Red Card - New laws?

[Paddington Bear]

There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that even tackles well below head height can contribute to concussion and long term problems. As others have already alluded to, rugby was not designed for full time, 120kg gym monkeys knocking the shite out of each other. I'm afraid i'm also one of those that find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the future consequences of the players in todays version of the game.

When I was shut in with covid I re-watched England v New Zealand in Wellington 2002. It's a cracking game in it's own right but what struck me is how the two sides who were far and away the best in the world at the time resembled 1st XVs who took their fitness seriously. Both sides would get physically blown away by any half decent side now. What's worrying of course is whilst training has moved on, players in that match like Steve Thompson are seriously suffering from the effect of collisions with people who weren't so tanked up.

For me, there has to be some effort to return rugby to a game of movement as opposed to a game of collisions. A few possible options:
1) Fewer non-front row subs. Maybe you can bring on a whole new front row, but have say 2/3 other subs max. Suddenly your bench has to be flexible and players need to be fit enough to play 80 minutes, which means losing some bulk
2) Time off at scrums. Often I'll record the 3pm Premiership match, finish off DIY and then watch it back half an hour delayed or so. If I fast forward the scrum set up and half time I almost always catch up with the live action with 25-30 minutes to play. The scrums are giving big lads a breather and they are deliberately taking the piss in how long it's taking.
3) Scheduled water break at 20 & 60 minutes, otherwise no bottles on the pitch whatsoever.
4) Greater contest at the ruck. If you have to commit bodies on both sides there is automatically more space out wide

[Monk]

When will they stop messing with the rules? Red should stay as it is.

It smacks of changing the rules to stay relevant.

This 100%

The high/dominant hit is a cultural thing now, personally i would start putting sanctions in for clubs based on the number of yellow/red cards they accumulate, fines or even points deductions. Make the clubs accountable for changing the picture, give them the contractual freedom to sack players who are repeat offenders.

cannot disagree more - then you have rugby results determined by committees

[Guy Smiley]

There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that even tackles well below head height can contribute to concussion and long term problems. As others have already alluded to, rugby was not designed for full time, 120kg gym monkeys knocking the shite out of each other. I'm afraid i'm also one of those that find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the future consequences of the players in todays version of the game.

When I was shut in with covid I re-watched England v New Zealand in Wellington 2002. It's a cracking game in it's own right but what struck me is how the two sides who were far and away the best in the world at the time resembled 1st XVs who took their fitness seriously. Both sides would get physically blown away by any half decent side now. What's worrying of course is whilst training has moved on, players in that match like Steve Thompson are seriously suffering from the effect of collisions with people who weren't so tanked up.

For me, there has to be some effort to return rugby to a game of movement as opposed to a game of collisions. A few possible options:
1) Fewer non-front row subs. Maybe you can bring on a whole new front row, but have say 2/3 other subs max. Suddenly your bench has to be flexible and players need to be fit enough to play 80 minutes, which means losing some bulk
2) Time off at scrums. Often I'll record the 3pm Premiership match, finish off DIY and then watch it back half an hour delayed or so. If I fast forward the scrum set up and half time I almost always catch up with the live action with 25-30 minutes to play. The scrums are giving big lads a breather and they are deliberately taking the piss in how long it's taking.
3) Scheduled water break at 20 & 60 minutes, otherwise no bottles on the pitch whatsoever.
4) Greater contest at the ruck. If you have to commit bodies on both sides there is automatically more space out wide

Cutting the bench appeals to me as a way to reduce the collision impact factor. Again with the comparison to AFL... they increased their bench numbers while I was following the game. They went from 1 bench player and 18 on field who bitterly resisted being interchanged with that sub, instead gaining a rest during play by dropping forward or back to a more static role. The bench was increased to 4 players, coaches wised up to the availailability of impact off the bench and interchange frequency went from 2-3 per 100 minute game to 60-70, with players flogging themselves for the allotted minutes before their carefully scheduled rest and hydration break, complete with massage, physios and exercise bikes a metre off the playing field. Injury rates rose with more high impact collisions so in true cart before the horse thinking they introduced a cap on the number of interchanges along with an interchange manager to monitor it. They could have just reduced gthe bench numbers and achieved a similar result.

Cut the bench numbers. Make players run the 80 minutes out. Take the power mutts out of the game a little and bring back some speed and endurance.

[sockwithaticket]

There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that even tackles well below head height can contribute to concussion and long term problems. As others have already alluded to, rugby was not designed for full time, 120kg gym monkeys knocking the shite out of each other. I'm afraid i'm also one of those that find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the future consequences of the players in todays version of the game.

When I was shut in with covid I re-watched England v New Zealand in Wellington 2002. It's a cracking game in it's own right but what struck me is how the two sides who were far and away the best in the world at the time resembled 1st XVs who took their fitness seriously. Both sides would get physically blown away by any half decent side now. What's worrying of course is whilst training has moved on, players in that match like Steve Thompson are seriously suffering from the effect of collisions with people who weren't so tanked up.

