NPR

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:37 pm Or get teams to commit numbers to breakdowns to create space elsewhere.

But then breakdown will be carnage, even more so than it is now.

Just force 9s to "Use it!" within 3 secs after the ball hits the floor or it's "Ball is out!" and the oppo can come around and grab it. That'll speed up the whole game dramatically, put defences under pressure and tire out the players.

Job done.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:18 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:12 pm
So, how do we enforce "injury only" subs? Easy. Any player subbed for injury has an automatic and mandatory 3 match break for recovery. There'll still be some fiddling [/Quins] but it will eliminate 99% of it.

What about HIAs? Automatic 3 match ban for leaving the field will make players want to stay on and continue despite being zonked. Especially if it's an accidental knee on head or similar.
You'll also need various size subs to cover that player for 12 mins while he's off. Can't use a utility back as a lock/prop

HIAs already have their own rule. Tough sh*t on subs. In the old days in football, you were allowed one sub. 4 subs would cover it: 3 front row specialists and one other.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:44 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:37 pm Or get teams to commit numbers to breakdowns to create space elsewhere.

But then breakdown will be carnage, even more so than it is now.

Just force 9s to "Use it!" within 3 secs after the ball hits the floor or it's "Ball is out!" and the oppo can come around and grab it. That'll speed up the whole game dramatically, put defences under pressure and tire out the players.

Job done.

Setting a stricter and shorter time limit wouldn't be a bad idea in terms of speeding up play. What do you consider "hits the floor" ... attacking player actually releasing/defenders with no chance of a steal?

Even now, some clarity/structure on that time would help... basketball referees swing the arm out and back in for one second when there's an inbounds or (might just be levels below NBA) if a player is standing still for too long in possession/trapped from passing or dribbling (i.e. the five second rule).

Rugby refs never do anything like this and can't say I've ever seen anyone punished after a "youse!" call from the ref.

Niegs wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:04 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:44 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:37 pm Or get teams to commit numbers to breakdowns to create space elsewhere.

But then breakdown will be carnage, even more so than it is now.

Just force 9s to "Use it!" within 3 secs after the ball hits the floor or it's "Ball is out!" and the oppo can come around and grab it. That'll speed up the whole game dramatically, put defences under pressure and tire out the players.

Job done.

Setting a stricter and shorter time limit wouldn't be a bad idea in terms of speeding up play. What do you consider "hits the floor" ... attacking player actually releasing/defenders with no chance of a steal?

Even now, some clarity/structure on that time would help... basketball referees swing the arm out and back in for one second when there's an inbounds or (might just be levels below NBA) if a player is standing still for too long in possession/trapped from passing or dribbling (i.e. the five second rule).

Rugby refs never do anything like this and can't say I've ever seen anyone punished after a "youse!" call from the ref.

3 secs from when the tackle is completed would be my plan. Tacklers have to roll away or its a penalty (like now), jacklers can go for the ball as usual, but the attacking 9 has to get the ball out in 3 secs or it's fair game for the defenders to come around the ruck - not over it - and pick up the ball.

Niegs wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:04 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:44 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:37 pm Or get teams to commit numbers to breakdowns to create space elsewhere.

But then breakdown will be carnage, even more so than it is now.

Just force 9s to "Use it!" within 3 secs after the ball hits the floor or it's "Ball is out!" and the oppo can come around and grab it. That'll speed up the whole game dramatically, put defences under pressure and tire out the players.

Job done.

Setting a stricter and shorter time limit wouldn't be a bad idea in terms of speeding up play. What do you consider "hits the floor" ... attacking player actually releasing/defenders with no chance of a steal?

Even now, some clarity/structure on that time would help... basketball referees swing the arm out and back in for one second when there's an inbounds or (might just be levels below NBA) if a player is standing still for too long in possession/trapped from passing or dribbling (i.e. the five second rule).

Rugby refs never do anything like this and can't say I've ever seen anyone punished after a "youse!" call from the ref.

