DuPont Injury

[Enzedder]

Players going in "backwards" or like exocets with their shoulders are playing recklessly. Bind onto the players and then push - it's the same for both sides.

Anyone who goes off their feet other than the ball carrier and tackler/s can get pinged till they stop it.

[Biffer]

The deliberate ignoring of the word 'reckless' (and the idea it means the same as deliberate) is at the forefront of Irish defence of their player.

[I like neeps]

The Irish and the provinces love an off the feet ruck tornado aimed at players knees. Not a surprise regrettably, hoping World Rugby do something about it soon.

[Uncle fester]

I have only your word that it is similar but I'd be surprised if it really is. For starters, Dupont moved his leg just before contact (something which got removed from one of the video clips at the start of the thread). Is that the case in the one from the 20's game?

I've looked at those two clips at the start of this thread a few times since you posted this Fester and yes, you can see DuPont shifting his leg. I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to mitigation in any way? to me if anything it makes the offense worse as he shifts slightly away from the contact point before and still gets hit.

The more I look at this the more pissed off I feel about it. Rugby and the refs should be protecting players from this sort of shit.

Go look at it again. He shifts his body 60-70 degrees and puts that leg where there is a good chance that it's going to get hit. The leg is now ahead of the test of his body. And this happens a split second before contact.

To prevent this happening, a fundamental change in the way rucks are reffed is required.

That's why the citing commissioner chucked it out. Pretty pathetic from Galthie trying to cite Nash and Porter as well.

[Biffer]

I have only your word that it is similar but I'd be surprised if it really is. For starters, Dupont moved his leg just before contact (something which got removed from one of the video clips at the start of the thread). Is that the case in the one from the 20's game?

I've looked at those two clips at the start of this thread a few times since you posted this Fester and yes, you can see DuPont shifting his leg. I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to mitigation in any way? to me if anything it makes the offense worse as he shifts slightly away from the contact point before and still gets hit.

The more I look at this the more pissed off I feel about it. Rugby and the refs should be protecting players from this sort of shit.

Go look at it again. He shifts his body 60-70 degrees and puts that leg where there is a good chance that it's going to get hit. The leg is now ahead of the test of his body. And this happens a split second before contact.

To prevent this happening, a fundamental change in the way rucks are reffed is required.

That's why the citing commissioner chucked it out. Pretty pathetic from Galthie trying to cite Nash and Porter as well.

Aye, it's DuPont's fault his knee is fucked.

Worst kind of greenblind nonsense

[Rhubarb & Custard]

And that's unworkable because?

And too why is having players exocet into what passes for a ruck preferable? One accepts it's an easy way to move mass, but this isn't just players having to bind, it's also players having to stay on their feet, so players would be easier to move.

There will for sure be lots of complaints from many players and coaches they can't possibly do it, for reasons. And those reasons will sound as just as sensible as if Donald Trump were setting out their case

I assume you've played rugby before?

Well yes, but even if not claiming it's impossible just sounds weird. I would understand people making the claim they don't want to be banned from recklessly charging into the fray and hoping things don't pan out badly. I could even understand people saying they enjoy watching that physicality on show.

Claiming it's impossible to not charge in and instead have to stop, bind and then attempt some (combined) shoving back of the opponent seems odd. Because practically asking players to bind and stay on their feet seems quite straightforward. It'd also be a change to how the laws are currently written, however oddly so. If one wanted to play devil's advocate and say reffing the laws as they are might cause some unintended consequences then yes, but these things are never static, they should be continually reviewed and revised if needed, whereas for now Dupont is rather more static than we'd like.

[Kawazaki]

And that's unworkable because?

And too why is having players exocet into what passes for a ruck preferable? One accepts it's an easy way to move mass, but this isn't just players having to bind, it's also players having to stay on their feet, so players would be easier to move.

There will for sure be lots of complaints from many players and coaches they can't possibly do it, for reasons. And those reasons will sound as just as sensible as if Donald Trump were setting out their case

I assume you've played rugby before?

Well yes, but even if not claiming it's impossible just sounds weird. I would understand people making the claim they don't want to be banned from recklessly charging into the fray and hoping things don't pan out badly. I could even understand people saying they enjoy watching that physicality on show.

