NPR

Brazil wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:40 am I thought Cortisone injections were banned now? You'd hope that professional sports would have twigged that after the law cases brought by former professional footballers whose joints were basically bone grinding on bone.

I think they're limited not banned. Only a small number in your liftime or they'll fuck you up.

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:20 am Related: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ttlieb-old

That's really sad.

Again.

NFL has at least addressed the issues financially. I would seem sensible for other sports to see the writing on the wall and not look like responsibility dodging shysters.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:54 am

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:20 am Related: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ttlieb-old

That's really sad.

Again.

NFL has at least addressed the issues financially. I would seem sensible for other sports to see the writing on the wall and not look like responsibility dodging shysters.

I read that story earlier today.

it is sad... and it paints NZR in a poor light. Again.

WR have acknowledged this issue and started a process of dealing with it. Every Union is going to have to do the same... and now.

Dr Tucker explaining the new stand-down procedures:

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:20 am Related: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ttlieb-old

Michael Aylwin is a disingenuous cunt. Writes an article like this, then writes that in the match report for the Premiership final:

The key event in the first half was that yellow card for Davies. Cards will continue to shape these epic narratives – more’s the pity – for as long as players are blamed for events that clearly have “no malice”, a phrase as embedded in rugby now as a banged head. As if the sport does not have enough random variables already feeding into that sacrosanct judgment that is the final score.

At least more of the cards now are being mitigated down to yellow, whatever the semantics in the reasoning. Leicester’s Matt Scott saw yellow himself for the same reason in those breathless last minutes.

It's clear he only wrote a good story and doesn't actually give a shit

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:20 am Related: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ttlieb-old

It's almost certainly present in the amateur era players and almost certainly in non-pro players as well. This article relates to a pretty infamous club level player in Dublin.
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ ... 19582.html
At no point did his teammates cop that his increasingly erratic behaviour might have a darker reason for it.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 2:31 pm

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 7:20 am Related: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ttlieb-old

Michael Aylwin is a disingenuous cunt. Writes an article like this, then writes that in the match report for the Premiership final:

The key event in the first half was that yellow card for Davies. Cards will continue to shape these epic narratives – more’s the pity – for as long as players are blamed for events that clearly have “no malice”, a phrase as embedded in rugby now as a banged head. As if the sport does not have enough random variables already feeding into that sacrosanct judgment that is the final score.

At least more of the cards now are being mitigated down to yellow, whatever the semantics in the reasoning. Leicester’s Matt Scott saw yellow himself for the same reason in those breathless last minutes.

It's clear he only wrote a good story and doesn't actually give a shit

And here we go: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... ot-working

Same guy. Multiple instances of absolute horseshit in the first 4 paragraphs. All in service to removing cards for tackle offences, because the poor players can't possibly avoid not hitting people in the head.

Please don’t ask for specific instances but I’m sure I’ve seen cases where a defender literally has no time to get into position to execute a tackle legally. Usually when an attacker gets the ball at the last moment and chooses to run straight at the defender. You have thirty fast, big, fired-up guys in a small space whose intent is to physically dominate the other. The rules can tinker at the margins but if it’s true that the problem is the cumulative effect of many small impacts (many of them in training?) then I don’t see an answer to the problem.

Stumbled across this Tweet from a few years ago. The match in the clip is from 2012.

Unbelievably, the result from this was no try, knock on! No card, no penalty. There was a citing though but Stowers was cleared with no ban as he told the committee that he was trying to dislodge the ball. There was a TMO for the match, Derek Bevan no less.

Unreal isn't it.

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:20 am Please don’t ask for specific instances but I’m sure I’ve seen cases where a defender literally has no time to get into position to execute a tackle legally. Usually when an attacker gets the ball at the last moment and chooses to run straight at the defender. You have thirty fast, big, fired-up guys in a small space whose intent is to physically dominate the other. The rules can tinker at the margins but if it’s true that the problem is the cumulative effect of many small impacts (many of them in training?) then I don’t see an answer to the problem.

