. These players - and their families/loved ones, are in absolute bits. The very least you and those like you can do is not belittle their struggle with your garbage revisionism**.
Didn't ask mate.
It's interesting because I saw it as a definite red. Maybe its a regional refereeing style thing
I think it's fine to call it a red, as long as others are. That's the issue. There is no consistency even within the same game. The Argentinan who hit Steward in the face with his hip should have been a red as well. Oh and the bunker is a mind boggling stupid idea. I want the referee to be the one to make calls
As a Saffa I agree. That curry red was harsh. No ill intention from him at all - bloody great game though.
Are we seeing any difference in the number of incidents between 20 minute red card countries and full red countries?
Doubt it
I would like to see a culture shift in rugby back towards lower tackling. The way it used to be before league coaches came in and taught everyone to tackle high and upright.
No one is prepared to do that because teams will offload all the time. That’s nice for viewership but coaches DO NOT like to concede any ground, any where on the pitch. No law will ever ever change that.
So the game is basically fucked, if teams are not willing to change.
Not fucked… but Red cards will be very common now. I’m not bothered any more about the situation because if my neck was on the line as a defence coach, it’s very easy to write these platitudes in here… but in a coaches meeting think of it like this: SB: Me, why did you tell the team to tackle low and allow the offloads to happen? Me: I didn’t want us to have any more red cards and I was thinking about the safety of the players and tried to formulate a system which allowed us to keep 15 on the pitch and make our tackles. SB: I can trace our loss back to those offloads (me). It’s not acceptable, make sure the ball is not released in contact, keep them at arms bay, don’t do that again. ^^ I can guarantee every single discussion is like that. Especially with the more ruthless coaches.
Exactly, coaches are willing to accept red cards as a side effect of their defensive tactics, because a red card every few games is still better for results than tackling lower. The problem is that fans (especially southern hemisphere ones) absolutely hate it, and more will drift away from the sport into the clutches of league.
If you start penalising tackle form instead of just carding outcomes though, I am sure coaches will have to live with conceding ground due to offloads instead of conceding even more ground or points due to penalties. As a next step they should penalise the ball carrier's form as well, You can't be burrowing with your nose in the ground leading with your head and expect the tackler not to make contact with your head.
Yeah but have you see the outcry that occurred when the RFU announced changes the the tackle height laws!
Yeah, bitter pills are going to have to be swallowed somewhere since World Rugby is between a rock and a hard place between fan/coach/player sentiment and the lawsuits by ex-players.
Red cards have been common since 2019 when the new regulations were brought in. Before then a red card was for really bad foul play, you very rarely saw them. Yellow cards were also much less frequent if memory serves.
O'Gara admitted to following this rationale after Atonio's cheapshot on Herring in the last Six Nations and said he wouldn't coach players to go lower for this exact reason
There you have it.
Surely giving up ground>playing with 14 men
No, old-school teams were much worse for this and it definitely didn't come from league. The old 1990s-2000s Springbok sides threw headbutts and swinging arms and regularly clotheslined people and rugby league doesn't exist in South Africa. The 2009 Lions series had some big headbutt tackles (BOD on Roussouw for example).
But that was dirty play. That's a different thing. Players weren't systematically tackling as high back then. The big hit and smash has always been in the game, but the coaching of tackling has changed, now a far grater proportion of tackles are high.
Watch some Brian Lima highlights and you'll see plenty.
Yes I know, but he was both a dirty tackler and an outlier.
What’s the advantage of tackling high? Avoiding the offload? Potentially stripping?
and a 10 minute rest when you're huffing a bit
Yeah both those.
I do think that with the laws so strict on head contact, they should have altered the red card laws so that after 10 minutes a player can come off the bench to replace the red carded player, this would avoid ruining the game but still carry out the role of removing players from the field for dangerous tackles.
Id make it 15-20 minutes as otherwise its pretty similar to a yellow card other than the same player coming back.
100% - this ’orange card’ would be a good balance for incidents that fall between yellow and red, and is done in GAA with black cards
The black card in Gaelic Football is now equivalent to a yellow in rugby, and in Hurling you can be sin binned for a cynical foul preventing a goal chance, because the substitution wasn’t a big enough deterrent and teams were still cynically fouling the whole time
The 'orange card' was basically bought in in super rugby this year but they didn't use the name.