Claiming it's impossible to not charge in and instead have to stop, bind and then attempt some (combined) shoving back of the opponent seems odd. Because practically asking players to bind and stay on their feet seems quite straightforward. It'd also be a change to how the laws are currently written, however oddly so. If one wanted to play devil's advocate and say reffing the laws as they are might cause some unintended consequences then yes, but these things are never static, they should be continually reviewed and revised if needed, whereas for now Dupont is rather more static than we'd like.

Read what I originally wrote. You're introducing terms like 'charging'. I never said charging in was ok. I said that binding on before pushing the opposition off the ruck is impossible to do without stopping first. And if you have to stop first then it will mostly be a pointless waste of energy competing at the ruck.

[Yeeb]

This was properly a targeted move on Du Ponts leg.

It should be a red with a long ban.

Seeing as his leg wasn't in that position a second before the contact, I doubt it very much.

Yes !

When Beirne made contact Dupont had one foot in the air; it looked like he was trying to widen his stance in the jackal, so the contact pushed him over & Beirne, now with Porter arriving behind ended up pushing thru Dupont, & he got injured because his feet weren't set when he was cleaned out.

Look at it at actual speed & tell me it was deliberate ! It was all over in a few tenths of second.

The citing team already reviewed it & told the French to PFO, so that's the Ref & ARs, the TMO & the citing team all saying it was legal & not worthy of a card.

I understand everyone being upset that Dupont was injured, because he's a generational talent; but it's a contact sport, & we see dozens of breakdowns like this every Pro match, & players are so big now, & so powerful that injuries are inevitable.

There were at least 7-8 other similar Irish reckless using body’s as missles (and if someone’s lower leg is in the way, too bad ) in that game, POM had 2 at least. They are currently coached to play this way and whilst DuPont individually may not have been targeted deliberately , it’s clearly a method of play where collateral damage risk is increased. Dirty play should not be encouraged , especially as it’s doesn’t really lead to any real RWC success apparently.

[Torquemada 1420]

Watching the Ireland v France game yesterday I have to make my views known about the horrendous clear-out incident that saw the great Antoine Dupont leave the field with a suspected ACL injury.

For years Ireland and Leinster have been getting away with reckless and wild clearing at the breakdown. It’s co-ordinated chaos in their eyes, but in the eyes of other professional players they consistently go way beyond what’s acceptable on the pitch.

Let’s be honest, Ireland have form for this. For years they’ve pushed the breakdown chaos well past what is either acceptable or safe – just ask Malcolm Marx, a victim of a similar and possibly even worse incident in the summer for South Africa against Ireland. We saw Josh van der Flier flying into a ruck two years ago in the EPCR Champions Cup, clash heads with one of the opposition props and then have the temerity to play the victim to the referee! So I don’t buy Irish innocence in this instance simply because of the amount of previous, proven or unproven, that they have.

World Rugby have to act; protecting its assets – the players – is a key tenant of their safety protocols and there’s no way that, in a contact situation with 125kg athletes piling in, that players should avoid scrutiny for consistent reckless behaviour that endangers careers.

My feelings after the game were if the Irish really want to win that badly that they systematically set out to endanger players, let them have the f**king comp because it's really not worth it.

[Torquemada 1420]

Every now and then we get incidents/reactions like this when the frankly unsafe manner in which players are allowed to enter into what passes for rucks spits out an unfortunate consequence.

But one need only reflect on Botha piling into Jones back in 2009 to realise here we are the better part of two decades later and not much has changed. So I don't imagine the authorities will be in a rush to do something now, even when an awful lot of people wonder if players arriving and binding and striving to stay on their feet wouldn't only be safer but produce a better game

The bind rule is actually completely unworkable if you think about it. If the bind rule were refereed to the letter of the law then players joining a ruck would, effectively, have to stop running to the ruck before they joined it. The sequence would be something like;

1. run to the ruck,
2. stop,
3. bind on to somebody already involved,
4. then restart their momentum to try and push opponents away.

In short, it would almost certainly be a complete waste of time to even bother trying.

YES. Exactly what I have been advocating since we removed the "hit" from scrum engagements............ because rugby finally realised it was f**king dangerous. And a plus to changing the Laws this way would be to discourage ball carriers from
deliberately going to ground with the ball.

[Torquemada 1420]

That's why the citing commissioner chucked it out. Pretty pathetic from Galthie trying to cite Nash and Porter as well.