It happened to Fiji against Georgia, the 9 didn't understand what he was being penalised for

For me, Rugby is seriously sullied now as a sport. I feel sullied watching it, knowing the risks players are taking just so they can entertain me.

It is down there with dog fighting, or watching people commit suicide.
Only the sickest amongst us would watch these things as "entertainment".

These players didn't know what they are getting into. If they did, so where are all the waivers they signed to protect their employers from being sued, after they were all being informed in no uncertain terms, about the high likelihood of problems they could develope with their brains in later life?
Oh there aren't any?
As they weren't.
And you know what, even if there are waivers , they could still be seriously contestable.

It is illegal to hire a vulnerable person, and get them to hit themselves in the head with a hammer for your own enjoyment.
This is now what rugby has become.

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:38 am For me, Rugby is seriously sullied now as a sport. I feel sullied watching it, knowing the risks players are taking just so they can entertain me.

It is down there with dog fighting, or watching people commit suicide.
Only the sickest amongst us would watch these things as "entertainment".

Meanwhile, back in the real world, this is a Radio NZ interview today with Richard Boardman (the lawyer representing the players) along with the wife of former All Black Geoff Old:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018776569

So the pressure to do something immediately starts

Growing evidence of the links between rugby and early onset dementia have led to renewed calls for collision rugby to be banned in schools.
Health experts and a former player said they would not want their own children playing rugby in schools in its current form.
Graham Kirkwood, from the Institute of Health at Newcastle University, urged England’s governing body, the RFU, to ban tackles, rucks and mauls from the game.
He also said schools should stop making rugby compulsory for pupils. Kirkwood, who has conducted extensive research on rugby injuries, told the Guardian: “I would not want my children playing rugby in school in its current collision form. I would advise other parents to think the same.
“As the rules stand at the moment it shouldn’t be played in schools. The collision elements of rugby should be removed – that is, the tackle, and the ruck and maul, but mainly tackles.”

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:38 am For me, Rugby is seriously sullied now as a sport. I feel sullied watching it, knowing the risks players are taking just so they can entertain me.

It is down there with dog fighting, or watching people commit suicide.
Only the sickest amongst us would watch these things as "entertainment".

These players didn't know what they are getting into. If they did, so where are all the waivers they signed to protect their employers from being sued, after they were all being informed in no uncertain terms, about the high likelihood of problems they could develope with their brains in later life?
Oh there aren't any?
As they weren't.
And you know what, even if there are waivers , they could still be seriously contestable.

It is illegal to hire a vulnerable person, and get them to hit themselves in the head with a hammer for your own enjoyment.
This is now what rugby has become.

It's what the viewer demands. Ever larger guys knocking lumps out of one another. Same reason heavyweight (2 fat blokes wobbling around a ring) boxing is so popular whereas the real skill and arts are all at the lighter weights. How the upper weights in boxing are allowed to continue under the guise of sport says it all.

F1 only existed partly as a circus and partly because of the crashes.

There's a reason I've long preferred watching grade rugby but even the U21s etc now are monsters.

The only fix is to depower the advantage of mass and one way is to bring back the requirement for stamina into the game.

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:38 am For me, Rugby is seriously sullied now as a sport. I feel sullied watching it, knowing the risks players are taking just so they can entertain me.

It is down there with dog fighting, or watching people commit suicide.
Only the sickest amongst us would watch these things as "entertainment".

These players didn't know what they are getting into. If they did, so where are all the waivers they signed to protect their employers from being sued, after they were all being informed in no uncertain terms, about the high likelihood of problems they could develope with their brains in later life?
Oh there aren't any?
As they weren't.
And you know what, even if there are waivers , they could still be seriously contestable.

It is illegal to hire a vulnerable person, and get them to hit themselves in the head with a hammer for your own enjoyment.
This is now what rugby has become.

À few days ago I'd have said that's a bit OTT but Thompson and Popham's plight is appalling. What's the pleasure in watching a sport if you're wondering whether a proportion of the participants will have lost their marbles by the time they're forty?

