Law question- Farrell tackle

[JM2K6]

But... they evidently weren't badly affected. They had superb careers after long bans. I genuinely struggle to think of a single example where contracts were at risk as a result, too (I'm sure there must be one?).

This is a sport where long absences for injury are expected, where disciplinary procedures are considered part and parcel of the sport, and where "talent" trumps everything else.

From Wiki:

“SA lock Jannes Labuschagne:
Back in 2002, Springbok lock Jannes Labuschagne received a straight red card for a late challenge on England star Jonny Wilkinson at Twickenham. In total the lock earned 11 caps for the Springboks but this crazy challenge on Wilkinson was probably what ended his international career”

Good shout!

[Gumboot]

Johan le Roux copped an 18-month ban for snacking on Fitzy's ear in 1994... and that was the end of his 3-test SA career.

[JM2K6]

FFS

RFU intervenes to let Borthwick pick Farrell in England Six Nations squad

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... d-scotland

Bit tabloid by the Guardian. He's allowed to join the England training squad. In normal circumstances a player in the squad can be released to play a club match, so technically he's missing the weekend's match. Yes, we all know he wouldn't have been, but that's not the point.

It's exactly how every other nation has worked this loophole tbh. It needs clearing up, but this is somewhat confected outrage being stoked by the papers here.

I was reading some stuff on Twitter this morning and was given a few more recent examples of pretty much the same thing happening:

https://www.theoffsideline.com/zander-f ... hes-maybe/ - Fagerson being allowed to count URC games he was never going to play in during the 6N as part of his ban

https://www.theoffsideline.com/george-t ... match-ban/ - Taylor allowed to count 'A' games as part of his ban

(no, the fact that these are Scottish players isn't an attempt to wind anyone up!)

It feels like they had a good idea with making sure a certain number of matches were missed as a way of ensuring bans had some bite but then fucked up by allowing loopholes. I wonder if they're going to make any changes as a result of the furore over Farrell being allowed to count a match he could theoretically have played in (but wouldn't under normal circumstances)? WR tend not to make changes unless there's a big ole stink no matter how common an issue it is, so perhaps this will all lead to an improvement.

[Guy Smiley]

Australia had a lock suspended last year for being a bloody idiot so they named him in the Australia A squad due to tour Japan, meaning his suspension was served through 3 games he would never have been selected for in the first place.... and he was available for their Autumn tour.

who is he, Darcy something?

[Kawazaki]

FFS

RFU intervenes to let Borthwick pick Farrell in England Six Nations squad

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... d-scotland

Bit tabloid by the Guardian. He's allowed to join the England training squad. In normal circumstances a player in the squad can be released to play a club match, so technically he's missing the weekend's match. Yes, we all know he wouldn't have been, but that's not the point.

It's exactly how every other nation has worked this loophole tbh. It needs clearing up, but this is somewhat confected outrage being stoked by the papers here.

I was reading some stuff on Twitter this morning and was given a few more recent examples of pretty much the same thing happening:

https://www.theoffsideline.com/zander-f ... hes-maybe/ - Fagerson being allowed to count URC games he was never going to play in during the 6N as part of his ban

https://www.theoffsideline.com/george-t ... match-ban/ - Taylor allowed to count 'A' games as part of his ban

(no, the fact that these are Scottish players isn't an attempt to wind anyone up!)

It feels like they had a good idea with making sure a certain number of matches were missed as a way of ensuring bans had some bite but then fucked up by allowing loopholes. I wonder if they're going to make any changes as a result of the furore over Farrell being allowed to count a match he could theoretically have played in (but wouldn't under normal circumstances)? WR tend not to make changes unless there's a big ole stink no matter how common an issue it is, so perhaps this will all lead to an improvement.

Nobody gives a toss unless it's Farrell.

[Guy Smiley]

Nobody gives a toss unless it's Farrell.

Stop playing the paranoid victim, it's pathetic.

[Kawazaki]

Nobody gives a toss unless it's Farrell.

Stop playing the paranoid victim, it's pathetic.

Maybe you've missed the uproar?

The whining because it's Farrell is what's been pathetic.

[Tichtheid]

FFS

RFU intervenes to let Borthwick pick Farrell in England Six Nations squad

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... d-scotland

Bit tabloid by the Guardian. He's allowed to join the England training squad. In normal circumstances a player in the squad can be released to play a club match, so technically he's missing the weekend's match. Yes, we all know he wouldn't have been, but that's not the point.