For me, there has to be some effort to return rugby to a game of movement as opposed to a game of collisions. A few possible options:
1) Fewer non-front row subs. Maybe you can bring on a whole new front row, but have say 2/3 other subs max. Suddenly your bench has to be flexible and players need to be fit enough to play 80 minutes, which means losing some bulk
2) Time off at scrums. Often I'll record the 3pm Premiership match, finish off DIY and then watch it back half an hour delayed or so. If I fast forward the scrum set up and half time I almost always catch up with the live action with 25-30 minutes to play. The scrums are giving big lads a breather and they are deliberately taking the piss in how long it's taking.
3) Scheduled water break at 20 & 60 minutes, otherwise no bottles on the pitch whatsoever.
4) Greater contest at the ruck. If you have to commit bodies on both sides there is automatically more space out wide

2) - I'm not sure taking time off helps, we should be speeding up the scrum set up and free kicking the shit out of teams who can't manage it. With time being stopped I can see the fat lads still taking the piss. Yes, we'll get the minutes back, but allowing them to get their breaks in means they'll be far fresher when that time is put back on.

Similarly, the amount of time a lineout can take to form with players walking in from 50m away and then having a meeting before finally setting up is ridiculous. Give them 15 - 20 seconds to get there and get set or free kick. Also stop giving do overs if teams don't keep the gap. Warn them once, then free kick the offenders.

3) Definitely. We schedule them in the warmer months and did so during the initial return after the covid break to no demonstrable ill effect, no reason why we can't do it all the time. Outside of the set breaks the only times staff should be on the pitch is for injuries.

4) The ruck is a whole debate on it's own. Players being forced to keep their feet and push over like they used to should tie in more bodies.

More generally on space out wide, I'm still waiting for sides to realise that getting held up after relentless pick and gos and conceding the goal line drop out is a less favourable option than actually spinning the ball out after a few phases. I guess they're having to unlearn the tactic that so many adopted, but it's so stupid not to take advantage of the space you've made and where the likelihood of being held up is minimal.

[Paddington Bear]

There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that even tackles well below head height can contribute to concussion and long term problems. As others have already alluded to, rugby was not designed for full time, 120kg gym monkeys knocking the shite out of each other. I'm afraid i'm also one of those that find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the future consequences of the players in todays version of the game.

When I was shut in with covid I re-watched England v New Zealand in Wellington 2002. It's a cracking game in it's own right but what struck me is how the two sides who were far and away the best in the world at the time resembled 1st XVs who took their fitness seriously. Both sides would get physically blown away by any half decent side now. What's worrying of course is whilst training has moved on, players in that match like Steve Thompson are seriously suffering from the effect of collisions with people who weren't so tanked up.

For me, there has to be some effort to return rugby to a game of movement as opposed to a game of collisions. A few possible options:
1) Fewer non-front row subs. Maybe you can bring on a whole new front row, but have say 2/3 other subs max. Suddenly your bench has to be flexible and players need to be fit enough to play 80 minutes, which means losing some bulk
2) Time off at scrums. Often I'll record the 3pm Premiership match, finish off DIY and then watch it back half an hour delayed or so. If I fast forward the scrum set up and half time I almost always catch up with the live action with 25-30 minutes to play. The scrums are giving big lads a breather and they are deliberately taking the piss in how long it's taking.
3) Scheduled water break at 20 & 60 minutes, otherwise no bottles on the pitch whatsoever.
4) Greater contest at the ruck. If you have to commit bodies on both sides there is automatically more space out wide

2) - I'm not sure taking time off helps, we should be speeding up the scrum set up and free kicking the shit out of teams who can't manage it. With time being stopped I can see the fat lads still taking the piss. Yes, we'll get the minutes back, but allowing them to get their breaks in means they'll be far fresher when that time is put back on.

Similarly, the amount of time a lineout can take to form with players walking in from 50m away and then having a meeting before finally setting up is ridiculous. Give them 15 - 20 seconds to get there and get set or free kick. Also stop giving do overs if teams don't keep the gap. Warn them once, then free kick the offenders.

3) Definitely. We schedule them in the warmer months and did so during the initial return after the covid break to no demonstrable ill effect, no reason why we can't do it all the time. Outside of the set breaks the only times staff should be on the pitch is for injuries.

4) The ruck is a whole debate on it's own. Players being forced to keep their feet and push over like they used to should tie in more bodies.

More generally on space out wide, I'm still waiting for sides to realise that getting held up after relentless pick and gos and conceding the goal line drop out is a less favourable option than actually spinning the ball out after a few phases. I guess they're having to unlearn the tactic that so many adopted, but it's so stupid not to take advantage of the space you've made and where the likelihood of being held up is minimal.

Yes I think front rows can be pinged more for slow set ups, my concern is they'll go full 'health & safety' about it and pretend they need two minutes to set up for *reasons*. Unfortunately front rows and their coaches have done huge damage to the sport over the last 15 years or so and that's unlikely to change overnight.

Even without major changes, refs should make far more use of free kicks. Not ready for the scrum? Free kick. Walking to a lineout? Free kick. Water not off at the second time of asking? You get the idea.

[JM2K6]

If players are too big, instead of being clever about changing things to reduce player size, just have weight limits.