Sorry, just a bit of a bugbear of mine. People suggesting it's no longer a game for all shapes and sizes really can't have gone along to the local lower level clubs around them. I've played with people who wouldn't be 11 stone even if soaking wet. Along with guys that could only basically waddle around. I've also played with a damn near 60 year old prop, against a 64 year old lock (who played the full 80 minutes both games). I know a few years back my team also played against a one armed fullback.

OK, no longer at the elite level do we see people in all sorts of shapes and sizes. But is it really a surprise that elite players are in elite physical condition?

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:02 am Sorry, just a bit of a bugbear of mine. People suggesting it's no longer a game for all shapes and sizes really can't have gone along to the local lower level clubs around them. I've played with people who wouldn't be 11 stone even if soaking wet. Along with guys that could only basically waddle around. I've also played with a damn near 60 year old prop, against a 64 year old lock (who played the full 80 minutes both games). I know a few years back my team also played against a one armed fullback.

OK, no longer at the elite level do we see people in all sorts of shapes and sizes. But is it really a surprise that elite players are in elite physical condition?

That's actually quite a sensible post.

I think we need to be a little careful here about getting hysterical and over-reacting until a bit more research is done into the current state of the game and condition of current player's heads. A lot has changed around head contact over the last decade. We also need to find out whether this is a rugby issue as a whole or a primarily a pro game issue and then figure out the scale of the issue. Is it up to 50% as I saw the players' lawyer say or is it a few unfortunates?

It goes without saying that what we're hearing about a few headline individuals is horrific and something we would love to see never happen to anyone, but these guys are largely from an earlier tranche of professionals. Either the first to become that way or shortly after that first wave where everyone responsible for them seemed to be feeling their way on the basics of s & c, let alone being mindful of the long term impact of head trauma. Steve Thompson talking about regularly getting sparked out in training and nobody really batting an eye, I just don't think that happens now.

On top of that there's player decisions to consider Michael Lipman, for example, gave an interview several years ago stating that he explicitly ignored the advice of experts to retire and went on to play three further seasons without disclosing his conditon/symptoms to his clubs. I'm not sure what's to be done in a situation like that or how widespread it is. We see someone like Piers Francis in the Prem who has had serious concussion issues and regularly seems to require HIAs compared to other players, has he been advised by a doctor not to play only to ignore it?

Thompson's idea of an annual check on the state of players' heads sounds a really sensible and practical measure.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:02 am Sorry, just a bit of a bugbear of mine. People suggesting it's no longer a game for all shapes and sizes really can't have gone along to the local lower level clubs around them. I've played with people who wouldn't be 11 stone even if soaking wet. Along with guys that could only basically waddle around. I've also played with a damn near 60 year old prop, against a 64 year old lock (who played the full 80 minutes both games). I know a few years back my team also played against a one armed fullback.

OK, no longer at the elite level do we see people in all sorts of shapes and sizes. But is it really a surprise that elite players are in elite physical condition?

This is a very valid view point and one that I share. I've criticised the game's administrators in the past that all the tinkering they do with the laws is aimed at the "elite" (their word not mine) level with little or no consideration as to the impact it might have on grass-roots rugby.

A problem on Planet Jake was that the majority of posters were armchair fans with no practical experience of the game, so a post like yours wouldn't get much traction. I think it's more balanced here though.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:02 am Sorry, just a bit of a bugbear of mine. People suggesting it's no longer a game for all shapes and sizes really can't have gone along to the local lower level clubs around them. I've played with people who wouldn't be 11 stone even if soaking wet. Along with guys that could only basically waddle around. I've also played with a damn near 60 year old prop, against a 64 year old lock (who played the full 80 minutes both games). I know a few years back my team also played against a one armed fullback.

OK, no longer at the elite level do we see people in all sorts of shapes and sizes. But is it really a surprise that elite players are in elite physical condition?

Even there I think we still do. There's a greater degree of homogenisation, sure, but there are still guys around who are very physically different from others on the field. There's no chance of mixing up the vast majority of wingers with front rowers (someone like Tuisova being an obvious exception...). Scrum halves and second rowers are largely poles apart. Most fly halves are pretty slender and not particularly muscular, can be on the shorter side too. etc. etc.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:52 am
Thompson's idea of an annual check on the state of players' heads sounds a really sensible and practical measure.