It's exactly how every other nation has worked this loophole tbh. It needs clearing up, but this is somewhat confected outrage being stoked by the papers here.

I was reading some stuff on Twitter this morning and was given a few more recent examples of pretty much the same thing happening:

https://www.theoffsideline.com/zander-f ... hes-maybe/ - Fagerson being allowed to count URC games he was never going to play in during the 6N as part of his ban

https://www.theoffsideline.com/george-t ... match-ban/ - Taylor allowed to count 'A' games as part of his ban

(no, the fact that these are Scottish players isn't an attempt to wind anyone up!)

It feels like they had a good idea with making sure a certain number of matches were missed as a way of ensuring bans had some bite but then fucked up by allowing loopholes. I wonder if they're going to make any changes as a result of the furore over Farrell being allowed to count a match he could theoretically have played in (but wouldn't under normal circumstances)? WR tend not to make changes unless there's a big ole stink no matter how common an issue it is, so perhaps this will all lead to an improvement.

Yeah, and it's just plain wrong, the system isn't fit for purpose because it is so easy to exploit, the SRU have gamed it too.

It's never been about the nationality of the players or union involved as far as I'm concerned and I really don't give a flying one what the precedent has been, the fact is we cannot now keep our heads in the sand about head injuries and hide behind "due process" when that process is so obviously inadequate.

Either we give a monkey's about the possibility of players developing CTE or we don't, if we do then we have to admit that the system isn't working, that is the minimum starting point.

[Guy Smiley]

Nobody gives a toss unless it's Farrell.

Stop playing the paranoid victim, it's pathetic.

Maybe you've missed the uproar?

The whining because it's Farrell is what's been pathetic.

And maybe you're so precious about Farrell that you don't notice the uproar surrounding other players facing sanctions for foul play.

Darcy Swain last year... Australian lock, deliberately targetted the knee of All Black Quin Tupaea in a ruck, rupturing ligaments and putting his RWC prospects in serious jeopardy.

Perhaps you didn't follow that because ... SH teams?

[Mahoney]

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.

[Tichtheid]

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.

Time wouldn't work so well over the summer if the incident occurs in a final, perhaps time or number matches, whichever is the greater?

[JM2K6]

Bit tabloid by the Guardian. He's allowed to join the England training squad. In normal circumstances a player in the squad can be released to play a club match, so technically he's missing the weekend's match. Yes, we all know he wouldn't have been, but that's not the point.

It's exactly how every other nation has worked this loophole tbh. It needs clearing up, but this is somewhat confected outrage being stoked by the papers here.

I was reading some stuff on Twitter this morning and was given a few more recent examples of pretty much the same thing happening:

https://www.theoffsideline.com/zander-f ... hes-maybe/ - Fagerson being allowed to count URC games he was never going to play in during the 6N as part of his ban

https://www.theoffsideline.com/george-t ... match-ban/ - Taylor allowed to count 'A' games as part of his ban

(no, the fact that these are Scottish players isn't an attempt to wind anyone up!)

It feels like they had a good idea with making sure a certain number of matches were missed as a way of ensuring bans had some bite but then fucked up by allowing loopholes. I wonder if they're going to make any changes as a result of the furore over Farrell being allowed to count a match he could theoretically have played in (but wouldn't under normal circumstances)? WR tend not to make changes unless there's a big ole stink no matter how common an issue it is, so perhaps this will all lead to an improvement.

Yeah, and it's just plain wrong, the system isn't fit for purpose because it is so easy to exploit, the SRU have gamed it too.

It's never been about the nationality of the players or union involved as far as I'm concerned and I really don't give a flying one what the precedent has been, the fact is we cannot now keep our heads in the sand about head injuries and hide behind "due process" when that process is so obviously inadequate.

Either we give a monkey's about the possibility of players developing CTE or we don't, if we do then we have to admit that the system isn't working, that is the minimum starting point.

I'm on board with closing that loophole, it's been poorly thought out. I do think the wider outcry over this is a combination of a) Farrell, b) England, and c) the original offence not being properly handled and leading directly to an underserved victory. But I think I ultimately disagree that the technicalities of which matches count as part of the ban has much bearing on how seriously they take CTE et al; you can get bans for all kinds of things, it's not really related to head injuries, and the nitty gritty of the disiplinary process is always going to have rough edges.