[Phredd]

A neighbour came up with the following:

As well as the time lost to the bin, for a yellow card offence award the opposition team three points (as if a penalty had been scored). For a red card award the opposition team a penalty trie. Similarly for a citing that results in sanctions against a player award the opposition two penalty tries retrospectively.

That will ensure the team coaches hammer home the need to play to the laws.

[JM2K6]

A neighbour came up with the following:

As well as the time lost to the bin, for a yellow card offence award the opposition team three points (as if a penalty had been scored). For a red card award the opposition team a penalty trie. Similarly for a citing that results in sanctions against a player award the opposition two penalty tries retrospectively.

That will ensure the team coaches hammer home the need to play to the laws.

Do you like your neighbour...?

Rugby refereeing is too subjective and the laws too complex & contradictory (i.e.a mess) to increase the sanctions like this, particularly for yellow card offences.

[sockwithaticket]

And while it's rare, red cards can be rescinded. A match decided by a penalty try for a rescinded red card wouldn't go down well with anyone.

[inactionman]

There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that even tackles well below head height can contribute to concussion and long term problems. As others have already alluded to, rugby was not designed for full time, 120kg gym monkeys knocking the shite out of each other. I'm afraid i'm also one of those that find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the future consequences of the players in todays version of the game.

When I was shut in with covid I re-watched England v New Zealand in Wellington 2002. It's a cracking game in it's own right but what struck me is how the two sides who were far and away the best in the world at the time resembled 1st XVs who took their fitness seriously. Both sides would get physically blown away by any half decent side now. What's worrying of course is whilst training has moved on, players in that match like Steve Thompson are seriously suffering from the effect of collisions with people who weren't so tanked up.

For me, there has to be some effort to return rugby to a game of movement as opposed to a game of collisions. A few possible options:
1) Fewer non-front row subs. Maybe you can bring on a whole new front row, but have say 2/3 other subs max. Suddenly your bench has to be flexible and players need to be fit enough to play 80 minutes, which means losing some bulk
2) Time off at scrums. Often I'll record the 3pm Premiership match, finish off DIY and then watch it back half an hour delayed or so. If I fast forward the scrum set up and half time I almost always catch up with the live action with 25-30 minutes to play. The scrums are giving big lads a breather and they are deliberately taking the piss in how long it's taking.
3) Scheduled water break at 20 & 60 minutes, otherwise no bottles on the pitch whatsoever.
4) Greater contest at the ruck. If you have to commit bodies on both sides there is automatically more space out wide

2) - I'm not sure taking time off helps, we should be speeding up the scrum set up and free kicking the shit out of teams who can't manage it. With time being stopped I can see the fat lads still taking the piss. Yes, we'll get the minutes back, but allowing them to get their breaks in means they'll be far fresher when that time is put back on.

Similarly, the amount of time a lineout can take to form with players walking in from 50m away and then having a meeting before finally setting up is ridiculous. Give them 15 - 20 seconds to get there and get set or free kick. Also stop giving do overs if teams don't keep the gap. Warn them once, then free kick the offenders.

3) Definitely. We schedule them in the warmer months and did so during the initial return after the covid break to no demonstrable ill effect, no reason why we can't do it all the time. Outside of the set breaks the only times staff should be on the pitch is for injuries.

4) The ruck is a whole debate on it's own. Players being forced to keep their feet and push over like they used to should tie in more bodies.

More generally on space out wide, I'm still waiting for sides to realise that getting held up after relentless pick and gos and conceding the goal line drop out is a less favourable option than actually spinning the ball out after a few phases. I guess they're having to unlearn the tactic that so many adopted, but it's so stupid not to take advantage of the space you've made and where the likelihood of being held up is minimal.

I watched a couple of RL games on the TV, they have a timer which kicks in for scrums. I've no idea what happens if the timer hits zero, as it takes two sides to tango in the scrum so not clear who would be penalised. It didn't happen on any of the games I saw - presumably the timer therefore works, as I can't believe they'd have to introduce it if timewasting wasn't previously an issue?.

Wonder if this would be an idea? The side with the feed need to be ready within x seconds, the side without feed to then have y seconds, and if the ball isn't in within z seconds then it's a free kick - and, in the professional game, actually have this specifically measured rather than the ref taking a rough guesstimate. To be honest, do it for all set pieces, penalty kicks/conversions included and for lineouts as you emntion above. On that note, does a kick really warrant a minute of time? It's not something that bothers me, it just seems a bit excessive.

Appreciate scrums in RL are more a ceremony than a setpeice, although as far as I follow they can still be contested.

I'd also much prefer the old ruck approach - you need to drive the other team off the ball, so if they stack it on arses then they're considered off the ball and sealing off etc becomes pointless. Not sure what we do with all the lying around on and around the ball, which would act to trip up any team driving through the ruck. (I'm sure some would like a return of the old silver slipper)

[MungoMan]

When I was shut in with covid I re-watched England v New Zealand in Wellington 2002. It's a cracking game in it's own right but what struck me is how the two sides who were far and away the best in the world at the time resembled 1st XVs who took their fitness seriously. Both sides would get physically blown away by any half decent side now. What's worrying of course is whilst training has moved on, players in that match like Steve Thompson are seriously suffering from the effect of collisions with people who weren't so tanked up.