I like that, but it has to be managed globally by WR. Too many players flit around the world playing for different clubs in Eng, Ireland, France & SA in 4 consecutive years and their medical history HAS to follow them. You can't have a head-case hiding out in Japan and not declaring his problems.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:02 am Sorry, just a bit of a bugbear of mine. People suggesting it's no longer a game for all shapes and sizes really can't have gone along to the local lower level clubs around them. I've played with people who wouldn't be 11 stone even if soaking wet. Along with guys that could only basically waddle around. I've also played with a damn near 60 year old prop, against a 64 year old lock (who played the full 80 minutes both games). I know a few years back my team also played against a one armed fullback.

OK, no longer at the elite level do we see people in all sorts of shapes and sizes. But is it really a surprise that elite players are in elite physical condition?

It's a fair post but I think we were talking about the elite levels of the game and where I think you've gone wrong it to conflate "elite physical condition" with size. Actually, it's where the game has gone wrong...........

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:05 pmIt's a fair post but I think we were talking about the elite levels of the game and where I think you've gone wrong it to conflate "elite physical condition" with size. Actually, it's where the game has gone wrong...........

If they can run around at a good pace for 80 minutes, then clearly their size isn't an issue? I'd suggest you should be as strong as possible whilst still being capable of 80 minutes of play.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:02 am Sorry, just a bit of a bugbear of mine. People suggesting it's no longer a game for all shapes and sizes really can't have gone along to the local lower level clubs around them. I've played with people who wouldn't be 11 stone even if soaking wet. Along with guys that could only basically waddle around. I've also played with a damn near 60 year old prop, against a 64 year old lock (who played the full 80 minutes both games). I know a few years back my team also played against a one armed fullback.

OK, no longer at the elite level do we see people in all sorts of shapes and sizes. But is it really a surprise that elite players are in elite physical condition?

The issue crops up at the upper end of amateur when the pros dropped down to get match fit in some of these sides, this was certainly an issue in Scotland but i think may now be better we have the Super 6, not that there is any amateur rugby being played with Covid

Blackmac wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:56 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:13 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:07 pm

Personally think this would be for the best.

Rugby is just not a sport that should be played professionally imho, the toll this has put on the players bodies is ridiculous. Back to amateur and seriously de-power the players.

Let's put it down to a bad experiment gone wrong.

I don't think professionalism is reversible at this point unless lawsuits bankrupt the sport, but something like a team weight limit could be a measure to try and reduce player size/power en masse. Policing players' individual weight wouldn't be practical or desirable, but an overall figure the matchday 23 can't exceed might be workable. here's room within that for some absolute monsters, but they'd have to be offset elsewhere in the team. Alternatively everyone gets dragged down a few tens of kilos.

The increase in size since professionalism is incredible and has without doubt been driven by those in charge of the game with little or no thought to the outcome.

I'm just over 6'4 and 17.5 stone. When I played I was invariably one of the biggest two or three players on the pitch. Even when you came up against experienced internationals you maybe noticed a difference in ability but you were rarely outsized or overpowered.

Nowadays i'm what, a reasonably sized winger??

Agree with this 100%. You go the odd outlier who was over 6' 5 in some of the top teams and they tended to be beanpoles then as well.

I just dont believe the physical nature of the sport is suited to these enormous guys battering into each other.

It may be romanticism but it was a far better sport before professionalism, still very physcial and you got injuries but not at the rate that we now see, it's not just head injuries either it is properly fucked up bodies.

The likes of Laidlaw has come out and said he doesnt want his kids playing the sport because of the toll on the body.

If the governing bodies go bust over this I dont think that will necessarily be a bad thing.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:08 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:05 pmIt's a fair post but I think we were talking about the elite levels of the game and where I think you've gone wrong it to conflate "elite physical condition" with size. Actually, it's where the game has gone wrong...........

If they can run around at a good pace for 80 minutes, then clearly their size isn't an issue? I'd suggest you should be as strong as possible whilst still being capable of 80 minutes of play.

