Law question- Farrell tackle

[Kawazaki]

You guys are just apeing the narrative of the 'Progressive Rugby' lobby group. It's believe everything we say, follow our agenda absolutely or you're an apologist for brain injury trauma. 'Progressive Rugby' are not rugby fans, they don't play rugby, watch rugby or even enjoy rugby. They just want to remove all risk from the game which, if you did, then you don't have rugby anymore.

I'd suggest you all to give yourselves an uppercut but I fear you'd never forgive yourself if you did.

There's a strawman and a half, you've even given it a name.

Wanting players like Shontayne Hape to be able to open the curtains on a sunny day without having migraines isn't progressive, it's basic due care.

Ultimately, it's not eliminating risk, it's managing risk. In this case under discussion, risk of inducing long-term cognitive impairments and other neurological issues caused by repeated head impacts. Managing by simple steps such as not smashing each other in the head in the first instance.

I'd make a joke about how many head knocks you've had but I'm better than that <sniffs loftily>

You've just done it again - you're suggesting I don't care about Shontayne Hape. The game is changing, as I said before, just watch games from 10-15 years ago.

If you want a game with zero head contact, do you think you'll end up with a game that has zero head traumas? Even if it were possible to get zero head contacts in rugby (it isn't), it would make little to zero difference to the stats of players sustaining concussions.

[inactionman]

You guys are just apeing the narrative of the 'Progressive Rugby' lobby group. It's believe everything we say, follow our agenda absolutely or you're an apologist for brain injury trauma. 'Progressive Rugby' are not rugby fans, they don't play rugby, watch rugby or even enjoy rugby. They just want to remove all risk from the game which, if you did, then you don't have rugby anymore.

I'd suggest you all to give yourselves an uppercut but I fear you'd never forgive yourself if you did.

There's a strawman and a half, you've even given it a name.

Wanting players like Shontayne Hape to be able to open the curtains on a sunny day without having migraines isn't progressive, it's basic due care.

Ultimately, it's not eliminating risk, it's managing risk. In this case under discussion, risk of inducing long-term cognitive impairments and other neurological issues caused by repeated head impacts. Managing by simple steps such as not smashing each other in the head in the first instance.

I'd make a joke about how many head knocks you've had but I'm better than that <sniffs loftily>

You've just done it again - you're suggesting I don't care about Shontayne Hape. The game is changing, as I said before, just watch games from 10-15 years ago.

If you want a game with zero head contact, do you think you'll end up with a game that has zero head traumas? Even if it were possible to get zero head contacts in rugby (it isn't), it would make little to zero difference to the stats of players sustaining concussions.

I'm not sure anyone expects zero, but many do expect proactive attempts to reduce incidences.

[Torquemada 1420]

I can hear OB's "I told you so..." from here - he always used to argue in favour of the time ban rather than the number of matches ban precisely because the number of matches would be so easy to game.

That would never work either because you'd end up with disproportionate effects. My view has always been that the ban should be served at the level the incident took place. It would mean here Farrell could legitimately play for Eng but the Eng games would not reduce the number he had to miss for Sarries. The one complex area in all these bans is if the guilty is injured himself and so would not have played anyway under either a time or match ban scenario.

Given we're essentially talking about the scenario in which a player is selected for the national squad and so misses games for which he's banned by being in training with said squad, isn't the solution just to get everyone to agree that that is or isn't a get-out? Either the number of games is finite in a successive period of games, or being called up to the squad extends the ban for the games missed during the period in camp such that they can't, say, play for the national side for two or however many games it is? I don't see the point in tying ourselves in knots over the level the offence is committed at - if it's an offence that warrants a ban then it should be general across the whole game, to make a facetious comparison, you wouldn't be allowed to drive on A roads if you'd ploughed into a bus queue on a B road.