For me, there has to be some effort to return rugby to a game of movement as opposed to a game of collisions. A few possible options:
1) Fewer non-front row subs. Maybe you can bring on a whole new front row, but have say 2/3 other subs max. Suddenly your bench has to be flexible and players need to be fit enough to play 80 minutes, which means losing some bulk
2) Time off at scrums. Often I'll record the 3pm Premiership match, finish off DIY and then watch it back half an hour delayed or so. If I fast forward the scrum set up and half time I almost always catch up with the live action with 25-30 minutes to play. The scrums are giving big lads a breather and they are deliberately taking the piss in how long it's taking.
3) Scheduled water break at 20 & 60 minutes, otherwise no bottles on the pitch whatsoever.
4) Greater contest at the ruck. If you have to commit bodies on both sides there is automatically more space out wide

2) - I'm not sure taking time off helps, we should be speeding up the scrum set up and free kicking the shit out of teams who can't manage it. With time being stopped I can see the fat lads still taking the piss. Yes, we'll get the minutes back, but allowing them to get their breaks in means they'll be far fresher when that time is put back on.

Similarly, the amount of time a lineout can take to form with players walking in from 50m away and then having a meeting before finally setting up is ridiculous. Give them 15 - 20 seconds to get there and get set or free kick. Also stop giving do overs if teams don't keep the gap. Warn them once, then free kick the offenders.

3) Definitely. We schedule them in the warmer months and did so during the initial return after the covid break to no demonstrable ill effect, no reason why we can't do it all the time. Outside of the set breaks the only times staff should be on the pitch is for injuries.

4) The ruck is a whole debate on it's own. Players being forced to keep their feet and push over like they used to should tie in more bodies.

More generally on space out wide, I'm still waiting for sides to realise that getting held up after relentless pick and gos and conceding the goal line drop out is a less favourable option than actually spinning the ball out after a few phases. I guess they're having to unlearn the tactic that so many adopted, but it's so stupid not to take advantage of the space you've made and where the likelihood of being held up is minimal.

I watched a couple of RL games on the TV, they have a timer which kicks in for scrums. I've no idea what happens if the timer hits zero, as it takes two sides to tango in the scrum so not clear who would be penalised. It didn't happen on any of the games I saw - presumably the timer therefore works, as I can't believe they'd have to introduce it if timewasting wasn't previously an issue?.

Wonder if this would be an idea? The side with the feed need to be ready within x seconds, the side without feed to then have y seconds, and if the ball isn't in within z seconds then it's a free kick - and, in the professional game, actually have this specifically measured rather than the ref taking a rough guesstimate. To be honest, do it for all set pieces, penalty kicks/conversions included and for lineouts as you emntion above. On that note, does a kick really warrant a minute of time? It's not something that bothers me, it just seems a bit excessive.

Appreciate scrums in RL are more a ceremony than a setpeice, although as far as I follow they can still be contested.

I'd also much prefer the old ruck approach - you need to drive the other team off the ball, so if they stack it on arses then they're considered off the ball and sealing off etc becomes pointless. Not sure what we do with all the lying around on and around the ball, which would act to trip up any team driving through the ruck. (I'm sure some would like a return of the old silver slipper)

Yep, that's right. Scrums in practice are not contested but the laws weren't re-written to make scrums non-contestable; (unlike the play-the-ball laws, which were changed so that the marker could not strike for the ball when the tackled player places it on the ground to heel back). As a staging point to uncontested scrums, RL removed the ability the non-offending team to kick at goal from a scrum penalty.

The reason given for both was the prevalence of endless scrum resets. Which tbf was certainly a thing, but even so I hated the scrapping of the contested scrum and have never reconciled myself with that change. Or dumping the contestable play-the-ball for that matter.

BoooooOOOOOOoooooooOOOO!

[Slick]

Won't be long before kicking a drop goal direct from an under the posts restart drop kick will be banned.

[Torquemada 1420]

If players are too big, instead of being clever about changing things to reduce player size, just have weight limits.

Once suggested this long ago i.e. a maximum weight limit on the pitch for the team. Probably a bit messy to manage but we have weigh-ins for boxing. I suspect if we did this, you'd see players like Atonio disappear, which would be a good thing. The downside pointed out to me is you might end up with a bastard form of league.

[JM2K6]

If players are too big, instead of being clever about changing things to reduce player size, just have weight limits.

Once suggested this long ago i.e. a maximum weight limit on the pitch for the team. Probably a bit messy to manage but we have weigh-ins for boxing. I suspect if we did this, you'd see players like Atonio disappear, which would be a good thing. The downside pointed out to me is you might end up with a bastard form of league.

No more than we have now, with centres being the size of forwards, giant wingers being a thing, etc. It's noticeable in league that the specialists tend to be different size + shape to everyone else, and rugby has far more specialist positions with very different technical demands. Props still need to be able to prop. Second rows still need to be able to handle lineouts. Flankers still need to be able to smash people. Scrum halves still need to be fit enough to get to every ruck and fast enough to accelerate through tiny gaps.

etc, etc.

[ASMO]

I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

[Torquemada 1420]

If players are too big, instead of being clever about changing things to reduce player size, just have weight limits.