Not sure anything the officials have to say is relevant any longer when it comes to sanctioning Ireland because we've seen the rules apply differently or not at all. Read what Campo wrote or Schalk
earlier this year. Both saying what we all know which is Ireland have gotten away with murder at the breakdown for years with a deliberate policy of cheating and dangerous play.

[Yeeb]

Watching the Ireland v France game yesterday I have to make my views known about the horrendous clear-out incident that saw the great Antoine Dupont leave the field with a suspected ACL injury.

For years Ireland and Leinster have been getting away with reckless and wild clearing at the breakdown. It’s co-ordinated chaos in their eyes, but in the eyes of other professional players they consistently go way beyond what’s acceptable on the pitch.

Let’s be honest, Ireland have form for this. For years they’ve pushed the breakdown chaos well past what is either acceptable or safe – just ask Malcolm Marx, a victim of a similar and possibly even worse incident in the summer for South Africa against Ireland. We saw Josh van der Flier flying into a ruck two years ago in the EPCR Champions Cup, clash heads with one of the opposition props and then have the temerity to play the victim to the referee! So I don’t buy Irish innocence in this instance simply because of the amount of previous, proven or unproven, that they have.

World Rugby have to act; protecting its assets – the players – is a key tenant of their safety protocols and there’s no way that, in a contact situation with 125kg athletes piling in, that players should avoid scrutiny for consistent reckless behaviour that endangers careers.

My feelings after the game were if the Irish really want to win that badly that they systematically set out to endanger players, let them have the f**king comp because it's really not worth it.

Just fill the team for next years fixture with every badass your top two divisions have , and gouge / stamp / punch their smallest players into unconsciousness peut etre?
Then copy and paste all of the ‘it wasn’t deliberate or targeted’ posts from the last 24 hours

[Uncle fester]

I've looked at those two clips at the start of this thread a few times since you posted this Fester and yes, you can see DuPont shifting his leg. I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to mitigation in any way? to me if anything it makes the offense worse as he shifts slightly away from the contact point before and still gets hit.

The more I look at this the more pissed off I feel about it. Rugby and the refs should be protecting players from this sort of shit.

Go look at it again. He shifts his body 60-70 degrees and puts that leg where there is a good chance that it's going to get hit. The leg is now ahead of the test of his body. And this happens a split second before contact.

To prevent this happening, a fundamental change in the way rucks are reffed is required.

That's why the citing commissioner chucked it out. Pretty pathetic from Galthie trying to cite Nash and Porter as well.

Aye, it's DuPont's fault his knee is fucked.

Worst kind of greenblind nonsense

Back to English comprehension class with you.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Go look at it again. He shifts his body 60-70 degrees and puts that leg where there is a good chance that it's going to get hit. The leg is now ahead of the test of his body. And this happens a split second before contact.

To prevent this happening, a fundamental change in the way rucks are reffed is required.

That's why the citing commissioner chucked it out. Pretty pathetic from Galthie trying to cite Nash and Porter as well.

Aye, it's DuPont's fault his knee is fucked.

Worst kind of greenblind nonsense

Back to English comprehension class with you.

It did read like you were victim blaming

[Guy Smiley]

Remember when WR changed the sanctions for tackling in the air to an automatic card and there was an outcry defending defending players who were 'just trying to play the ball'...

but it's reckless and putting yourself in that position is universally accepted now as a card unless the circumstances are unusual.

This is no different in principle. Throwing yourself into a play with no regard for the safety of others is a dumb move. Maybe these guys are just dumb?

[PornDog]

Remember when WR changed the sanctions for tackling in the air to an automatic card and there was an outcry defending defending players who were 'just trying to play the ball'...

but it's reckless and putting yourself in that position is universally accepted now as a card unless the circumstances are unusual.

This is no different in principle. Throwing yourself into a play with no regard for the safety of others is a dumb move. Maybe these guys are just dumb?

Agreed, but with the huge leeway given to the massively overpowered poach, matched with World Rugby's complete lack of leadership, this is exactly what is going to continue to happen. Just like with the tackle, only pure lip service is being paid to protecting players.

Exoceting into a ruck, should be outlawed. Tucked arm shoulders, no matter where you make contact, should be a red card offence. Tucked arm head contact 'tackles' should have a 3 month base level ban. Oh and do away with fucking 'tackle school' (frankly you shouldn't be allowed onto a pitch in the first place unless you've already attended such a course - that is of course if it worth a damn in the first place) and bringing cookies to your hearing!