Except we know that practically no front rows can and that alone would force a rethink as to the trade off between bulk and the ability to defend later on. That then leads to the thought that more space later on in an encouragement to pick more mobile players elsewhere. Mobility and strength are not necessarily correlated.

A damning indictment of the modern game is that Basta now plays as a no 8 fr LOU!

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:56 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:52 am
Thompson's idea of an annual check on the state of players' heads sounds a really sensible and practical measure.

I like that, but it has to be managed globally by WR. Too many players flit around the world playing for different clubs in Eng, Ireland, France & SA in 4 consecutive years and their medical history HAS to follow them. You can't have a head-case hiding out in Japan and not declaring his problems.

Definitely. Players need to be protected from themselves at times. We've heard from the likes of Hape that even while in the throes of debilitating symptoms their concern is often for losing what's been their primary means of earning rather than their long or even medium term health.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:17 pm It may be romanticism but it was a far better sport before professionalism, still very physcial and you got injuries but not at the rate that we now see, it's not just head injuries either it is properly fucked up bodies.

I posted on this years ago. The French had done an impact (ahem) study on the effect of professionalism on injuries. It did not look at head traumas and anyway, given
- the lack of data
- the delays in detection and/or onset of brain related injuries
- and the strategies in place now to protect the head (maybe the game is safer in regards the bonce???)
I'll ignore that aspect.

What the study found was a significant increase in severe joint injuries: knee, shoulder and neck esp as well as tendon damage. And it's easy to understand why. Whilst bulking up is trivial, it's not possible to increase the load bearing capability of tendons and joints at the same rate (if at all for bone and cartilage). The analogy used was one of reinforcing a front door for security by adding steel plate. Eventually, the hinges just break under the extra load.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:26 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:08 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:05 pmIt's a fair post but I think we were talking about the elite levels of the game and where I think you've gone wrong it to conflate "elite physical condition" with size. Actually, it's where the game has gone wrong...........

If they can run around at a good pace for 80 minutes, then clearly their size isn't an issue? I'd suggest you should be as strong as possible whilst still being capable of 80 minutes of play.

Except we know that practically no front rows can and that alone would force a rethink as to the trade off between bulk and the ability to defend later on. That then leads to the thought that more space later on in an encouragement to pick more mobile players elsewhere. Mobility and strength are not necessarily correlated.

A damning indictment of the modern game is that Basta now plays as a no 8 fr LOU!

Front rows can. There's just reasons not to leave them on for the full game. Whenever there's been early injuries, replacement players have dealt fine with playing basically 80 minutes. And they're the most extreme example, it's easier for every other player.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:40 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:26 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:08 pm

If they can run around at a good pace for 80 minutes, then clearly their size isn't an issue? I'd suggest you should be as strong as possible whilst still being capable of 80 minutes of play.

Except we know that practically no front rows can and that alone would force a rethink as to the trade off between bulk and the ability to defend later on. That then leads to the thought that more space later on in an encouragement to pick more mobile players elsewhere. Mobility and strength are not necessarily correlated.

A damning indictment of the modern game is that Basta now plays as a no 8 fr LOU!

Front rows can. There's just reasons not to leave them on for the full game. Whenever there's been early injuries, replacement players have dealt fine with playing basically 80 minutes. And they're the most extreme example, it's easier for every other player.

Mako, Marler, Sinks, Cole, Genge. Fairly sure I've seen all of them effectively play the full 80 at times. Sink and Mako in particular have truly sickening workrates for big fellas. And even in the most extreme position, we see players doing the full 80. So even if we shrink the props a tiny amount, we're still left with the big guys everywhere else.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:46 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:40 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:26 pm

Except we know that practically no front rows can and that alone would force a rethink as to the trade off between bulk and the ability to defend later on. That then leads to the thought that more space later on in an encouragement to pick more mobile players elsewhere. Mobility and strength are not necessarily correlated.

A damning indictment of the modern game is that Basta now plays as a no 8 fr LOU!