My feeling is that world rugby keeps trying to "patch" the laws and can't make the sort of drastic change that seems to be inevitable to me. You can keep it a contact sport, just one that looks very different at ruck time and a bit more artificial at tackle time (although the above-the-nipples Big Shot craze is a relatively new phenomenon to the sport anyway). Whether Farrell or whoever misses one more match as a result of a change in how the bans are handled just won't move the needle I fear

[JM2K6]

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.

Time wouldn't work so well over the summer if the incident occurs in a final, perhaps time or number matches, whichever is the greater?

Yup, one of the reasons they introduced matches to the equation.

[Kawazaki]

Stop playing the paranoid victim, it's pathetic.

Maybe you've missed the uproar?

The whining because it's Farrell is what's been pathetic.

And maybe you're so precious about Farrell that you don't notice the uproar surrounding other players facing sanctions for foul play.

Darcy Swain last year... Australian lock, deliberately targetted the knee of All Black Quin Tupaea in a ruck, rupturing ligaments and putting his RWC prospects in serious jeopardy.

Perhaps you didn't follow that because ... SH teams?

The reaction was a drop in the bucket compared to the uproar about Farrell.

[Guy Smiley]

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.

One way around that might be to require the suspension to be served at the grade it occurred in with no possible migrating to other grades until it's served in full.

[Kawazaki]

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.

One way around that might be to require the suspension to be served at the grade it occurred in with no possible migrating to other grades until it's served in full.

Then you'd have a problem if the ban was test match grade and there were no more test matches for months.

[inactionman]

Is it reaching the point where fines might be a better approach? Hit players in pocket.

Could always be deferred for first offences.

(Is there a fine already? I'm not actually sure)

[Guy Smiley]

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.

One way around that might be to require the suspension to be served at the grade it occurred in with no possible migrating to other grades until it's served in full.

Then you'd have a problem if the ban was test match grade and there were no more test matches for months.

Exactly.

[JM2K6]

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.

One way around that might be to require the suspension to be served at the grade it occurred in with no possible migrating to other grades until it's served in full.

That doesn't make any sense at all

[Guy Smiley]

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.

One way around that might be to require the suspension to be served at the grade it occurred in with no possible migrating to other grades until it's served in full.

That doesn't make any sense at all

Yes it does.

[Tichtheid]

Yeah, and it's just plain wrong, the system isn't fit for purpose because it is so easy to exploit, the SRU have gamed it too.

It's never been about the nationality of the players or union involved as far as I'm concerned and I really don't give a flying one what the precedent has been, the fact is we cannot now keep our heads in the sand about head injuries and hide behind "due process" when that process is so obviously inadequate.

Either we give a monkey's about the possibility of players developing CTE or we don't, if we do then we have to admit that the system isn't working, that is the minimum starting point.

I'm on board with closing that loophole, it's been poorly thought out. I do think the wider outcry over this is a combination of a) Farrell, b) England, and c) the original offence not being properly handled and leading directly to an underserved victory. But I think I ultimately disagree that the technicalities of which matches count as part of the ban has much bearing on how seriously they take CTE et al; you can get bans for all kinds of things, it's not really related to head injuries, and the nitty gritty of the disiplinary process is always going to have rough edges.

Head shots are not taken as seriously as gouging or biting

https://passport.world.rugby/match-day- ... lation-17/

If they were taking CTE seriously, shoulder to the head would be at least on the same level as those acts. fwiw, I would ban a deliberate gouger for life, it's such a cowardly, despicable, dishonourable act. I detest it.

It's quite telling that punching, striking with elbow, shoulder to head, all come with lower entry points than biting or gouging. They are lower level than head butting or kneeing. If they were at least on the same level then as the first two then I'd begin to believe that the authorities were taking brain injury seriously.

[JM2K6]

Yeah, and it's just plain wrong, the system isn't fit for purpose because it is so easy to exploit, the SRU have gamed it too.

It's never been about the nationality of the players or union involved as far as I'm concerned and I really don't give a flying one what the precedent has been, the fact is we cannot now keep our heads in the sand about head injuries and hide behind "due process" when that process is so obviously inadequate.