[Sandstorm]

Just like with the tackle, only pure lip service is being paid to protecting players.

Head injury leads to end of career & dementia at 40 = bad.
Knee injury leads to end of career & pain getting out of bed = okay

[PornDog]

Just like with the tackle, only pure lip service is being paid to protecting players.

Head injury leads to end of career & dementia at 40 = bad.
Knee injury leads to end of career & pain getting out of bed = okay

What colour is the grass in imagination land?

[Guy Smiley]

Agreed, but with the huge leeway given to the massively overpowered poach, matched with World Rugby's complete lack of leadership, this is exactly what is going to continue to happen. Just like with the tackle, only pure lip service is being paid to protecting players.

Exoceting into a ruck, should be outlawed. Tucked arm shoulders, no matter where you make contact, should be a red card offence. Tucked arm head contact 'tackles' should have a 3 month base level ban. Oh and do away with fucking 'tackle school' (frankly you shouldn't be allowed onto a pitch in the first place unless you've already attended such a course - that is of course if it worth a damn in the first place) and bringing cookies to your hearing!

Yup.

[assfly]

Kolbe wouldn't have been injured. He probably would have played on and scored a try.

[Slick]

Absolute fucking disgrace...

Ireland trio Tadhg Beirne, Andrew Porter and Calvin Nash face no further sanction for alleged foul play, despite being referred to the citing commissioner by France coach Fabien Galthié after his side’s comprehensive Guinness Six Nations victory in Dublin yesterday.
The furious coach took the highly unusual step after incidents that forced captain Antoine Dupont and centre Pierre Louis Barassi off, but The Irish Independent understands that, having reviewed the incidents in question, the citing commissioner decided not to pursue the matter further.

Fuckin disgrace? Just because it's du Pont? It's rugby, Happen a lot. Just bad luck.

Christ, Saffers being thin skinned even on career threatening injuries.

[Slick]

Kolbe wouldn't have been injured. He probably would have played on and scored a try.

This is more like it.

[Sandstorm]

Kolbe wouldn't have been injured. He probably would have played on and scored a try.

This is more like it.

[assfly]

I couldn't resist

[Biffer]

Remember when WR changed the sanctions for tackling in the air to an automatic card and there was an outcry defending defending players who were 'just trying to play the ball'...

but it's reckless and putting yourself in that position is universally accepted now as a card unless the circumstances are unusual.

This is no different in principle. Throwing yourself into a play with no regard for the safety of others is a dumb move. Maybe these guys are just dumb?

Irish lock forwards being dumb? Shame on you for suggesting such a thing.

[Torquemada 1420]

Remember when WR changed the sanctions for tackling in the air to an automatic card and there was an outcry defending defending players who were 'just trying to play the ball'...

but it's reckless and putting yourself in that position is universally accepted now as a card unless the circumstances are unusual.

This is no different in principle. Throwing yourself into a play with no regard for the safety of others is a dumb move. Maybe these guys are just dumb?

Agreed, but with the huge leeway given to the massively overpowered poach, matched with World Rugby's complete lack of leadership, this is exactly what is going to continue to happen. Just like with the tackle, only pure lip service is being paid to protecting players.

Exoceting into a ruck, should be outlawed. Tucked arm shoulders, no matter where you make contact, should be a red card offence. Tucked arm head contact 'tackles' should have a 3 month base level ban. Oh and do away with fucking 'tackle school' (frankly you shouldn't be allowed onto a pitch in the first place unless you've already attended such a course - that is of course if it worth a damn in the first place) and bringing cookies to your hearing!

This.

[Torquemada 1420]

Christ, Saffers being thin skinned even on career threatening injuries.

TBF, 1 safa.

[Slick]

Christ, Saffers being thin skinned even on career threatening injuries.

TBF, 1 safa.

You're so reasonable when there isn't a game on.

[Uncle fester]

Aye, it's DuPont's fault his knee is fucked.

Worst kind of greenblind nonsense

Back to English comprehension class with you.

It did read like you were victim blaming

Not my intention. There's a ruck and the situation has changed just before Beirne joins it. You can't ignore that change when making a determination on whether it is foul play or not.

[Biffer]

Usual pish from useless ex pros who somehow got themselves media jobs. Zebo saying it clearly wasn't deliberate - doesn't mention anything about reckless, which is the more serious conversation. Doesn't mention the whole issue of rucks in the modern game and the way pklayers hit them at full speed, horizontally, with no intention to stay on their feet or bind.