Once suggested this long ago i.e. a maximum weight limit on the pitch for the team. Probably a bit messy to manage but we have weigh-ins for boxing. I suspect if we did this, you'd see players like Atonio disappear, which would be a good thing. The downside pointed out to me is you might end up with a bastard form of league.

No more than we have now, with centres being the size of forwards, giant wingers being a thing, etc. It's noticeable in league that the specialists tend to be different size + shape to everyone else, and rugby has far more specialist positions with very different technical demands. Props still need to be able to prop. Second rows still need to be able to handle lineouts. Flankers still need to be able to smash people. Scrum halves still need to be fit enough to get to every ruck and fast enough to accelerate through tiny gaps.

etc, etc.

Maybe you are right and the inexorable size rise just tapers off due to a limit to how big a human can effectively be. It would be great to see what would happen if you set the cap at an average of 13 or 14 stone per player. I'm sure the rugby be would be much better but the safas would be unhappy.

[JM2K6]

"We should ensure players stay on for the full 80 regardless of their physical state" is not a great approach. It's certainly not great for player welfare. Sure, you'll get some of the extremely big players maybe to lose some weight. It's not going to affect the vast majority of players, who are all capable of playing 80 minutes and frequently do, while still being gigantic tail-end-of-the-bell-curve mutants.

[JM2K6]

Once suggested this long ago i.e. a maximum weight limit on the pitch for the team. Probably a bit messy to manage but we have weigh-ins for boxing. I suspect if we did this, you'd see players like Atonio disappear, which would be a good thing. The downside pointed out to me is you might end up with a bastard form of league.

No more than we have now, with centres being the size of forwards, giant wingers being a thing, etc. It's noticeable in league that the specialists tend to be different size + shape to everyone else, and rugby has far more specialist positions with very different technical demands. Props still need to be able to prop. Second rows still need to be able to handle lineouts. Flankers still need to be able to smash people. Scrum halves still need to be fit enough to get to every ruck and fast enough to accelerate through tiny gaps.

etc, etc.

Maybe you are right and the inexorable size rise just tapers off due to a limit to how big a human can effectively be. It would be great to see what would happen if you set the cap at an average of 13 or 14 stone per player. I'm sure the rugby be would be much better but the safas would be unhappy.

I had this discussion very recently from a slightly different angle with a former pro, who himself was a gigantic unit. He doesn't like the idea of weight limits because apparently the size of players has come down since the 2015 world cup. I pointed out that the most successful teams in the world right now are absolute units - France and South Africa - and that sheer size still dominates in most situations.

Rugby being a game for all sizes and shapes has always been a bit of an aspirational goal anyway, especially when you get anywhere near pro level. Not many 85kg tightheads around, or 120kg scrum halves, eh.

[laurent]

"We should ensure players stay on for the full 80 regardless of their physical state" is not a great approach. It's certainly not great for player welfare. Sure, you'll get some of the extremely big players maybe to lose some weight. It's not going to affect the vast majority of players, who are all capable of playing 80 minutes and frequently do, while still being gigantic tail-end-of-the-bell-curve mutants.

Actually Paul Willemse lost weight and is a much better player for it. (still about 120kg though)

[sockwithaticket]

I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

Wouldn't be taking anything Nige says seriously.

Most players are capable of playing 80, it'll only be a few lard arse tightheads like Tameifuna who would struggle if it was suddenly a requirement.

Even with an independent doctor, plenty of injuries can't really be detected until a scan is done and the best a doctor will be able to do is guess whether the player's faking a pain reaction when an area is touched.

Like Torq I've advocated for a team weight limit before, but increasingly see the merit of individual player limits suggested by JMK.

[JM2K6]

"We should ensure players stay on for the full 80 regardless of their physical state" is not a great approach. It's certainly not great for player welfare. Sure, you'll get some of the extremely big players maybe to lose some weight. It's not going to affect the vast majority of players, who are all capable of playing 80 minutes and frequently do, while still being gigantic tail-end-of-the-bell-curve mutants.

Actually Paul Willemse lost weight and is a much better player for it. (still about 120kg though)

Like fuck he's "only" 120kg!

[laurent]

"We should ensure players stay on for the full 80 regardless of their physical state" is not a great approach. It's certainly not great for player welfare. Sure, you'll get some of the extremely big players maybe to lose some weight. It's not going to affect the vast majority of players, who are all capable of playing 80 minutes and frequently do, while still being gigantic tail-end-of-the-bell-curve mutants.

Actually Paul Willemse lost weight and is a much better player for it. (still about 120kg though)

Like fuck he's "only" 120kg!

2.01m tall ... so not that heavy (I think he peaked near 140)

[Margin__Walker]

Team weight limit sounds nice, but a complete nightmare to try and manage and administer for clubs.

[GogLais]

I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

Wouldn't be taking anything Nige says seriously.

Most players are capable of playing 80, it'll only be a few lard arse tightheads like Tameifuna who would struggle if it was suddenly a requirement.

Even with an independent doctor, plenty of injuries can't really be detected until a scan is done and the best a doctor will be able to do is guess whether the player's faking a pain reaction when an area is touched.