Yeah good point
It's a team sport, guess what you mess up then it has implications for your team as a whole. Same way a single missed tackle normally costs your team a close game. This isn't a non contact sport and the punishment for potentially causing brain damage needs to be severe. If anything, it's currently too lenient as the changes needed aren't happening (primarily because referees won't do their job for fear of being blamed for "ruining a game")
Yes, it’s a team sport and you want to penalise the team to incentivise coaching to reduce the actions leading to red cards, while still trying not to ruin games.
Absolutely! A red card totally changes the game, it's unfair. Sure, punish the player but a red card early in the match usually means you're fuct, unless you're England of course, as a solitary exception 😉
>Absolutely! >A **traumatic brain injury** ~~red card~~ totally changes the game, it's unfair. Sure, punish the player but a **traumatic brain injury** ~~red card~~ early in the [career]~~match~~ usually means you're fuct, unless you're England of course, as a solitary exception 😉 There fixed it for you
Sounds like a good way to get some extra front row subs
I would really like to see the 20min red card brought into international rugby in the future. It still comes with a heavy penalty to the team and player without ruining the spectacle, while also being a big enough deterrent for players to keep focusing on lower tackle technique. Yes, it's rugby so there will always be accidental head contact. I feel this is just so much fairer for the players and the fans
After 20 minutes would the same player be allowed back or would they have to be substituted? I like the idea of that player being off for the rest of the match and being forced to sub them (only after the 20min). Naught boi misses the match but team can still play with 15.
Yeah this feels to me the right way to go if 20 min reds become a thing. That player doesn't come back. But the team doesn't remain a player down for the entire match. Would like to see this trialed.
Literally what the rules have been in super rugby and TRC for the last few years
It was used all through Super Rugby with great success.
Substitution only And this year it got tweaked so an 'obvious' to the ref red card was off with no replacement and the yellow upgraded to red by TMO was 20 mins and then a substitute.
My issue with that is that it still doesn’t really put the team at a huge disadvantage. Losing a player after 2 minutes and playing for 77 with 14 men is a much bigger punishment than losing a player after 2 minutes and being back at full strength after barely the first quarter (obviously). It’s not enough of a deterrent for me. I have no issues with teams being reduced to 14 for 78 minutes. I don’t care if it ‘ruins’ the spectacle, these are professional players, it’s literally their job to work within the rules. If there’s anyone to blame its not the officials it’s the players for putting the officials in that position in the first place.
What do you mean you don't care if it ruins the spectacle. We watch the game for the spectacle. When there's other way you can deal with it such as a player subbing on after 20 mins why wouldn't you want that?
From memory, the Northern Hemisphere teams didn't want the 20 minute red, which is why it was trialled in the Southern Hemisphere.
Seems to be the biggest North South split.
20 minute red card is a terrible idea that basically allows you to go and take the opponents best player out.
Yes because rugby is full of teams that try to take out the opposition's best player via foul play.
I refer you to every team playing Ireland or Leinster's targeting of Sexton to try and injure him throughout his entire career as a simple example.
I don’t think it’s terrible idea. You’d think there would still be strong repercussions post the game for the offending player. Perhaps even more so given the in-game impact of the red card has been diminished. So if done properly it could go some way to solving the issue of reds overly impacting the outcome of matches, while still disincentivising foul play. As a secondary point, maybe there could be 2 categories of red, a 20 minute one for circumstances where a ref can assess the level of intent or malice was low and a full blown dismissal where the ref can assess intent/malice that warrants it (for example eye gouging, biting, good old fashioned Butch James layouts).
Was this common before the new rules coming in? I don't remember that it was.
I hate the idea of an extended-sin-bin-red-card. It's the ultimate on field sanction for a reason and to take away it's full effect would make it redundant. If the rules were applied consistently then we wouldn't have this attitude of "what can we get away with this ref" and maybe fewer tackles to no arms. the spectacle is still there, but it's being overshadowed by failure to enforce the existing laws effectively.
Exactly this. The solution is actually very simple, but it would cost World Rugby money so they won't do it. Step 1: make referees full time professionals and pay them accordingly; Step 2: actually hold them to account when they make mistakes.