I suppose my thinking is to take away any reason to want or to be even able to manipulate the situation because, as we all know, this is rugby and so give an inch and the participants will take the mile. Also, I kinda think it's unfair where a player is banned for an offence at intl. level and then serves his ban at club level (and in some circumstances plays in the next available international). I see your point but twiddling the analogy would be to be banned for being drunk whilst flying your glider carrying over to you serving the suspension in not driving your ambulance in your day job. The common factor is the offender but the rows are created because the participation sets are entirely distinct.

[Kawazaki]

There's a strawman and a half, you've even given it a name.

Wanting players like Shontayne Hape to be able to open the curtains on a sunny day without having migraines isn't progressive, it's basic due care.

Ultimately, it's not eliminating risk, it's managing risk. In this case under discussion, risk of inducing long-term cognitive impairments and other neurological issues caused by repeated head impacts. Managing by simple steps such as not smashing each other in the head in the first instance.

I'd make a joke about how many head knocks you've had but I'm better than that <sniffs loftily>

You've just done it again - you're suggesting I don't care about Shontayne Hape. The game is changing, as I said before, just watch games from 10-15 years ago.

If you want a game with zero head contact, do you think you'll end up with a game that has zero head traumas? Even if it were possible to get zero head contacts in rugby (it isn't), it would make little to zero difference to the stats of players sustaining concussions.

I'm not sure anyone expects zero, but many do expect proactive attempts to reduce incidences.

You don't think rugby is being 'proactive'? Have been living under a rock?

[inactionman]

You've just done it again - you're suggesting I don't care about Shontayne Hape. The game is changing, as I said before, just watch games from 10-15 years ago.

If you want a game with zero head contact, do you think you'll end up with a game that has zero head traumas? Even if it were possible to get zero head contacts in rugby (it isn't), it would make little to zero difference to the stats of players sustaining concussions.

I'm not sure anyone expects zero, but many do expect proactive attempts to reduce incidences.

You don't think rugby is being 'proactive'? Have been living under a rock?

I could have sworn the Sarries hooker was taken off unconscious after a high hit a few weeks back, but may be my view from under a rock isn't that good.

[Kawazaki]

I'm not sure anyone expects zero, but many do expect proactive attempts to reduce incidences.

You don't think rugby is being 'proactive'? Have been living under a rock?

I could have sworn the Sarries hooker was taken off unconscious after a high hit a few weeks back, but may be my view from under a rock isn't that good.

Yes he did, and the perp got a red card.

Mind you, that was his third red card in 12 games and he got a 4-week ban, the same as Farrell got. You'll have to direct me to the specific "Law Question - Adam Coleman tackle" thread in here and the thousands of links to all the outrage on twitter about it though.

[Tichtheid]

I don't think Farrell is the victim here.

[Kawazaki]

I don't think Farrell is the victim here.

Not the victim. Victimised - absolutely.

[Slick]

Christ, is this still going on

[Line6 HXFX]

Serious question, if Rugby was just abolished and they went to touch rugby, would anyone mind?
I mean we all get to sing our anthems, get just as drunk, there would be just as much rivalry, less scrums (just tap and go's) ,less box kicking.
Men and the women's (and teenagers) touch rugby game would be more equal and have as much intensity..less players, more room..
No one would get CTE, Motor Neurons, Early Onset Dementia from Rugby and , just to entertain us for eighty minutes a week.

If anyone had five years of foresight they could make a killing by looking to set these competitions up now, instead of beating what is soon to be a dead horse to death.

[Sandstorm]

Serious question, if Rugby was just abolished and they went to touch rugby, would anyone mind?
I mean we all get to sing our anthems, get just as drunk, there would be just as much rivalry, less scrums (just tap and go's) ,less box kicking.

So basically 30 blokes playing 7s? Yeah, I need to be drunk to watch a whole 80 minutes of that.

[Tichtheid]

Christ, is this still going on

Well yeah, because despite the title it's not actually about Farrell.

[SaintK]

You don't think rugby is being 'proactive'? Have been living under a rock?