How these fuckers get paid to be in a studio is fucking beyond my understanding.

[Torquemada 1420]

Usual pish from useless ex pros who somehow got themselves media jobs. Zebo saying it clearly wasn't deliberate - doesn't mention anything about reckless, which is the more serious conversation. Doesn't mention the whole issue of rucks in the modern game and the way pklayers hit them at full speed, horizontally, with no intention to stay on their feet or bind.

How these fuckers get paid to be in a studio is fucking beyond my understanding.

You expect anyone with any Irish leanings to come out with anything other than hard core denial?

[OomStruisbaai]

Christ, Saffers being thin skinned even on career threatening injuries.

TBF, 1 safa.

You're so reasonable when there isn't a game on.

Kak man, the French is the last ones who can complain about thuggish play.

[laurent]

TBF, 1 safa.

You're so reasonable when there isn't a game on.

Kak man, the French is the last ones who can complain about thuggish play.

Extreme Ironing...

[Yeeb]

TBF, 1 safa.

You're so reasonable when there isn't a game on.

Kak man, the French is the last ones who can complain about thuggish play.

Wake up grandad , France hasn’t really been thuggish since the days of Merle , vaahaamaainauauaha, & buck shelfords ballbag. Your eye gouges have been more prevalent recently.

[SaintK]

You're so reasonable when there isn't a game on.

Kak man, the French is the last ones who can complain about thuggish play.

Extreme Ironing...

Quite

[Kawazaki]

Back to English comprehension class with you.

It did read like you were victim blaming

Not my intention. There's a ruck and the situation has changed just before Beirne joins it. You can't ignore that change when making a determination on whether it is foul play or not.

Regardless of what was happening outside of Beirne's control, was he in control of the outcome when he hit the ruck?

Clearly not because the speed and height he hit the ruck with his arms tucked back. At best he was going straight to ground and sealing off, at worst he hits a player's knee and ruptures the ACL.

[Uncle fester]

Link to the incident in the 20's game.
That's a croc roll, which is now banned. The two incidents are not remotely comparable.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BcVVnQsJ6/

[Blackmac]

It did read like you were victim blaming

Not my intention. There's a ruck and the situation has changed just before Beirne joins it. You can't ignore that change when making a determination on whether it is foul play or not.

Regardless of what was happening outside of Beirne's control, was he in control of the outcome when he hit the ruck?

Clearly not because the speed and height he hit the ruck with his arms tucked back. At best he was going straight to ground and sealing off, at worst he hits a player's knee and ruptures the ACL.

Porter is more at fault than Beirne. Beirne actually appears to be intent on clearing out the French 5, who steps back and pushes him down to the left. The real reckless culprit is Porter who is flying in with the only intention and obvious outcome of propelling Beirne off his feet and forward into any opponent in his way with both their combined weight.

[Tichtheid]

Link to the incident in the 20's game.
That's a croc roll, which is now banned. The two incidents are not remotely comparable.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BcVVnQsJ6/

Oh ffs, this is painful with you guys.

The referee explained to the player that he was sending him off for landing on the lower limb, as per the world rugby laws. I said all this in a previous post.

I don't understand what is to be gained by a point blank refusal to accept there was any wrong doing on a niche chatroom which has a few dozen readers. It won't change the outcome and no one is going to get cited now, but we've all been here before I await the next explanation why the Dupont injury was completely nothing to do with Irish players doing anything wrong with bated breath.

[Tichtheid]

Not my intention. There's a ruck and the situation has changed just before Beirne joins it. You can't ignore that change when making a determination on whether it is foul play or not.

Regardless of what was happening outside of Beirne's control, was he in control of the outcome when he hit the ruck?

Clearly not because the speed and height he hit the ruck with his arms tucked back. At best he was going straight to ground and sealing off, at worst he hits a player's knee and ruptures the ACL.

Porter is more at fault than Beirne. Beirne actually appears to be intent on clearing out the French 5, who steps back and pushes him down to the left. The real reckless culprit is Porter who is flying in with the only intention and obvious outcome of propelling Beirne off his feet and forward into any opponent in his way with both their combined weight.

As per the Welsh scrum half who was sent off - I actually felt a little bit sorry for him because it was his team mate smashing in behind him that caused the incident to be as bad as it was.