In those situations how many times did the tackler choose going for the big hit rather than any other option?

Bevan is a disgrace, we French knew it all along.

Just watched a bit of the Japan v Uruguay game and a
Japanese player got yellowed for a fairly innocuous tackle when he had clearly tried to bend into it. Possibly was a yellow as things stand.

However, the real point was that watching it closely after that, nearly every heavy tackle had players heads snapping back and almost every ruck a player entered had some kind of knock to heads. If the research is showing the small hits are, cumulatively, just as bad, how the hell do we make the game completely safe. Forwards are hitting 10’s of rucks a game with most presumably having some kind of small impact to the head.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:57 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:20 am Please don’t ask for specific instances but I’m sure I’ve seen cases where a defender literally has no time to get into position to execute a tackle legally. Usually when an attacker gets the ball at the last moment and chooses to run straight at the defender. You have thirty fast, big, fired-up guys in a small space whose intent is to physically dominate the other. The rules can tinker at the margins but if it’s true that the problem is the cumulative effect of many small impacts (many of them in training?) then I don’t see an answer to the problem.

In those situations how many times did the tackler choose going for the big hit rather than any other option?

In the instances I'm thinking of - and I concede it's more of a general perception I have than specific examples - the defender doesn't have time to think "Hmmm, just what percentage do I put into this tackle?". Sorry that's a bit facetious but I think it's true. I did see I think it was Bundee Aki sent off for Ireland a few years ago and it might well have been perfectly justified according to the laws of the game but I remember wondering what he was supposed to do in the time and space available other than disappear into thin air.

GogLais wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:42 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:57 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:20 am Please don’t ask for specific instances but I’m sure I’ve seen cases where a defender literally has no time to get into position to execute a tackle legally. Usually when an attacker gets the ball at the last moment and chooses to run straight at the defender. You have thirty fast, big, fired-up guys in a small space whose intent is to physically dominate the other. The rules can tinker at the margins but if it’s true that the problem is the cumulative effect of many small impacts (many of them in training?) then I don’t see an answer to the problem.

In those situations how many times did the tackler choose going for the big hit rather than any other option?

In the instances I'm thinking of - and I concede it's more of a general perception I have than specific examples - the defender doesn't have time to think "Hmmm, just what percentage do I put into this tackle?". Sorry that's a bit facetious but I think it's true. I did see I think it was Bundee Aki sent off for Ireland a few years ago and it might well have been perfectly justified according to the laws of the game but I remember wondering what he was supposed to do in the time and space available other than disappear into thin air.

Soak tackle.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:23 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:42 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:57 am
In those situations how many times did the tackler choose going for the big hit rather than any other option?

In the instances I'm thinking of - and I concede it's more of a general perception I have than specific examples - the defender doesn't have time to think "Hmmm, just what percentage do I put into this tackle?". Sorry that's a bit facetious but I think it's true. I did see I think it was Bundee Aki sent off for Ireland a few years ago and it might well have been perfectly justified according to the laws of the game but I remember wondering what he was supposed to do in the time and space available other than disappear into thin air.

Soak tackle.

Yes, yes and thrice yes.

However, I don't think it's coached now, at least I see no evidence of it.

I don't want to sound all, "it was much better back in the day", but it used to be that the Pacific Nations were known for their big hitting tackles, unusually so, but now everyone goes for that dominant hit, in every tackle.
That allied to 120kg+ players running and dipping in to "clear out" after that hit, it's hardly surprising that concussions are going through the roof.

I would like to see a trial of absolutely no hands in the ruck, or back to the players policing the hands with their studs, aye this is a "bring back proper rucking" post. I know it would have to be coached from scratch, but I honestly don't think it was anything like as dangerous as what passes for a ruck is now

I don't know which Aki red card we're referring to, but:



Big shot straight to the jaw with rubbish technique and hitting upwards



Huge shot straight to the jaw in a very confused situation with a high degree of danger where safety should've been paramount

It's funny how players can get low enough to clear out a player at a ruck who is no higher than hip height, but they can't seem to get lower than chin height at a tackle.