Either we give a monkey's about the possibility of players developing CTE or we don't, if we do then we have to admit that the system isn't working, that is the minimum starting point.

I'm on board with closing that loophole, it's been poorly thought out. I do think the wider outcry over this is a combination of a) Farrell, b) England, and c) the original offence not being properly handled and leading directly to an underserved victory. But I think I ultimately disagree that the technicalities of which matches count as part of the ban has much bearing on how seriously they take CTE et al; you can get bans for all kinds of things, it's not really related to head injuries, and the nitty gritty of the disiplinary process is always going to have rough edges.

Head shots are not taken as seriously as gouging or biting

https://passport.world.rugby/match-day- ... lation-17/

If they were taking CTE seriously, shoulder to the head would be at least on the same level as those acts. fwiw, I would ban a deliberate gouger for life, it's such a cowardly, despicable, dishonourable act. I detest it.

It's quite telling that punching, striking with elbow, shoulder to head, all come with lower entry points than biting or gouging. They are lower level than head butting or kneeing. If they were at least on the same level then as the first two then I'd begin to believe that the authorities were taking brain injury seriously.

Right, but those aren't the technicalities of the process - they're the level of sanction.

"Which matches qualify when applying the ban" = minor technicalities of how the sanction is applied
"How long the ban should be" = the actual sanction

which is why I'm saying the fiddling around the edges is kinda meaningless. The same technicalities apply to the stuff they clearly do care a lot about.

To address the meat of your point - I agree with your sentiment but not necessarily the suggestion to just blanket increase the level of sanction, because I don't think it'll work - I do genuinely believe we need a sea change in how the game is approached at contact and changes to sanctions alone will do nothing except increase the chaos IMO.

There's an interesting line of discussion to be had regarding the way in which various things are treated, actually. Gouging, for example. We've seen huge bans for anything near the eyes. It's considered an appalling act of foul play and the way it's sanctioned seems to be to assume ill-intent. And yet... gouging very rarely actually causes injury*, and intent is very hard to judge, and I've seen a few cases where players have been unlucky and been treated as if they were some stone cold psychopath trying to blind an opponent. Whereas there's a strong line of "don't be unfair to players who are Just Playing The Game who twat someone in the head and cause brain injury, assume the best at all times" for headshots and dangerous clearouts.

And don't get me started on Fishhook Ferris

I was part of a chat with a pro mate the other day about another incident (he actually gets on these citing boards occasionally) and this is the gist of the convo:

him: it's a tough one, you have a big unit trying to get very low and clear out a prop and he doesn't have much time to do it in
him: he didn't have time/wasn't agile enough to square up and get under him properly
other friend: so drop your shoulder on to his head and hope no one notices?
him: it's more a case of throw your body at the ruck and hope for the best
him: in this case the dice roll was unsuccessful

Those last 2 lines speak volumes.

*I am aware of Gavin Quinnell

[JM2K6]

One way around that might be to require the suspension to be served at the grade it occurred in with no possible migrating to other grades until it's served in full.

That doesn't make any sense at all

Yes it does.

So what do you do when a player isn't part of an international squad any more and is unlikely to be re-selected? They're banned for life?

What if an academy player picks up a ban when on a very rare outing for the senior team?

What if a senior player picks up a 2-match ban for the last match of a development / A-league competition that he played in to get match fitness, and that competition won't restart until the next season, several months away?

It makes no sense at all

[Kawazaki]

I assumed he meant that players would be free to play in lower levels immediately but would have to miss matches at the same or higher level to the match he committed the penalty when those matches arrive in the playing schedule. If he meant a player misses all matches until equal or higher standard matches come around again then that's just ill-thought out nonsense.

[JM2K6]

I assumed he meant that players would be free to play in lower levels immediately but would have to miss matches at the same or higher level to the match he committed the penalty when those matches arrive in the playing schedule. If he meant a player misses all matches until equal or higher standard matches come around again then that's just ill-thought out nonsense.

I can't see any reading of "with no possible migrating to other grades until it's served in full" other than the latter, I fear.

Even with the former you're still having to decide if a player would've been picked. Imagine you had a 4 match ban at international level picked up over the summer. You have to wait until the AIs for the ban to be served. There's no point selecting a player who's going to be banned for the entire thing, so do those 4 matches count? What if he was never going to be selected in the first place? It's just adding a whole layer of subjective confusion

[inactionman]

Yeah, and it's just plain wrong, the system isn't fit for purpose because it is so easy to exploit, the SRU have gamed it too.

