Dismal Pillock
Simon Poidevin (60)
Pitch is too small now. No space. Time to get them playing in AFL stadia. Now that would be wild.
Concussions and Protecting Our Players
- Thread starter USARugger
- Start date
Pitch is too small now. No space. Time to get them playing in AFL stadia. Now that would be wild.
Adam84
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
How many concussions are actually occurring at the ruck? Because my understanding most concussions occur by the first player tackling.
Let’s put it this way, two fresh players running at each other will generate more force in collision then two fatigued players. Increased speed and fatigue will also decrease the emphasis on size at test rugby, hopefully reverse the focus on 100kg across every single position.
Some. The jackler is definitely pretty prone to injury and concussion because they are in a vulnerable position.
Most concussions are in the tackle though.
Speeding up the game increases both of these though in terms of raw numbers. You may be right that the risk gradually decreases as players get more tired but I would guess it would be minimal. It isn't really apparent that tackles drop in intensity to a huge degree late in games.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
There's newly drafted AFL player who has agreed to have detailed brain scans yearly to track the incremental impact of playing the sport. He's yet to have a concussion so it's a pretty unique case study.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12...ing-brain-scan-before-playing-a-game/12937928
In his interview, Steve Thompson suggest a similar approach with players requiring a 'passport' in order to play. Annual brain scans and any evidence of trauma would see them barred. Pretty draconian but when you consider the lifelong damage these guys are facing, it starts to sound sensible.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12...ing-brain-scan-before-playing-a-game/12937928
In his interview, Steve Thompson suggest a similar approach with players requiring a 'passport' in order to play. Annual brain scans and any evidence of trauma would see them barred. Pretty draconian but when you consider the lifelong damage these guys are facing, it starts to sound sensible.
Adam84
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
No because rugby allows 14 new players on the field later in the game... that’s why I said they should also reduce use of substitutions
Adam84
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
The tackler is the single biggest cause of concussion, not the player at the ruck.
Well slowing down the game, encouraging fresh player to run at each other and have bigger collisions isn’t the solution either. So if the inverse isn’t true, then I don’t know what to do. At the very least the need to try something, because maintains status quo isn’t the solution.
I think they are trying something.
There are already far less high impacts because players have adjusted their behaviour due to higher penalties for contact with the head.
I'm not against reducing the number of substitutions in test rugby because I agree that adding more fatigue would open things up and make games more entertaining.
liquor box
Greg Davis (50)
I didn't think you had to actually be concussed to develop CTE, multiple sudden jolts to the head that cause the brain to move can be enough over time.
So every time a clear out occurs and the whole ruck is impacted there is a risk to the brain.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
Yeah my understanding was that the worst affected players in NFL were the offensive line, etc - guys who's head got shaken about a lot but not often concussed.
KevinO
John Hipwell (52)
The NFL and schools have started to tech there players to tackle properly. They were always told using there head was ok cause it was protected by the helmet. They are now teaching them to move the head to the side and use there shoulders instead of there head.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
First up, I'm not fully across the law changes for this season so please point me in the right direction if I'm off track. Secondly, the law change threads might be better fits but the question also intersects with concussion.
Re. the hit AAA put on Pone last weekend in the Brumbies v Rebels match.
Pone was knocked unconscious and is likely to miss matches. AAA was carded but replaced after 20 minutes.
How is it fair that the offending team can play with a full complement after 20 minutes, while the Rebels are a player down for the full match and likely for a week/s after.
Re. the hit AAA put on Pone last weekend in the Brumbies v Rebels match.
Pone was knocked unconscious and is likely to miss matches. AAA was carded but replaced after 20 minutes.
How is it fair that the offending team can play with a full complement after 20 minutes, while the Rebels are a player down for the full match and likely for a week/s after.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
It isn't really fair, but it's better than having every second game turned into a dead rubber and the offending player is still hit with enough disincentive to ensure they will try to avoid doing it again.
Plus, the Rebels are allowed to replace an injured player so they don't have to play the full match down a man?
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
Both teams finished with 22 players after the incident.
I wonder if there's a middle ground where the 20 minute replacement is allowed for incidents where the offence hasn't resulted in a major injury/concussion. A high tackle yellow, followed by a yellow for cynical play? That's a fair situation for a 20 min reversal.
A bit of tweaking might be in order but I guess we can only tweak what we trial.
I wonder if there's a middle ground where the 20 minute replacement is allowed for incidents where the offence hasn't resulted in a major injury/concussion. A high tackle yellow, followed by a yellow for cynical play? That's a fair situation for a 20 min reversal.
A bit of tweaking might be in order but I guess we can only tweak what we trial.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Tex, better really start to calm down a bit. Pone has been selected in the Rebels side against the Force.
Some might agree that you might have a point. but apparently you have hitched your wagon to a poor example. Having said that, I don't personally think we have an issue at all. Not just because AAA is a Brumby, but the game has needed a new approach to red card situations for a long time. I warrant many more fans would like to see both teams finish with a full complement of players than to have one of them down a player for anywhere up to 80 minutes.
I think the balance is right.
The punishment for the incident is playing down a player for 20 minutes during the match and then the suspension after the match.
The team the has been offended against may lose a player to injury but they still get their full complement on the field for the whole match.
I think the key aspects of the changes have been to take away the tendency for referees to issue yellow cards for red card offences out of fear of it being perceived as ruining the game and secondly, for any perception that a red card ruins a match to be reduced substantially.
Having an extra player for 20 minutes is a significant advantage but has certainly shown already that it doesn't decide which team wins the match.
Largely, I think cards and suspensions need to avoid putting much weight on the outcome of an incident. We're trying to reduce and eradicate dangerous play and it is the action that needs to be removed, not trying to suggest that dangerous play is much less serious if nothing really bad happened from it.
The punishment for the incident is playing down a player for 20 minutes during the match and then the suspension after the match.
The team the has been offended against may lose a player to injury but they still get their full complement on the field for the whole match.
I think the key aspects of the changes have been to take away the tendency for referees to issue yellow cards for red card offences out of fear of it being perceived as ruining the game and secondly, for any perception that a red card ruins a match to be reduced substantially.
Having an extra player for 20 minutes is a significant advantage but has certainly shown already that it doesn't decide which team wins the match.
Largely, I think cards and suspensions need to avoid putting much weight on the outcome of an incident. We're trying to reduce and eradicate dangerous play and it is the action that needs to be removed, not trying to suggest that dangerous play is much less serious if nothing really bad happened from it.
dru
Tim Horan (67)
I think so too. At least, it is much better than the former RC = loss of a man for the game.
On principal I'm not averse to the concept of the penalty/prohibition period starting when the injured party returns, but I suspect it would open a can of worms that is better left alone.
It's a great improvement as it stands.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
Yeah I really didn't expect him to get picked. I've gone pretty conservative when it comes to how head knocks are treated and assume any player who is knocked unconscious shouldn't be available for selection the next week.
And to be clear, I don't have a problem with the principle. I found it a bit galling that when the balance was returned after 20 minutes, the 'offending' team was back at full complement while the Rebels (insert any other team, not being parochial) were still a man down.