I know you have more time to get lower at a ruck, but players don't set themselves low for a tackle in the first place.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:13 am It's funny how players can get low enough to clear out a player at a ruck who is no higher than hip height, but they can't seem to get lower than chin height at a tackle.

I know you have more time to get lower at a ruck, but players don't set themselves low for a tackle in the first place.

Spot on! They train with tackle tubes laid flat on the ground, so they can get low.

On the posts above, some coaches I know who are in the loop with what our national team is teaching (and have got from other countries because a) most of Canada's coaches are foreigners and b) we don't have any original ideas), continually use the distinction "dominant" tackles vs "negative" tackles (describing what I think JM called a 'soak'?). I've called them out on it saying we shouldn't be branding it 'negative' ... say 'passive' instead. We don't want kids and amateurs launching themselves into every contact situation because you're preaching that 'dominant' is best.

I have a youtube channel that is mostly just for me to share things with my teams and some friends who also coach. So normally videos get a few dozen views. I'm not sure how, but this one is nearly 2.5 million.

Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:20 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:13 am It's funny how players can get low enough to clear out a player at a ruck who is no higher than hip height, but they can't seem to get lower than chin height at a tackle.

I know you have more time to get lower at a ruck, but players don't set themselves low for a tackle in the first place.

Spot on! They train with tackle tubes laid flat on the ground, so they can get low.

On the posts above, some coaches I know who are in the loop with what our national team is teaching (and have got from other countries because a) most of Canada's coaches are foreigners and b) we don't have any original ideas), continually use the distinction "dominant" tackles vs "negative" tackles (describing what I think JM called a 'soak'?). I've called them out on it saying we shouldn't be branding it 'negative' ... say 'passive' instead. We don't want kids and amateurs launching themselves into every contact situation because you're preaching that 'dominant' is best.

I have a youtube channel that is mostly just for me to share things with my teams and some friends who also coach. So normally videos get a few dozen views. I'm not sure how, but this one is nearly 2.5 million.

Now there's a thing, as I was reading your post it made made think of McKenzie v Nadolo , and there it is number 2 on the video. McKenzie was giving away 20cm in height and 50kg in weight in that confrontation.
There is no way he could make a dominant hit, he had to take him on the side, that is a big thing that has changed in the game, the head-on tackle as opposed to letting your man run on to your side before tackling him

I will also never tire of pointing out the deliberate tactics by the England flankers at the world cup. Low tackles driving players backwards still have a place in the game, if coaches can be bothered focusing on them.

Didn't watch the game, but "player welfare is paramount" right?

A revisit of things he's discussed before, but Dr Ross Tucker with a thread explaining the thinking behind the card process and where the most risk lay:

Get the feeling rugby fans know players are putting themselves at terrific risk of developing early onset, but don't give two shits, and would actually pay good money to go see them and gawk at their rugby legends on their early onset Alziehmers wards.
Nothing is going to stop us watching.

A tour of ward after ward of ruggy players in their forties in severe early onset distress won't do it.
Oh we will leave horrified and sad, but still support the sport.

Look I am trying to make the leap from thinking " fuckingell, we are learning rugby is basically now the sporting equivelent, and as cruel and as dangerous as dogfighting or like paying a drunken drugged up person to hit himself on the head with a hamer", to taking a interest in the ins and outs of discussion I really am. But I can't.
Rugby is either really really fucked up and its supporters are really really fucked up, and we are all treading water, ignoring it, or it isn't.
Maybe I need to be middle class, and not give a shit about anything other than my car, house and job, not to give a second thought as to where I get my sporting entertainment, and the effect those 80 minutes a week have on the people providing it, and the risks they are now taking.
Players are real human beings.
Rugby is just wrong mun.