I could have sworn the Sarries hooker was taken off unconscious after a high hit a few weeks back, but may be my view from under a rock isn't that good.

Yes he did, and the perp got a red card.

Mind you, that was his third red card in 12 games and he got a 4-week ban, the same as Farrell got. You'll have to direct me to the specific "Law Question - Adam Coleman tackle" thread in here and the thousands of links to all the outrage on twitter about it though.

As was pointed out to me previously, the first of Coleman's cards was rescinded and no action taken.
They definiteely appear to struggling with high tackles at Irish what with Creevy still serving a suspention and two more suspensions to come from Sunday's match

[inactionman]

Christ, is this still going on

I reckon we can drag this out til the 6N at least.

[JM2K6]

Christ, is this still going on

I reckon we can drag this out til the 6N at least.

Ah, the reverse RFU approach.

[Kawazaki]

I could have sworn the Sarries hooker was taken off unconscious after a high hit a few weeks back, but may be my view from under a rock isn't that good.

Yes he did, and the perp got a red card.

Mind you, that was his third red card in 12 games and he got a 4-week ban, the same as Farrell got. You'll have to direct me to the specific "Law Question - Adam Coleman tackle" thread in here and the thousands of links to all the outrage on twitter about it though.

As was pointed out to me previously, the first of Coleman's cards was rescinded and no action taken.
They definiteely appear to struggling with high tackles at Irish what with Creevy still serving a suspention and two more suspensions to come from Sunday's match

There is a great big elephant in the room when it comes to tackling in RU. It's not been mentioned on this thread. It's embedded at London Irish as well...

It's Rugby league defence coaches. They teach you to tackle high across the chest in a position similar to if you are throwing a jab in boxing, i.e lead shoulder and lead leg forward on the same side.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

It's hardly just league coaches, it's not like coaches with a background in just rugby are running around trying to get the players to make soak tackles. It's the norm for teams to seek linespeed, both to apply pressure to decision makers and to seek to win contact, and they're doing this because they consider it a superior model if the ambition is to win. And reality suggests they're not wrong

If your ambition is a more open, fluid game with less risk of high tackles and associated knocks to neck/head then you'd likely seek something else, but their aren't many coaches keen to lose games and lose their jobs

[Kawazaki]

It's hardly just league coaches, it's not like coaches with a background in just rugby are running around trying to get the players to make soak tackles. It's the norm for teams to seek linespeed, both to apply pressure to decision makers and to seek to win contact, and they're doing this because they consider it a superior model if the ambition is to win. And reality suggests they're not wrong

If your ambition is a more open, fluid game with less risk of high tackles and associated knocks to neck/head then you'd likely seek something else, but their aren't many coaches keen to lose games and lose their jobs

You've missed the point, people on this thread are talking about making BIG changes to rugby, cultural changes that fundamentally change the way players interact with each other on opposite sides of the ball. Well, how did we get here? We got here by changing the way teams defend playing RU - that was a BIG change, a cultural shift. And we know how they changed.

[JM2K6]

Ehhh... The increased influence and spread of Tongan, Samoan, and Fijian players also had an impact. Chest high hits were the basis of grass roots rugby for those boys

[Biffer]

It's hardly just league coaches, it's not like coaches with a background in just rugby are running around trying to get the players to make soak tackles. It's the norm for teams to seek linespeed, both to apply pressure to decision makers and to seek to win contact, and they're doing this because they consider it a superior model if the ambition is to win. And reality suggests they're not wrong

If your ambition is a more open, fluid game with less risk of high tackles and associated knocks to neck/head then you'd likely seek something else, but their aren't many coaches keen to lose games and lose their jobs

You've missed the point, people on this thread are talking about making BIG changes to rugby, cultural changes that fundamentally change the way players interact with each other on opposite sides of the ball. Well, how did we get here? We got here by changing the way teams defend playing RU - that was a BIG change, a cultural shift. And we know how they changed.