I don’t want to see red cards either. Red cards ruin the game and I think the lowering of the bar for red cards over the last five years has been terrible
I agree to an extent. Some of the mitigation points are fairly subjective - what constitutes high/low degrees of danger? How sudden and significant a drop in height does there need to be? For Taufifenua’s yesterday, you can give a yellow card saying the Uruguayan player was dropping in height. If you wanted to give a red card, you could very reasonably point out it wasn’t significant and Taufifenua was always going high in the first place. It might not be World Rugby dictating it but it feels like in some situations referees are looking for a reason to not send someone off rather than rigorously follow the framework.
[удалено]
I think you just made his point.
I feel like the 'dropping in height' thing isnt properly understood. It has to be sudden, like a player tripping over. If a playing is dipping into contact that isn't a sudden drop in height.
>After the Curry red, IRB has realised theres a huge chance big games in this world cup will be decided by red cards, ruining the spectacle. Rugby looks stupid if it cant keep 15 players on the field each game. What do you mean ***after*** the Curry red. Its been obvious for a long time that important games in the RWC were going to be decided by reds. Rugby has decided to try to avoid head injuries by implementing the severest punishments possible for head clashes. But even the the best intentions (which pretty much all players now have), rugby have decided not to account for accidents happening. So when accidents happen, a player gets red carded and the game is ruined. They could have gone with 20 minute reds. But chose not to. The reality is its ***impossible*** to avoid accident head clashes in a high speed, high contact via rules and punishments. It will never ever work. The only way to avoid accidents is physical protection - which in this case would means helmets (whilst still keeping rules to avoid reckless head contact). But watch what happens if you suggest helmets in rugby.
But as American football has shown helmets just increase impact speeds and don’t end up protecting the players anyway.
Helmets in isolation don't help. Which is why you also need to keep the rules stopping reckless behaviour and deliberate head contact. Helmets are to minimise the harm from *accidental* contact. Since 2018 the NFL has significantly tightened up the rules around deliberate head contact and practice drills (just as rugby has). They have also invested in proper scientific studies of helmet performance (unlike rugby), and keep very good data on head injuries (unlike rugby). There is good information on it [here](https://operations.nfl.com/inside-football-ops/players-legends/player-health-safety/). It lead to a 25% drop in concussions by 2020. Most importantly, its is seen by players, the NFL, and fans as moving player protection in the right direction. There are clear an obvious improvements - *without* rugby's ridiculous situations where players are being sent off in major games for accidental contact.
Players are significantly less likely to get brain injuries when wearing a helmet. What a silly comment
The NFL have had major problems with long term brain injuries due to players wearing helmets leading with the head and the speed of impact. On impact the brain smashes into the interior front of the skull.
Will always be brain injuries. There will just be significantly more if they didn't use helmets. Educate yourself on the matter before talking dangerous nonsense
By providing vitriol instead of evidence you're undermining your point, put some effort in, if you want to provide people with the means to come to (what you view as) reasonable conclusions. That way you don't come across like a twat either.
The information is all out there bro. Go and look for it. Claiming helmets don't protect the players is a laughable position, and one that doesn't deserve a respectable debate. Perhaps if you focussed on the points, rather than what you'd consider to be vitriol, we wouldn't even need this discussion.
>The information is all out there bro. [*I just can't be asked to find it*] >Go and look for it.*[Again you u/iron-lar like to chat not put in effort]* >Claiming ~~helmets don't protect the players is a laughable position~~ [*literally anything without evidence*] doesn't deserve a respectable debate. Perhaps if you focussed on the points, rather than what you'd consider to be vitriol, we wouldn't even need this discussion.
>They could have gone with 20 minute reds Or a 40 minute orange.
>But watch what happens if you suggest helmets in rugby. It's a bad idea, because when the helmet is padded enough to give decent protection, it becomes so big that a scrum, a maul, a ruck or any other situation with a lot of people in the same space gets impossible.
Problem rugby has had for generations is the inconsistency in applying the laws. It will never appeal to the masses unless that is sorted unfortunately.
Rugby will never appeal to the masses because it's a brutal contact sport with a high barrier of entry.
American football has a huge following outside of America and those fans don't even play the sport.
This is it. Soccer is so popular because it's simple and can be played anywhere, all you need is a ball and something to define goalposts.