Front rows can. There's just reasons not to leave them on for the full game. Whenever there's been early injuries, replacement players have dealt fine with playing basically 80 minutes. And they're the most extreme example, it's easier for every other player.

Mako, Marler, Sinks, Cole, Genge. Fairly sure I've seen all of them effectively play the full 80 at times. Sink and Mako in particular have truly sickening workrates for big fellas. And even in the most extreme position, we see players doing the full 80. So even if we shrink the props a tiny amount, we're still left with the big guys everywhere else.

Can they do it every week though across a season, I suspect not.

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:38 am For me, Rugby is seriously sullied now as a sport. I feel sullied watching it, knowing the risks players are taking just so they can entertain me.

It is down there with dog fighting, or watching people commit suicide.
Only the sickest amongst us would watch these things as "entertainment".

These players didn't know what they are getting into. If they did, so where are all the waivers they signed to protect their employers from being sued, after they were all being informed in no uncertain terms, about the high likelihood of problems they could develope with their brains in later life?
Oh there aren't any?
As they weren't.
And you know what, even if there are waivers , they could still be seriously contestable.

It is illegal to hire a vulnerable person, and get them to hit themselves in the head with a hammer for your own enjoyment.
This is now what rugby has become.

I've had similar thoughts. On one hand, I think WR has done great work when you look at law changes for safety's sake, Dr Tucker et al's work, the new dangerous tackle framework. But on the other hand, breakdowns are still a mess with officials completely ignoring one of their celebrated figure's (Ben Ryan) continued call to ban croc rolls and torpedoing into 'rucks' still being a thing.



That they don't continue sweeping changes to make all aspects safer has me thinking the things they have done is more about covering their asses legally than truly doing it for the players. I also feel like they're listening to "the game's gone soft" brigade and want to keep the brutal elements in the game for the sake of those who love it, the same way the NHL won't completely ban fighting.

The laws are even there, but they regularly get ignored for the sake of 'continuity' or waived away due to 'materiality'. Watching one of the games laurent shared, I was pleased to see (as is very much true in Canada) the French ref ping one player immediately who dove into a ruck (maybe even a yellow at one point... wasn't exactly sure what that was for with no hand signal).

Currently? No. Would they be able to with a change in conditioning? Very likely. Would that change mean they're not huge blokes carrying and hitting at high speed? No.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:57 pm Currently? No. Would they be able to with a change in conditioning? Very likely. Would that change mean they're not huge blokes carrying and hitting at high speed? No.

Wasn't that long ago that Sinkler and Mako were basically doing 80s for their clubs almost every week I thought?

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:59 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:57 pm Currently? No. Would they be able to with a change in conditioning? Very likely. Would that change mean they're not huge blokes carrying and hitting at high speed? No.

Wasn't that long ago that Sinkler and Mako were basically doing 80s for their clubs almost every week I thought?

Not sure they ever did it consistently. Both clubs were willing to rotate them occasionally and their backups got plenty of gametime. But yes, they were playing a lot of minutes already.

Still not on board with the concept of forcing players to play 80 more often as a way to reduce size. If you want to reduce player size, legislate for it directly. 120kg behemoths are a problem? Get rid of them then.

I think the idea for injury substitutes only is a great idea, with the 3 week rest period after an 'injury'. There is 1 issue- in the final round of Rugby Championship, Lions Tour, 6 Nations, Rugby World Cup, teams could fake an injury. But this is a very minor issue, and if the rule applies throughout the rest of the season then the desired effect would already have been achieved- reduce player size.

Team weight limits is also a good idea, and is the simplest.

Make those 2 changes first, then if it still doesn't work, bring back rucking.

Lemoentjie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:06 pm I think the idea for injury substitutes only is a great idea, with the 3 week rest period after an 'injury'. There is 1 issue- in the final round of Rugby Championship, Lions Tour, 6 Nations, Rugby World Cup, teams could fake an injury. But this is a very minor issue, and if the rule applies throughout the rest of the season then the desired effect would already have been achieved- reduce player size.

Team weight limits is also a good idea, and is the simplest.