I think people are looking to row back on big changes that have happened in the last twenty years. These chest high big hits weren't as much of a thing in the 80s/90s

[Rhubarb & Custard]

It's hardly just league coaches, it's not like coaches with a background in just rugby are running around trying to get the players to make soak tackles. It's the norm for teams to seek linespeed, both to apply pressure to decision makers and to seek to win contact, and they're doing this because they consider it a superior model if the ambition is to win. And reality suggests they're not wrong

If your ambition is a more open, fluid game with less risk of high tackles and associated knocks to neck/head then you'd likely seek something else, but their aren't many coaches keen to lose games and lose their jobs

You've missed the point, people on this thread are talking about making BIG changes to rugby, cultural changes that fundamentally change the way players interact with each other on opposite sides of the ball. Well, how did we get here? We got here by changing the way teams defend playing RU - that was a BIG change, a cultural shift. And we know how they changed.

I think people are looking to row back on big changes that have happened in the last twenty years. These chest high big hits weren't as much of a thing in the 80s/90s

the game went pro, the players and coaches improved as a result. very likely the game needs to make changes to account for that improvement

[Torquemada 1420]

Given we're essentially talking about the scenario in which a player is selected for the national squad and so misses games for which he's banned by being in training with said squad, isn't the solution just to get everyone to agree that that is or isn't a get-out? Either the number of games is finite in a successive period of games, or being called up to the squad extends the ban for the games missed during the period in camp such that they can't, say, play for the national side for two or however many games it is? I don't see the point in tying ourselves in knots over the level the offence is committed at - if it's an offence that warrants a ban then it should be general across the whole game, to make a facetious comparison, you wouldn't be allowed to drive on A roads if you'd ploughed into a bus queue on a B road.

I do think there is much sense in your solution. Doubt if self interests are going to entertain it though.

I was thinking about this whilst rowing earlier and why it's all so hard and thought of another example:
1) You go into your fav pub and punch the landlord in the face. You'll probably get banned from that pub but unlikely you wouldn't be able to pop in the one next door and certainly no chance of being prevented your tipple anywhere else.

2) You go into your fav pub and murder the landlord. This time you aren't going to Tescos to buy a beer, let alone your fav pub.

What should be the context scope for the punishment? Where we appear to have gotten to is the bizarre position where you go into your fav pub and punch the landlord in the face but you choose to be barred from the pub next door to enable you to keep drinking in your fav.

Of course, if we had sensible bans for this (e.g. 10 consecutive games as a minimum), we'd pretty soon see behaviours modified and f**k all room for fiddling the scope of the punishment.

[Kawazaki]

Given we're essentially talking about the scenario in which a player is selected for the national squad and so misses games for which he's banned by being in training with said squad, isn't the solution just to get everyone to agree that that is or isn't a get-out? Either the number of games is finite in a successive period of games, or being called up to the squad extends the ban for the games missed during the period in camp such that they can't, say, play for the national side for two or however many games it is? I don't see the point in tying ourselves in knots over the level the offence is committed at - if it's an offence that warrants a ban then it should be general across the whole game, to make a facetious comparison, you wouldn't be allowed to drive on A roads if you'd ploughed into a bus queue on a B road.

I do think there is much sense in your solution. Doubt if self interests are going to entertain it though.

I was thinking about this whilst rowing earlier and why it's all so hard and thought of another example:
1) You go into your fav pub and punch the landlord in the face. You'll probably get banned from that pub but unlikely you wouldn't be able to pop in the one next door and certainly no chance of being prevented your tipple anywhere else.

2) You go into your fav pub and murder the landlord. This time you aren't going to Tescos to buy a beer, let alone your fav pub.

What should be the context scope for the punishment? Where we appear to have gotten to is the bizarre position where you go into your fav pub and punch the landlord in the face but you choose to be barred from the pub next door to enable you to keep drinking in your fav.

Of course, if we had sensible bans for this (e.g. 10 consecutive games as a minimum), we'd pretty soon see behaviours modified and f**k all room for fiddling the scope of the punishment.