Like Torq I've advocated for a team weight limit before, but increasingly see the merit of individual player limits suggested by JMK.

I've thought weight limits might be a good idea but what about jockey/boxer type medical issues of getting down to the right weight? And anyway you'd still have people smashing into each other. My impression (could be wrong) is that dangerous collisions happen just as often when two players of the same size smash into each other as when props smash into scrum halves.
In terms of speeding up the game the thing that gets my goat (already mentioned) is the referee/player debates about the set up of scrums and lineouts. Let them get on with it and penalise whoever offends. Or is there a problem with that?

[ASMO]

Team weight limit sounds nice, but a complete nightmare to try and manage and administer for clubs.

Salary Cap and Weight cap, can we have a card cap as well?

[Torquemada 1420]

I had this discussion very recently from a slightly different angle with a former pro, who himself was a gigantic unit. He doesn't like the idea of weight limits because apparently the size of players has come down since the 2015 world cup. I pointed out that the most successful teams in the world right now are absolute units - France and South Africa - and that sheer size still dominates in most situations.

Rugby being a game for all sizes and shapes has always been a bit of an aspirational goal anyway, especially when you get anywhere near pro level. Not many 85kg tightheads around, or 120kg scrum halves, eh.

I'm not sure that's true for France. It's the perennial commentator's line about "giant French packs" whereas the reality is that rarely has a French pack been materially bigger than comparable opponents for 2 decades. If you look at the current, typical 1st team selection, the only real monsters are Atonio (whose selection presence is questionable) and Willemse. Danty/Vakatawa, Fickou and Penaud are big men in the backs but then Villiere is a midget and Aldritt very light for an 8.

[Kawazaki]

Rugby is fucked as a sport, in ten years we will be wondering what the we were doing supporting a game where like hundreds of people are getting diagnosed early onset dementia.
And for what? 80 minutes of entertainment a week?
I could fly a helicopter in VR , or play guitar or collect watches.. or dance around the front room in my underpants, with a VR headset on whilst playing guitar and browsing the Internet...a million ways to entertain on3s self.. in 2022..and no one gets dementia.
No one gets hurt.

I am feeling incredibly queasy about the game of rugby tbh. We can call them players..but they are real human beings, putting themselves at terrific risk at the end of the day, just for our entertainment...there is something wrong about the sport...and I don't even like half the f'ckers.

Someone on twitter rightly, I think, called out WR for saying this is purely about entertainment and not at all about player welfare, despite them constantly saying it's their main priority.

There's no other reasoning for things like this other than a bunch of pundits and fans whinging "Red cards ruin games for me!" ... without holding players and coaches accountable for 'ruining' games with their lack of focus/care to correct behaviour that's been more regulated than ever (and rightly so).

I disagree, you can do both. Arguably, the game becomes more dangerous when it's 15 v 14, particularly when a player gets sent of after 83 seconds!

[Torquemada 1420]

I disagree, you can do both. Arguably, the game becomes more dangerous when it's 15 v 14, particularly when a player gets sent of after 83 seconds!

I've never bought that because it should mean the side with the man advantage is looking for the spaces more rather than trying to smash holes.

[JM2K6]

I had this discussion very recently from a slightly different angle with a former pro, who himself was a gigantic unit. He doesn't like the idea of weight limits because apparently the size of players has come down since the 2015 world cup. I pointed out that the most successful teams in the world right now are absolute units - France and South Africa - and that sheer size still dominates in most situations.

Rugby being a game for all sizes and shapes has always been a bit of an aspirational goal anyway, especially when you get anywhere near pro level. Not many 85kg tightheads around, or 120kg scrum halves, eh.

I'm not sure that's true for France. It's the perennial commentator's line about "giant French packs" whereas the reality is that rarely has a French pack been materially bigger than comparable opponents for 2 decades. If you look at the current, typical 1st team selection, the only real monsters are Atonio (whose selection presence is questionable) and Willemse. Danty/Vakatawa, Fickou and Penaud are big men in the backs but then Villiere is a midget and Aldritt very light for an 8.

Right. Apart from Atonio, Willemse, Mauvaka, Haouas, Taofifenua, Penaud, Danty, Vakatawa, and Fickou, France are normal. Even Ntamack is beefy for his position. And Aldritt is what, 115kg according to stats? You think that's very light for an 8? He's not Billy Vunipola but he's either the same or bigger than most 8s he plays against in the 6N (much bigger than Faletau, about the same as Conan but much bigger than Doris, same as Bradbury but bigger than Sutherland, bigger than Halafihi, much bigger than Sam Simmonds but a bit smaller than Alex Dombrandt). Perhaps he's small by the standards of the Top14, but that just proves a point.

Plus: it matters more that you have a handful of guys who are quite far beyond the norm and some that are relatively lightweight for their position, than all your players be somewhere in the middle. You still get the benefit of the lighter guys and the impact of those giants cannot be understated. Would Atonio get picked if he was 110kg? Would Vakatawa be the same player if he wasn't the size and shape of a beefy backrower?

It's like how the Kiwis always liked to pretend they were the little guys, when they had a successful team with two giant locks, two giant centres, an absolute powerhouse winger, and one of the biggest 10s around at the time (who got replaced by an even bigger one)...