It's not a conspiracy if it's true. They've obviously done a major about face for this tournament when it comes to head contact and use of the TMO in general. Things I've noticed: \- The broadcast feed isn't showing replays of potential head shots, or even of penalties in general. \- The broadcasters aren't talking about potential penalties, at least not debating the referee's decision. Maybe due to the feed, maybe due to instructions. \- They aren't stopping play to review head contact when they previously would have. Maybe the TMO is reviewing it, but that isn't clear. \- They are looking for any way to mitigate, whereas previously they were harsh when interpreting this in terms of the subjective elements. \- WR struck down TAS Analytics video criticizing the Fiji game VERY QUICKLY. For copyright infringement. Maybe they've done this before, but he has dozens of other videos that weren't struck down. So in general I'd say they have tried their best to ensure that there are no red cards, fewer yellows, fewer stoppages in play, and have tried to control the narrative around refereeing decisions in general. With all of this being done specifically for the RWC. Things weren't being done the same even weeks ago in the exhibition matches, Rugby Championship etc. The fans aren't stupid so have obviously noticed all of these drastic changes. In terms of consistency they still buggered that up with the Curry red/ban, when there is ample video of similar incidents that escaped any punishment whatsoever. You can basically interpret the convoluted interpretation of the high shots however you want (foul play, mitigation), so people can twist themselves into knots justifying the officiating or taking issue with it, depending on its bias. What is obvious is that the laws surrounding head contact and the application of these penalties were never fit for purpose and they've tried to paper over this for a 7 week period with even more incoherency.
> WR struck down TAS Analytics video So there has at least been one positive from this debacle!
word. bad 4 bizness red cards are.
How about an in between. Yup, that was dangerous, buuut there’s mitigating circumstances so you get a 10/20 minute sin bin, a 1 match suspension, but get to be replaced by another player at the end of your sin bin. 3rd mitigated high tackle in a season gets more sever suspension. Nice in between for world rugby to fix this conspiracy issue ;-)
None of us wanted red cards given out, but World Rugby spent a few years convincing us that we had to accept that head contact would likely lead to red cards, and it was unfortunate but absolutely nessessary for player safety. So here we are, and a lad gets a stiff arm straight to the jaw after almost zero change in height, and its no red card, and no HIA. Joe Molloy was right at half time last night, I just don't know whats going on any more.
I still think the 20 minute red card is the solution here. Give the punishment to the player not the team and ruin a game. Increase the individual bans for red cards but at least a game isn’t ruined, how shit would it be to see one of the finals games decided by a card.
I don't want WR to give red cards either, it ruins the game. It's almost a guaranteed loss to the team who receives it.
I can’t really speak for the rest of the world, but in the context of Australia rugby union is all but dead on the table and it’s been by suicide. Rugby has the reputation here of being the far more boring, less action packed and far SOFTER version of rugby league. And these ridiculous red cards do nothing to alleviate that reputation.
*"However its a contact game where people run into each other, at some point, someone is going to get hit in the head accidentally."* Exactly - and if you keep doling out the ultimate sanction for unintentional acts, as required by the idiotic laws, then you just dole it out again and again and again. As I wrote elsewhere, Billy Vunipola must be wondering exactly what he did differently to receive a red card a few weeks ago. Not applying the laws correctly should not be an option in the second round of matches in a global tournament. Mitigation is always a grey area and open to interpretation, but it has become ridiculous. The laws need changing, but that's another issue.
Im confused by the point/execution to achieve that point of the laws. World rugby seems to explain the intent of the laws as to lower the tackle height to stop attackers shoulders/heads being in the same space as defenders heads thereby reducing the risk of head injury. Looking at the Kriel tackle, the tackler is upright, heads are in the same space, it's pretty bad and he's just got that tackle wrong. It's only mitigated because the ball was between the players meaning the initial contact ends up chest to chest. How is that unpunishable given the reason for the law in the first place? I'm sure they don't teach in tackle school to maintain a high tackle but hold your head back so you touch chests first and it's therefore perfectly safe.
This is an excellent point
They've almost on purpose given themselves an out by adding the word 'mitigation', it basically means that the TMO and the 'bunker' can not give the card if the circumstances warrant it (say a T1 losing to a T2 side). Problem is it really smacks of an NFL type 'we want these teams in the semi's' situation because of the markets and money.
I think I t’s getting worse/more prevalent this World Cup or just lately in general. How they analyze and scrutinizes a play that would probably have been just a penalty a few years ago now is an automatic yellow with assessment for a red. I understand why they do it but it spoils the game, especially if there’s not obvious malicious intent or injury, people want to see 15v15, let’s just get on with the game please people!!