I think you should think less.

[Torquemada 1420]

I think you should think less.

That may well be, but as least I have that capacity

[Grandpa]

Given we're essentially talking about the scenario in which a player is selected for the national squad and so misses games for which he's banned by being in training with said squad, isn't the solution just to get everyone to agree that that is or isn't a get-out? Either the number of games is finite in a successive period of games, or being called up to the squad extends the ban for the games missed during the period in camp such that they can't, say, play for the national side for two or however many games it is? I don't see the point in tying ourselves in knots over the level the offence is committed at - if it's an offence that warrants a ban then it should be general across the whole game, to make a facetious comparison, you wouldn't be allowed to drive on A roads if you'd ploughed into a bus queue on a B road.

I do think there is much sense in your solution. Doubt if self interests are going to entertain it though.

I was thinking about this whilst rowing earlier and why it's all so hard and thought of another example:
1) You go into your fav pub and punch the landlord in the face. You'll probably get banned from that pub but unlikely you wouldn't be able to pop in the one next door and certainly no chance of being prevented your tipple anywhere else.

2) You go into your fav pub and murder the landlord. This time you aren't going to Tescos to buy a beer, let alone your fav pub.

What should be the context scope for the punishment? Where we appear to have gotten to is the bizarre position where you go into your fav pub and punch the landlord in the face but you choose to be barred from the pub next door to enable you to keep drinking in your fav.

Of course, if we had sensible bans for this (e.g. 10 consecutive games as a minimum), we'd pretty soon see behaviours modified and f**k all room for fiddling the scope of the punishment.

I think I agree. The bans are not enough of a deterrent currently..

[Kawazaki]

Most of the Scottish contingent were all over this thread whining like a rusty wheel about Farrell.

Not a peep since last weekend...




And to really piss on everyone's chips, Glasgow have nominated semipro matches and an exhibition end of season jolly to count for his banned matches...




Conor Murray was badly injured as well, he misses the SF and likely the final as well.

Hypocrites.

[SaintK]

That's appalling
Should have posted it on the Scottish Rugby thread
He is pretty upset about the whole thing apparently

[Biffer]

Most of the Scottish contingent were all over this thread whining like a rusty wheel about Farrell.

Not a peep since last weekend...




And to really piss on everyone's chips, Glasgow have nominated semipro matches and an exhibition end of season jolly to count for his banned matches...




Conor Murray was badly injured as well, he misses the SF and likely the final as well.

Hypocrites.

Difference is, Farrell would have got a yellow for that and various people would have defended it. It was a shit tackle, dreadful stuff, got a deserved red card. And the SRU have finally started to play the same games with suspensions as other unions but apparently it’s criminal when we do it.

If you think that was a deserved red (it was) then so are several of Farrells’s. If you don’t agree with that, you’re the hypocrite.

[Kawazaki]

Shameless

[Biffer]

Shameless

The difference here is we’re prepared to criticise our players when it happens, but you won’t criticise Farrell.

Now, I wonder who would be considered more objective in that situation? Or more shameless?

[PornDog]

Toga in being an incredibly insecure Sarries fan shocker

For what it's worth, just because everybody didn't instantly think of you when it happened doesn't mean that anyone condoned the tackle. There wasn't as much controversy about it simply because everyone agreed - we didn't have a one eyed loon being insecure crying blue murder about how everyone is so totally unfair in their treatment of Saracens, I mean Glasgow.


The nominating A games is fucking bullshit mind you, just as it was when Farrell benefited of something similar prior to the 6 nations. Somethign really should be done to stamp out that sort of nonsense.

[Uncle fester]

Actually he was roundly criticised by all and sundry on the URC thread, including by his own compatriots.

You're some weirdo.

[Tichtheid]

The worst part of it is using games he probably wouldn't have been involved with to play out the suspension.