Make those 2 changes first, then if it still doesn't work, bring back rucking.

If we remove subs, do we find that more people get injured when fatigued and technique drops?

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:05 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:59 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:57 pm Currently? No. Would they be able to with a change in conditioning? Very likely. Would that change mean they're not huge blokes carrying and hitting at high speed? No.

Wasn't that long ago that Sinkler and Mako were basically doing 80s for their clubs almost every week I thought?

Not sure they ever did it consistently. Both clubs were willing to rotate them occasionally and their backups got plenty of gametime. But yes, they were playing a lot of minutes already.

Still not on board with the concept of forcing players to play 80 more often as a way to reduce size. If you want to reduce player size, legislate for it directly. 120kg behemoths are a problem? Get rid of them then.

What do you reckon is the best way to do this?

I don't feel great about legislating the weights of individual players, but saying you have a max allowance of 2070kgs for the whole team (90kgs x 23 as an arbitrary figure for this discussion), with a weigh in to be done ahead of the warm up (maybe?), could be workable? You might be able to keep your absolute monsters like Charlie Faumuina, but he's going to have to be offset by some significantly smaller blokes elsewhere in the team and I think coaches would quickly dispense of the massive guys or whip them into shape so they're not giving much away in other positions.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:56 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:46 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:40 pm

Front rows can. There's just reasons not to leave them on for the full game. Whenever there's been early injuries, replacement players have dealt fine with playing basically 80 minutes. And they're the most extreme example, it's easier for every other player.

Mako, Marler, Sinks, Cole, Genge. Fairly sure I've seen all of them effectively play the full 80 at times. Sink and Mako in particular have truly sickening workrates for big fellas. And even in the most extreme position, we see players doing the full 80. So even if we shrink the props a tiny amount, we're still left with the big guys everywhere else.

Can they do it every week though across a season, I suspect not.

I doubt it but this would have the reverse effect on hoarding resources i.e. the wealthy would keep deeper playing banks (rules permitting) to cover for that eventuality.

I'm not convinced by this argument though about the fatties lasting 80 mins. It would need speeding up the game i.e. no more 3 min rest breaks at every scrum (or stop the clock) and lineout = make them all play for the 80 mins.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:17 pm
I don't feel great about legislating the weights of individual players, but saying you have a max allowance of 2070kgs for the whole team (90kgs x 23 as an arbitrary figure for this discussion), with a weigh in to be done ahead of the warm up (maybe?), could be workable? You might be able to keep your absolute monsters like Charlie Faumuina, but he's going to have to be offset by some significantly smaller blokes elsewhere in the team and I think coaches would quickly dispense of the massive guys or whip them into shape so they're not giving much away in other positions.

That's an interesting idea. It still irks me that a useless lump like Atonio gets away with being on any sporting field outside of sumo. Good thinking Batman.

Niegs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:57 pm

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:38 am For me, Rugby is seriously sullied now as a sport. I feel sullied watching it, knowing the risks players are taking just so they can entertain me.

It is down there with dog fighting, or watching people commit suicide.
Only the sickest amongst us would watch these things as "entertainment".

These players didn't know what they are getting into. If they did, so where are all the waivers they signed to protect their employers from being sued, after they were all being informed in no uncertain terms, about the high likelihood of problems they could develope with their brains in later life?
Oh there aren't any?
As they weren't.
And you know what, even if there are waivers , they could still be seriously contestable.

It is illegal to hire a vulnerable person, and get them to hit themselves in the head with a hammer for your own enjoyment.
This is now what rugby has become.

I've had similar thoughts. On one hand, I think WR has done great work when you look at law changes for safety's sake, Dr Tucker et al's work, the new dangerous tackle framework. But on the other hand, breakdowns are still a mess with officials completely ignoring one of their celebrated figure's (Ben Ryan) continued call to ban croc rolls and torpedoing into 'rucks' still being a thing.



That they don't continue sweeping changes to make all aspects safer has me thinking the things they have done is more about covering their asses legally than truly doing it for the players. I also feel like they're listening to "the game's gone soft" brigade and want to keep the brutal elements in the game for the sake of those who love it, the same way the NHL won't completely ban fighting.