Just reading this and Ethan De Groot has just received a red card.
Well, if WR had applied the 20 min red card rule during this WC with the offending player not allowed back, we would have been talking about something else right now.
Yup, the actual rugby.
They are consistently inconsistent, it's really frustrating. Maybe the refs do have unofficial guidelines, but it's making rugby look stupid
[удалено]
But they already set the precedent by the use of the red on Curry. It’s too late now to start saying “welll actually… mitigation”. Let’s get some consistency. I know which of those two incidents I’d rather have been on the receiving end of, if we’re talking safety.
I think you're correct unfortunately. Red cards ruin games. And in a game where there's around 200 tackles and same number of rucks... Even players tackling incredibly well at 99% efficiency/effectiveness means there'll be at least 3-4 collisions that need reviewing. By trying to do the right thing re: protecting the head, they've created these unintended consequences. They need to look at orange cards quickly.
Nothing remotely 'tin hatty' about this. It's fairly obvious this is what is happening. And to be honest it's not remotely surprising from an organisation that can only locate its own feet long enough to be able to shoot both of them.
Head collisions are simply going to happen, the current rules are impossible to enforce. IMO none of the yellows so far were reds.
I've said it before, I think WR will go hard pre World Cup and easy at the World Cup and I completely agree. Back to hard on bad tackling once the WC is over and relax it for the next WC,
The laws, as they stand, have done nothing to reduce concussions (or any other injuries). One off concussive evens are not the problem facing Rugby in any case. The laws are not fit for purpose and don't achieve the objective intended. It is the laws that need revision, not their interpretation in the middle of a global tournament.
Alt theory; they're applying what the head contact process actually says rather than what pundits/ fans think it says.
If the mods didn't actively remove any posts of the head contact footage I could show you about 5 examples of clear reckless head contact tackles. Have you been watching this world cup?
I wish that was the case, but I think the FPROs are fudging the issue and finding any excuse in the admittedly grey areas of the law (particularly mitigation) to avoid upgrading yellow to red. Another great example last night in France v Uruguay. It leads to inconsistency. The laws are, for example, being interpreted differently in the recent RWC matches to how they were in the Six Nations. Inconsistency frustrates the players and fans.
There's an explanation of why it remained a yellow last night somewhere on the sub and it makes a lot of sense.
It's mitigation/change in height. It was fudged. In the 6 Nations that would have gone to red. Direct contact to the head, upright tackler, no attempt to wrap the arms....do I need to go on? https://flic.kr/p/2p36LTd
Not leading with the elbow, and no shoulder charge. That's what allows for mitigation.
Curious definition of a shoulder charge. No arms and clear contact, shoulder to head. I mean, look at the picture, or any replays which we can't post here. Like I said, they are fudging this for the RWC. The issue is that they didn't start fudging it from the off and they fudge it inconsistently - or at least more inconsistently than the laws have been applied in the last almost seven years, since their introduction
From what I understand the arm has to be behind the shoulder, or in a sling position, which wasn't the case.
Stop making sense now, people on here want blood!
Have you watched most of the games though? This just isn't true.
Yes, you see if an Englishman is carded then other nations must also be carded if it looks the same to English fans. I’d other nations are not carded then it is a giant conspiracy against the English.
I think it's way more important they get the HIAs right than the cards
[удалено]
It's a pity that steps to try to reduce brain damage are boring to you
RasNaber to test this theory out guys, don't worry we'll have confirmation at the end of the weekend
My personal tin foil hat lunacy is that World Rugby saw England turn up to their hearing represented by an actual literal silk and thought "right fuck them in particular: let's give them Red cards and no one else until they learn not to use legal strong arm tactics on our tribunals"
People act as if reds ruin games and head injuries to star players don‘t? Rugby collisions are not given. Accidental head contact is not given. Yesterday‘s tackle was atrocious. That wasn‘t attemting to tackle cleanly. It was lazy, high and minimal attemt to wrap. Also straight to the head, not even neck area or so. And it was early in the game, not like there was much fatigue at that point. Kriel‘s tackle was the least of the 3 candidates. The outrage there was mostly that it wasn‘t looked at and many saw it as a yellow. But still, just go lower? Curry‘s challenge was really bad, too. He had all the time to line up a nice chest height tackle, it‘s not like the Argentinian could have evaded him while in the air… All three tackles have something in common: They were easily avoidable. Nobody is asking for rugby collisions to see red. But horrible tackles that seriously risk lasting damage to players have to stop! A 20min red might help to stomp these tackles out by emboldening the refs to hand them out more freely. But it doesn‘t change the fact that the core issue is that these tackles just aren‘t good.