It's a shite state of affairs and no one should be allowed to do this, but as long as they are, should Glasgow be the one team who don't?

and whilst we're on it, this is the one tackle red card from 31 across the URC, Challenge Cup and Premiership that was assessed as being top level entry.
It was a bad tackle, but not any worse than has happened elsewhere.

[PornDog]

The worst part of it is using games he probably wouldn't have been involved with to play out the suspension.

It's a shite state of affairs and no one should be allowed to do this, but as long as they are, should Glasgow be the one team who don't?

I'm a firm believer in the principle that the best way to force change is to rip the absolute piss out of any and all loopholes and force the issue. Hopefully this will do it, good on ye Glasgow

[SaintK]

This thread

[Kawazaki]

The worst part of it is using games he probably wouldn't have been involved with to play out the suspension.

It's a shite state of affairs and no one should be allowed to do this, but as long as they are, should Glasgow be the one team who don't?

and whilst we're on it, this is the one tackle red card from 31 across the URC, Challenge Cup and Premiership that was assessed as being top level entry.
It was a bad tackle, but not any worse than has happened elsewhere.

Saracens have never used matches playing in semi-pro rugby competitions below the Premiership to count as matches in lieu of penalties for any of their players. Any of them.

[Tichtheid]

The worst part of it is using games he probably wouldn't have been involved with to play out the suspension.

It's a shite state of affairs and no one should be allowed to do this, but as long as they are, should Glasgow be the one team who don't?

and whilst we're on it, this is the one tackle red card from 31 across the URC, Challenge Cup and Premiership that was assessed as being top level entry.
It was a bad tackle, but not any worse than has happened elsewhere.

Saracens have never used matches playing in semi-pro rugby competitions below the Premiership to count as matches in lieu of penalties for any of their players. Any of them.

It's wrong, whoever uses whatever "legal" matches. This thread has already covered the difficulty in trying to get only matches at the same level to count

I'm of a similar mind to PornDog on this

[Kawazaki]

The worst part of it is using games he probably wouldn't have been involved with to play out the suspension.

It's a shite state of affairs and no one should be allowed to do this, but as long as they are, should Glasgow be the one team who don't?

and whilst we're on it, this is the one tackle red card from 31 across the URC, Challenge Cup and Premiership that was assessed as being top level entry.
It was a bad tackle, but not any worse than has happened elsewhere.

Saracens have never used matches playing in semi-pro rugby competitions below the Premiership to count as matches in lieu of penalties for any of their players. Any of them.

It's wrong, whoever uses whatever "legal" matches. This thread has already covered the difficulty in trying to get only matches at the same level to count

I'm of a similar mind to PornDog on this

"Same level" conversations shouldn't have any difficulty differentiating between professional level and an amateur or semi-pro level though should they.

[Tichtheid]

Saracens have never used matches playing in semi-pro rugby competitions below the Premiership to count as matches in lieu of penalties for any of their players. Any of them.

It's wrong, whoever uses whatever "legal" matches. This thread has already covered the difficulty in trying to get only matches at the same level to count

I'm of a similar mind to PornDog on this

"Same level" conversations shouldn't have any difficulty differentiating between professional level and an amateur or semi-pro level though should they.

Glasgow select their A team from players on their books, they've included full Internationals in recent games.

Look it's wrong, everyone knows it, but as long as others are gaming it then why shouldn't Glasgow?

[Kawazaki]

It's wrong, whoever uses whatever "legal" matches. This thread has already covered the difficulty in trying to get only matches at the same level to count

I'm of a similar mind to PornDog on this

"Same level" conversations shouldn't have any difficulty differentiating between professional level and an amateur or semi-pro level though should they.

Glasgow select their A team from players on their books, they've included full Internationals in recent games.

Look it's wrong, everyone knows it, but as long as others are gaming it then why shouldn't Glasgow?

Nobody has taken the piss quite like this before.

It'll come as a shock I'm sure but Tom Jordan hasn't played any matches in the "Super 6 Sprint" competition all season...

https://all.rugby/player/tom-jordan