The laws are even there, but they regularly get ignored for the sake of 'continuity' or waived away due to 'materiality'. Watching one of the games laurent shared, I was pleased to see (as is very much true in Canada) the French ref ping one player immediately who dove into a ruck (maybe even a yellow at one point... wasn't exactly sure what that was for with no hand signal).

I'm absolutely amazed no one has been killed or disabled from this part of the game. It's a lot more dangerous that getting a decent "shoeing" back in the day to clear a ruck and which was banned because it looked bad.

Edit: even looking at that example, if the Ireland 3 had let go of his grip on Hogg a split second later he would have had 20 stone, at top speed, stright down on his neck and spine. Scary to even look at.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:59 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:17 pm
I don't feel great about legislating the weights of individual players, but saying you have a max allowance of 2070kgs for the whole team (90kgs x 23 as an arbitrary figure for this discussion), with a weigh in to be done ahead of the warm up (maybe?), could be workable? You might be able to keep your absolute monsters like Charlie Faumuina, but he's going to have to be offset by some significantly smaller blokes elsewhere in the team and I think coaches would quickly dispense of the massive guys or whip them into shape so they're not giving much away in other positions.

That's an interesting idea. It still irks me that a useless lump like Atonio gets away with being on any sporting field outside of sumo. Good thinking Batman.

I don't think it's a great idea to be honest. Making some players smaller to fit in bigger ones seems a recipe for disaster. Not to mention players not drinking or eating properly to make weight before a game etc.

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:11 pm

Lemoentjie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:06 pm I think the idea for injury substitutes only is a great idea, with the 3 week rest period after an 'injury'. There is 1 issue- in the final round of Rugby Championship, Lions Tour, 6 Nations, Rugby World Cup, teams could fake an injury. But this is a very minor issue, and if the rule applies throughout the rest of the season then the desired effect would already have been achieved- reduce player size.

Team weight limits is also a good idea, and is the simplest.

Make those 2 changes first, then if it still doesn't work, bring back rucking.

If we remove subs, do we find that more people get injured when fatigued and technique drops?

I would suspect (without any evidence) that the reverse would be true. Tiredness = more space and less ability to crash into people. I'm sure more lard arses would pull hamstrings though

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:17 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:05 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:59 pm

Wasn't that long ago that Sinkler and Mako were basically doing 80s for their clubs almost every week I thought?

Not sure they ever did it consistently. Both clubs were willing to rotate them occasionally and their backups got plenty of gametime. But yes, they were playing a lot of minutes already.

Still not on board with the concept of forcing players to play 80 more often as a way to reduce size. If you want to reduce player size, legislate for it directly. 120kg behemoths are a problem? Get rid of them then.

What do you reckon is the best way to do this?

I don't feel great about legislating the weights of individual players, but saying you have a max allowance of 2070kgs for the whole team (90kgs x 23 as an arbitrary figure for this discussion), with a weigh in to be done ahead of the warm up (maybe?), could be workable? You might be able to keep your absolute monsters like Charlie Faumuina, but he's going to have to be offset by some significantly smaller blokes elsewhere in the team and I think coaches would quickly dispense of the massive guys or whip them into shape so they're not giving much away in other positions.

Legislate the weights of individual players on safety grounds.

Sorry!

Eddie Jones thinks everything's fine, it's all in the past, move on, nothing to see here (with bonus "the players knew what they were getting into"):

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... or-players

“Firstly it is very sad news but I think if there is a positive about it – and there is never a positive about people being sick or losing part of their function – it is that the game has adjusted to it. I don’t think that the game at the moment is unsafe. If you look at most sports back then it was unsafe.”

...

“What we try to do is make sure the training is appropriate for the game. We try to make sure they have every opportunity to recover properly … At the end of the day, the players make a choice to play the game. No one is forcing them. We know there are demands on the body because it is a physically demanding game. We have made really good progress in making the game safe and the players have the choice about whether to play or not.”