[Kawazaki]

I disagree, you can do both. Arguably, the game becomes more dangerous when it's 15 v 14, particularly when a player gets sent of after 83 seconds!

I've never bought that because it should mean the side with the man advantage is looking for the spaces more rather than trying to smash holes.

Really, you actually think that?

That's interesting. No thought for the fatigued players a man down no?

[Torquemada 1420]

Right. Apart from Atonio, Willemse, Mauvaka, Haouas, Taofifenua, Penaud, Danty, Vakatawa, and Fickou, France are normal. Even Ntamack is beefy for his position. And Aldritt is what, 115kg according to stats? You think that's very light for an 8? He's not Billy Vunipola but he's either the same or bigger than most 8s he plays against in the 6N (much bigger than Faletau, about the same as Conan but much bigger than Doris, same as Bradbury but bigger than Sutherland, bigger than Halafihi, much bigger than Sam Simmonds but a bit smaller than Alex Dombrandt). Perhaps he's small by the standards of the Top14, but that just proves a point.

Plus: it matters more that you have a handful of guys who are quite far beyond the norm and some that are relatively lightweight for their position, than all your players be somewhere in the middle. You still get the benefit of the lighter guys and the impact of those giants cannot be understated. Would Atonio get picked if he was 110kg? Would Vakatawa be the same player if he wasn't the size and shape of a beefy backrower?

It's like how the Kiwis always liked to pretend they were the little guys, when they had a successful team with two giant locks, two giant centres, an absolute powerhouse winger, and one of the biggest 10s around at the time (who got replaced by an even bigger one)...

Haouas, Tao and Mauvaka are not regular starters and only in for injuries but even when they are in, they simply replace starter heavies. Errr, thanks for mentioning what I had already stated bar the omission of the / since Danty and Vakatawa can't occupy the same slot.

Your other point is valid and France's strong point i.e. their lightweights (Dupont, Villiere, Woki) are all huge hitters for their size and additional backrowers at the breakdown. They are freaks and the edge this team has.

Not buying the Ntamack thing.

It's kinda funny for the English to try and moan about this when really they've used the Orc strategy for decades.

[Torquemada 1420]

I disagree, you can do both. Arguably, the game becomes more dangerous when it's 15 v 14, particularly when a player gets sent of after 83 seconds!

I've never bought that because it should mean the side with the man advantage is looking for the spaces more rather than trying to smash holes.

Really, you actually think that?

That's interesting. No thought for the fatigued players a man down no?

No. Why should tiredness result in the injuries you allude too? Watch Italy playing with 13. They continued to tackle correctly and were only subdued by physical fatigue.

[Kawazaki]

I've never bought that because it should mean the side with the man advantage is looking for the spaces more rather than trying to smash holes.

Really, you actually think that?

That's interesting. No thought for the fatigued players a man down no?

No. Why should tiredness result in the injuries you allude too? Watch Italy playing with 13. They continued to tackle correctly and were only subdued by physical fatigue.

Why should tiredness result in injuries?

Really? You need this explained to you?

[JM2K6]

Right. Apart from Atonio, Willemse, Mauvaka, Haouas, Taofifenua, Penaud, Danty, Vakatawa, and Fickou, France are normal. Even Ntamack is beefy for his position. And Aldritt is what, 115kg according to stats? You think that's very light for an 8? He's not Billy Vunipola but he's either the same or bigger than most 8s he plays against in the 6N (much bigger than Faletau, about the same as Conan but much bigger than Doris, same as Bradbury but bigger than Sutherland, bigger than Halafihi, much bigger than Sam Simmonds but a bit smaller than Alex Dombrandt). Perhaps he's small by the standards of the Top14, but that just proves a point.

Plus: it matters more that you have a handful of guys who are quite far beyond the norm and some that are relatively lightweight for their position, than all your players be somewhere in the middle. You still get the benefit of the lighter guys and the impact of those giants cannot be understated. Would Atonio get picked if he was 110kg? Would Vakatawa be the same player if he wasn't the size and shape of a beefy backrower?

It's like how the Kiwis always liked to pretend they were the little guys, when they had a successful team with two giant locks, two giant centres, an absolute powerhouse winger, and one of the biggest 10s around at the time (who got replaced by an even bigger one)...

Haouas, Tao and Mauvaka are not regular starters and only in for injuries but even when they are in, they simply replace starter heavies. Errr, thanks for mentioning what I had already stated bar the omission of the / since Danty and Vakatawa can't occupy the same slot.

Your other point is valid and France's strong point i.e. their lightweights (Dupont, Villiere, Woki) are all huge hitters for their size and additional backrowers at the breakdown. They are freaks and the edge this team has.

Not buying the Ntamack thing.

It's kinda funny for the English to try and moan about this when really they've used the Orc strategy for decades.

It doesn't matter if they're not all regular starters, it's a 23 man game now - witness the success of the SA "bomb squad" and having that size available makes a big difference. It's a pretty long list of players!