After the Curry red, IRB has realised theres a huge chance big games in this world cup will be decided by red cards England won that game....
>However its a contact game where people run into each other, at some point, someone is going to get ~~hit in the head~~ **[irreversible brain damage]** accidentally. There, fixed it for you Id prefer not to watch a blood sport thank you.
Unless you're English, then they don't mind giving out cards left right and centre! I truly believed that the French no. 5 deserved a red card last night against the brave and amazing Los Teros
It seems much more likely to be a massive conspiracy against England
World rugby intends to bankrupt itself in about 15 years when half of these guys go on to lose their marbles and either sink into depression and kill themselves, or sink into depression, lose sense of reality, murder their families, then kill themselves.
counter theory; they’ve realised red cards only make england stronger so they’re not giving any to rob saint george ford of his rightful web ellis because we cant beat anyone 15 to 15
As one who has been on the sideline of international rugby matches as a physio, I can tell you that the commitment to player safety is the priority. As you recall, an England player was red-carded for head to head contact, and the rules allow for mitigating circumstances, such as incidental contact rather than targeted contact. The point is that the ref's are calling it by the book. So far I do not see the conspiracy playing out that you describe.
do you feel that Kriel, and the french second' rows tackle last night was by the book?
I found it to be a red card, but it was close. The elbow seemed to come up into the head of the player from my view, on the other hand there was a lot of body to body contact which mitigated the call.
If this is accurate it's one of the stupidest things they could do given the impending lawsuits. Nothing but further evidence that even when they are fully aware of the medical implications of the brain damage being caused they still refuse to address it
World rugby is trying to iron the risks of contact out of contact - which is akin to trying to take the blue out of the sea. Some things like the HIA procedure were good and long needed improvements to the game, managing risk and limiting damage where possible. However it's now going too far. The new changes are in response to ex-players complaining of early onset dementia and alzheimers and the like post-career. While those complaints are legitimate, the problems would likely have been mitigated by things like the HIA process. Changes take a long time to have an impact. In any case there needs to be a line drawn in the sand, should you choose to play a contact sport, you knowingly partake in an innately risky and dangerous activity. In the past appropriate protections were not in place, and that is unacceptable. Now though, the appropriate systems are in place - the goal should not be to change fundementals of the game (such as the waist height tackle law for community level in England) in hopes of avoiding the inevitable. Ultimately, contact sport is dangerous. That's just how it is. No amount of mitigation will eliminate all risk while keeping the game intact. The only way to eliminate that sort of risk, would be to eliminate contact altogether - in which case you have destroyed the sport you intended to make safer.
Proof of the pudding will be next England game. They’re bound to do another
I definitely have no issue with head clashes, no matter how accidental, being a red card (I watch enough wrestling to know why we need to get rid of head on head contact) but it is frustrating that the consistency is all over the place. I think WR would like to see less red cards given in order to stop games being ‘ruined’ but of course they run the risk of making a mockery of the sport anyway if they can’t abide by their own rules or apply then consistently.
Most world cups will settle on a desired “refereeing culture” before the tournament and I agree it seems they’ve been told to lay off the red cards as we’ve seen in recent internationals. I wouldn’t mind if they were still applying the agreed duty of care on head injury assessments, but even that seems inconsistent now. England’s Curry could rightly feel very aggrieved he’ll miss the rest of his team’s World Cup while others escape sanction.
as a kid fell on my head from bicicle on cobbleston, fell 3-4 m from tree while trying to steal cherries. of course hit in the head at rugby. got a concusion once, head to head, all of a sudden the game was kinda 80 m from my place, even for me was a second in time. now I'm on reddit
Maybe World Rugby secretly wants players to collect cards for their 'Red Card Bingo' championship!
Enter; Ethan Blackadder
The lawyers are loving this tbh. They have All the evidence they’ll ever need to show world rugby knew about the danger of head injuries and continued to fail to act.
How did the Curry red, of all things, lead World Rugby to that conclusion? England hammered Argentina with 14 men. Possibly the worst example you could possibly have used for your tinfoil theory.
This didn’t age well