It's never been about the nationality of the players or union involved as far as I'm concerned and I really don't give a flying one what the precedent has been, the fact is we cannot now keep our heads in the sand about head injuries and hide behind "due process" when that process is so obviously inadequate.

Either we give a monkey's about the possibility of players developing CTE or we don't, if we do then we have to admit that the system isn't working, that is the minimum starting point.

I'm on board with closing that loophole, it's been poorly thought out. I do think the wider outcry over this is a combination of a) Farrell, b) England, and c) the original offence not being properly handled and leading directly to an underserved victory. But I think I ultimately disagree that the technicalities of which matches count as part of the ban has much bearing on how seriously they take CTE et al; you can get bans for all kinds of things, it's not really related to head injuries, and the nitty gritty of the disiplinary process is always going to have rough edges.

Head shots are not taken as seriously as gouging or biting

https://passport.world.rugby/match-day- ... lation-17/

If they were taking CTE seriously, shoulder to the head would be at least on the same level as those acts. fwiw, I would ban a deliberate gouger for life, it's such a cowardly, despicable, dishonourable act. I detest it.

It's quite telling that punching, striking with elbow, shoulder to head, all come with lower entry points than biting or gouging. They are lower level than head butting or kneeing. If they were at least on the same level then as the first two then I'd begin to believe that the authorities were taking brain injury seriously.

I'm not sure I agree - biting, kneeing, headbutting, gouging, striking are all unacceptable in any context, in any situation. (I'm not sure why biting and gouging are seen as worse than striking, assume it's as potential injuries are worse and as you note they're dishonourable acts, especially gouging - not that I'm saying throwing a haymaker is honourable, but it at least seems more honest.)

A high shot is a tackle - which is a legitimate act and fundamental to the game - performed badly. It can be performed badly for any number of reasons with varying degrees of culpability - carriers slipping into contact through to the tackler just being an idiot and putting a reducer in (see my link to Abendanon being minced in posts previous). I appreciate this is really the crux, as the players are in control of actions, but I'm not sure just increasing the level of sanctions for something that can be unintentional makes conceptual sense.

The real issue is the trend for big, physical hits, which have reduced margins of error so that players are too frequently hitting high. Interesting quote from Farrell himself in the Guardian, speaking about when he was hit high a few years back:

The post-match summary was informed and thoughtful. “It’s a very fine line and I don’t think people quite understand when it gets slowed down on TV how quick those decisions are. You can slow loads of contact down and find something. When there’s a bigger collision people look at it more. Hopefully it goes in the right direction, the game is safe, and there’s some common sense, too.”

The speaker? Owen Farrell after the feisty Premiership semi-final between Saracens and Harlequins last season. The game in question had four players sent to the sin-bin including the Quins hooker Jack Walker, for a high tackle on Farrell. The England captain, though, was keen to emphasise that top-level rugby has to be an all-or-nothing environment. “We know what we can and can’t do, but you still have to have enough intent to go forward in your defence. If you are constantly being passive you probably won’t get picked next week.”

In short, the game itself requires players to defend physically and aggressively. But we want to punish players who misjudge it in the split second. I don't think we can have our cake and eat it.

What I'm really getting at is that just increasing ban lengths seems to duck to fundamental issues. We're happy to let players risk hitting each other in the head, but then scream at them when they do.

[Tichtheid]

Right, but those aren't the technicalities of the process - they're the level of sanction.

"Which matches qualify when applying the ban" = minor technicalities of how the sanction is applied
"How long the ban should be" = the actual sanction

There would be much less room for equivocation over which matches count with much longer bans, of course there will always be overlaps with tournaments and big games, but 6 weeks for a head shot doesn't seem outrageous to me, it also serves as a real deterrent.

Players and coaches will not change of their own volition, if it means long bans to get players to tackle as safely as possible (there will always be accidents), then that is the road we should go down.

Pro rugby has upped the skill and speed levels almost beyond recognition, but we are running up a very dangerous alley at the moment, there are 225 players currently suing rugby authorities

The sports law firm representing more than 225 players suffering from neurological impairments will this week serve proceedings against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and Welsh Rugby Union.