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:26 pm Get the feeling rugby fans know players are putting themselves at terrific risk of developing early onset, but don't give two shits, and would actually pay good money to go see them and gawk at their rugby legends on their early onset Alziehmers wards.
Nothing is going to stop us watching.

A tour of ward after ward of ruggy players in their forties in severe early onset distress won't do it.
Oh we will leave horrified and sad, but still support the sport.

Look I am trying to make the leap from thinking " fuckingell, we are learning rugby is basically now the sporting equivelent, and as cruel and as dangerous as dogfighting or paying a drunken drugged up person to hit himself on the head with a hamer", to taking a interest in this ins and outs of discussion I really am. But I can't. Rugby is either really really fucked and we are all treading water, or it isn't.
Maybe I need to be middle class, and not give a shit about anything other than my car, house and job, to give a second thought as to where I get my sporting entertainment, and the effect those 80 minutes a week have on the people providing it, and the risks they are now taking.
Players are real human beings.
Rugby is just wrong mun.

Don't watch it then. Ultimately so long as people carry on watching little, if anything, will change.

Sadly reminds me of the line in Any Given Sunday. They're all fucked up, the more fucked up they are, the more the crowd loves em.

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:26 pm Get the feeling rugby fans know players are putting themselves at terrific risk of developing early onset, but don't give two shits, and would actually pay good money to go see them and gawk at their rugby legends on their early onset Alziehmers wards.
Nothing is going to stop us watching.

A tour of ward after ward of ruggy players in their forties in severe early onset distress won't do it.
Oh we will leave horrified and sad, but still support the sport.

Look I am trying to make the leap from thinking " fuckingell, we are learning rugby is basically now the sporting equivelent, and as cruel and as dangerous as dogfighting or paying a drunken drugged up person to hit himself on the head with a hamer", to taking a interest in this ins and outs of discussion I really am. But I can't. Rugby is either really really fucked and we are all treading water, or it isn't.
Maybe I need to be middle class, and not give a shit about anything other than my car, house and job, to give a second thought as to where I get my sporting entertainment, and the effect those 80 minutes a week have on the people providing it, and the risks they are now taking.
Players are real human beings.
Rugby is just wrong mun.

FFTFO, novelty account.

ia801310 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:42 pm

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:26 pm Get the feeling rugby fans know players are putting themselves at terrific risk of developing early onset, but don't give two shits, and would actually pay good money to go see them and gawk at their rugby legends on their early onset Alziehmers wards.
Nothing is going to stop us watching.

A tour of ward after ward of ruggy players in their forties in severe early onset distress won't do it.
Oh we will leave horrified and sad, but still support the sport.

Look I am trying to make the leap from thinking " fuckingell, we are learning rugby is basically now the sporting equivelent, and as cruel and as dangerous as dogfighting or paying a drunken drugged up person to hit himself on the head with a hamer", to taking a interest in this ins and outs of discussion I really am. But I can't. Rugby is either really really fucked and we are all treading water, or it isn't.
Maybe I need to be middle class, and not give a shit about anything other than my car, house and job, to give a second thought as to where I get my sporting entertainment, and the effect those 80 minutes a week have on the people providing it, and the risks they are now taking.
Players are real human beings.
Rugby is just wrong mun.

Don't watch it then. Ultimately so long as people carry on watching little, if anything, will change.

It is possible to watch it with mixed feelings.

FFTFO..feel free to fuck off.

That's what that means, in case you are wondering..


Is the game that facetious?

Oh if you don't like human beings fucking themselves up, for eighty minutes of entertainment...feel free to fuck off.

Rugby is completely and entirely fucked, if that is all you got.

Ryan jones now the latest to come out with an early onset dementia diagnosis. Brutal stuff.

Oh Jesus. That's terrible.

Social media has been awash with arseholes giving it the "it's not tiddlywinks", bullshit. They can all fuck off and then fuck off some more.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:49 pm Ryan jones now the latest to come out with an early onset dementia diagnosis. Brutal stuff.