I'm not moaning about the French, I'm pointing out a contradiction to the idea mooted by my friend that everything's okay because apparently player sizes have diminished recently: the most successful teams right now have a surfeit of absolute mutants. Rugby as a pro sport values sheer size very highly indeed. Right now, SA and France have that size. England have had it in the past. NZ have had it in the past. One of the reasons why Scotland's not been able to win a 6N is because for all their talent, they've rarely been able to field a properly beefy side. Size gets you out of trouble and can cause teams problems even when skill is letting you down. Size gives you more space to play with, gives you front foot ball, a big set-piece advantage, and (ironically) means that the game is less physically demanding for the side with the size advantage, so fitness is more of a concern for the smaller team. Size makes rugby easier.

England would definitely pick gigantic players if we had them. We have big guys - the front row is hefty (though not Mauvaka/Atonio giants), Dombrandt is a unit, Tuilagi when fit is obviously a powerhouse, and Steward is very tall - but we don't really have the sheer size of an Atonio or a Mauvaka or a Danty or a Willemse or whoever right now. We're left hoping that a mediocre player like Joe Cokanasiga can show some form and fitness, because he's massive, or hoping that Ollie Lawrence (5'9", about 97kg) can be our Ma'a Nonu or Danty or De Allende (108kg, 110kg, 105kg respectively). Quins' Esterhuizen would be a godsend to England, because he's a 12 that's actually big and good, not pretend big like Lawrence - 6'4" and 113kg. It's been true for a while now that our coaches think we develop massive blokes all the time and want us to play like that, but we don't. Hence the idiocy of building a gameplan around a sicknote like Tuilagi, when there's no ready-made replacement. Hence hanging on to Billy Vunipola no matter how bad his form got, because the alternatives meant a different game plan. Christ, it's why Mike Tindall's career carried on so long. He was Actually Big, unlike Jamie Noon or whoever we tried to shoehorn into that position post 2004. It's why Matt Banahan got 16 caps. There are players who buck the trend just by having physicality and athleticism far beyond the raw stats of their physical form - the likes of Itoje or Dupont are good examples of this - but being a gigantic bastard gets you a long way in rugby.

Size really does cover up a multitude of sins in rugby, and the more giant players you have, the more likely it is you're gonna win. The more of them you have available to you, the higher the chance you'll get some that are also really good and talented rugby players who are also fit enough to survive at international level. French rugby is full of players like this, from what I've seen. Ditto Saffer rugby.

[Kawazaki]

Australia could pick in their second row;

Rory Arnold 6'10" 19st
Will Skelton 6'8" 20st
Emmanuel Meafau 6'8" 23st

And Tupou at prop 5'11" 21st.


If Meafau and Skelton pair up that might well be the largest second-row of all time. And they're Australian!

[JM2K6]

Yup, it's mad. Absolute monsters.

[Jimmy Smallsteps]

When will they stop messing with the rules? Red should stay as it is.

It smacks of changing the rules to stay relevant.

When they go back to deciding accidental contact with the head is not worthy of a red?

The change to the red rule in Super Rugby Pacific is a sensible reaction to the extremely strict head contact protocols that have been introduced.

Previously reserved for the most egregious acts on the rugby field, a guy can now find himself red carded for accidentally making contact with an opponent's bonce, such as when driving over a ruck or joining a maul.

[TheFrog]

I had this discussion very recently from a slightly different angle with a former pro, who himself was a gigantic unit. He doesn't like the idea of weight limits because apparently the size of players has come down since the 2015 world cup. I pointed out that the most successful teams in the world right now are absolute units - France and South Africa - and that sheer size still dominates in most situations.

Rugby being a game for all sizes and shapes has always been a bit of an aspirational goal anyway, especially when you get anywhere near pro level. Not many 85kg tightheads around, or 120kg scrum halves, eh.

I'm not sure that's true for France. It's the perennial commentator's line about "giant French packs" whereas the reality is that rarely has a French pack been materially bigger than comparable opponents for 2 decades. If you look at the current, typical 1st team selection, the only real monsters are Atonio (whose selection presence is questionable) and Willemse. Danty/Vakatawa, Fickou and Penaud are big men in the backs but then Villiere is a midget and Aldritt very light for an 8.

1m91, 115kgs is not light in my books.

[Niegs]

When will they stop messing with the rules? Red should stay as it is.

It smacks of changing the rules to stay relevant.

When they go back to deciding accidental contact with the head is not worthy of a red?

The change to the red rule in Super Rugby Pacific is a sensible reaction to the extremely strict head contact protocols that have been introduced.

Previously reserved for the most egregious acts on the rugby field, a guy can now find himself red carded for accidentally making contact with an opponent's bonce, such as when driving over a ruck or joining a maul.

Has that happened?

The most debatable ones seem to be those defenders stood still having the carrier fall into his head, but the framework is designed to say "You MUST attempt to bend at the waist and be conscious of what could happen. If you arrive into a potential contact situation upright, that's on you because that's what we're trying to correct."

[Torquemada 1420]

Really, you actually think that?

That's interesting. No thought for the fatigued players a man down no?

No. Why should tiredness result in the injuries you allude too? Watch Italy playing with 13. They continued to tackle correctly and were only subdued by physical fatigue.

Why should tiredness result in injuries?

Really? You need this explained to you?

See the bit in blue versus the bit in red. Are you a member of the Tory party?