Rylands Garth say its claimants "contend that these defendants were negligent in failing to take reasonable action in order to protect players from permanent injury caused by repetitive concussive and sub-concussive blows".

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/n ... mpairments


We need to have far less contact in training and find ways to get players away from the ingrained view that they have to make dominant hits.
Was it on here I read the comment that in a passive tackle it is far easier to get the ball carrier turned to your own side? I doubt today's players would even know how to do that, but if they did your team can make the turnover far easier.

[Tichtheid]

We're happy to let players risk hitting each other in the head,

I'm not.

That's my whole point here.

[inactionman]

Right, but those aren't the technicalities of the process - they're the level of sanction.

"Which matches qualify when applying the ban" = minor technicalities of how the sanction is applied
"How long the ban should be" = the actual sanction

There would be much less room for equivocation over which matches count with much longer bans, of course there will always be overlaps with tournaments and big games, but 6 weeks for a head shot doesn't seem outrageous to me, it also serves as a real deterrent.

Players and coaches will not change of their own volition, if it means long bans to get players to tackle as safely as possible (there will always be accidents), then that is the road we should go down.

Pro rugby has upped the skill and speed levels almost beyond recognition, but we are running up a very dangerous alley at the moment, there are 225 players currently suing rugby authorities

The sports law firm representing more than 225 players suffering from neurological impairments will this week serve proceedings against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and Welsh Rugby Union.

Rylands Garth say its claimants "contend that these defendants were negligent in failing to take reasonable action in order to protect players from permanent injury caused by repetitive concussive and sub-concussive blows".

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/n ... mpairments


We need to have far less contact in training and find ways to get players away from the ingrained view that they have to make dominant hits.
Was it on here I read the comment that in a passive tackle it is far easier to get the ball carrier turned to your own side? I doubt today's players would even know how to do that, but if they did your team can make the turnover far easier.

I think this is really the long and short of it.

We can't incentivise players to make big, chest-high hits and then moan when they get it wrong. Make putting in chest-high hits illegal/ineffectual/counterproductive.

[inactionman]

We're happy to let players risk hitting each other in the head,

I'm not.

That's my whole point here.

If that's what you took from my post, you've missed my point entirely.

[Kawazaki]

We're happy to let players risk hitting each other in the head,

I'm not.

That's my whole point here.

No offence, but you're on the wrong forum. Find another game that you can like. Basketball perhaps.

[Tichtheid]

We're happy to let players risk hitting each other in the head,

I'm not.

That's my whole point here.

No offence, but you're on the wrong forum. Find another game that you can like. Basketball perhaps.

A sport that ignores head trauma and long-term degenerative illness as a consequence of playing has no future.

I'm happy to look for ways to make the game safer.

[inactionman]

We're happy to let players risk hitting each other in the head,

I'm not.

That's my whole point here.

No offence, but you're on the wrong forum. Find another game that you can like. Basketball perhaps.

Liking rugby and not wanting players to suffer brain injuries aren't mutually exclusive.

[Biffer]

We're happy to let players risk hitting each other in the head,

I'm not.

That's my whole point here.

No offence, but you're on the wrong forum. Find another game that you can like. Basketball perhaps.

I think you are. Maybe try this

Www.dinosaurlovers.com

[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.

[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>

[Tichtheid]

I'm aware of Progressive Rugby but I've never looked them up before

We are comprised of current and former players (amateur and professional); medics; academics, referees; coaches; teachers, administrators and fans.

We all love rugby union and are supporters of the core physicality of the game.

But we believe the game can do more to protect players at all levels from brain trauma and broken bodies.

We are independent and are determined to identify solutions to ensure the long term survival of the game.

Since credentials and experience are so important, perhaps we could each measure our own against

FAIRCLOUGH, Prof John. BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM (UK),
RIBBANS, Prof Bill. MCh, PhD, FRCS (ORTH), FFSEM (UK),
COBNER, David
RYAN, Dr Lisa BSc, PhD, RNutr - Ireland

plus Steve Thompson, Carl Hayman, Stevie Ward, Rory Lamont etc etc

https://www.progressiverugby.com/members

[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.

[Brazil]

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.

[JM2K6]

Really not sure of the value of the contrarian argument that basically boils down to "THE GAME'S GONE SOFT" and can be effectively countered with ooh_youre_hard.gif