Jesus, that’s awful. I’m not sure why that’s affected me more than the other cases, maybe because he was a big part of the 2005 onwards revival of Welsh rugby.

That's properly shit news.

I read that earlier.

I've sent the story to a couple of mates who are dismayed at 'what the game has become' and think that 'there are too many cards'.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 7:59 pm Oh Jesus. That's terrible.

Social media has been awash with arseholes giving it the "it's not tiddlywinks", bullshit. They can all fuck off and then fuck off some more.

Yes, the game's not gone soft, it's moved from fit and slightly bigger than average guys playing an impact game to enormous gym monsters car crashing into each other with every contact.

Yes, there was always a bit of violence, but it's nothing like the sustained collisions that these guys suffer, and the guys like Jones from a decade or more ago are lab rats for what happens when you just let them get on with it.

And now you get fuckwits in the press moaning about too many cards and the game slowing down because of foul play. Fuck it, if it means less lads getting their brains mushed and more offloads because Big Hits (do we even tackle anymore?) are given short shrift, well bring it on.

I'm sure the amateur, shamateur, and early pro era players weren't doing as much / playing as much either? Maybe there were more games when a tour happened, but domestically for lads who were training maybe two or three times a week for a few hours at a time? I've run some stats on games, and while there was the odd shocking head shot you'd be binned for today, there were FAR fewer tackles/breakdowns ... one match I remember coding from the 80s had maybe 50 rucks, whereas today it seems to be around 200.

Just learned Ryan Jones now has it.
Why the fuck are we still talking, and not walking?

Do I like rugby as much as I like Ryan Jones?
I loved that guy.
It has destroyed him.
Wore a scrum cap all his career.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ugby-union


‘My world is falling apart’: Former Lion Ryan Jones reveals dementia diagnosis aged 41
Former Wales rugby union captain has early onset dementia
‘I lived 15 years of my life like a superhero and I’m not.

Sun 17 Jul 2022 09.41 BST
Former Wales captain Ryan Jones has revealed his fears for the future after being diagnosed with early onset dementia aged 41.

Jones, capped 75 times and a member of the British and Irish Lions squad on the 2005 tour of New Zealand, received the diagnosis of probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in December last year.

Geoff Old and Irene Gottlieb-Old at a New Zealand players' reunion
Rugby’s dementia stand-off: ‘They ignore it. It’s just deny until you die’
Read more
In an interview with the Sunday Times, Jones said: “I feel like my world is falling apart. I am really scared because I’ve got three children and three step-children and I want to be a fantastic dad.

“I lived 15 years of my life like a superhero and I’m not. I don’t know what the future holds. I am a product of an environment that is all about process and human performance. I’m not able to perform like I could, and I just want to lead a happy, healthy, normal life. I feel that’s been taken away and there’s nothing I can do. I can’t train harder, I can’t play the referee, I don’t know what the rules of the game are anymore.”

Of all the players I have met over the years Ryan Jones comes top of the list of nicest people I have ever met. This is genuinely upsetting.

Andy Powell made a cock of himself last night. Not unexpected as he’s an arsehole, but still.

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:36 am Andy Powell made a cock of himself last night. Not unexpected as he’s an arsehole, but still.

Dare I ask what he's done now?

Assume it's something insensitive around Ryan Jones' condition.

Maybe Andy Powell would be a bit more empathetic if he actually had a brain to injure.

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:56 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:36 am Andy Powell made a cock of himself last night. Not unexpected as he’s an arsehole, but still.

Dare I ask what he's done now?

Assume it's something insensitive around Ryan Jones' condition.

Maybe Andy Powell would be a bit more empathetic if he actually had a brain to injure.

Basically, yeah. On the day Ryan Jones announced he has early onset dementia, he tweets ‘we all knew the risks’. Then gets into a spat with Gareth Anscombe’s wife basically trying to intimidate her, and she owns him, saying she’s already got a toddler and a new born to deal with.