Jump to content

Rugby: A New Dawn


ljkeane
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

you would get more 'big' matches this way though, 12, as opposed to the 10 you currently get. 

I doubt the games in the second division would be viewed as 'big' matches. The Six Nations is really the only thing outside of World Cups that catches the attention of casual fans from a rugby perspective. The importance of that to the Northern Hemisphere Unions is huge. None of the current sides are going to potentially put themselves outside of that pool. Add to that the remaining sides are not going to want to risk replacing legacy matches which, regardless of the quality of the teams, sell out big stadiums with matches against Georgia even if they might be a better team.

There are too many money problems in rugby at the moment for them to be messing with the cash cow that is the Six Nations. I can't see relegation ever happening, the hope for Georgia would be to be added to a Seven Nations I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I doubt the games in the second division would be viewed as 'big' matches. The Six Nations is really the only thing outside of World Cups that catches the attention of casual fans from a rugby perspective. The importance of that to the Northern Hemisphere Unions is huge. None of the current sides are going to potentially put themselves outside of that pool. Add to that the remaining sides are not going to want to risk replacing legacy matches which, regardless of the quality of the teams, sell out big stadiums with matches against Georgia even if they might be a better team.

There are too many money problems in rugby at the moment for them to be messing with the cash cow that is the Six Nations. I can't see relegation ever happening, the hope for Georgia would be to be added to a Seven Nations I suppose.

Yes, but the top 4 play each other twice, so you would get Eng V France twice etc.  rather than the once a year now.  It would also make it a fairer contest as currently success can depend on how many of your 5 games are at home and against who.  Georgia would be unlikely in the extreme to make the top 4, as most years they would be competing against Italy and and one of the 'big 5' for promotion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Georgia would be unlikely in the extreme to make the top 4, as most years they would be competing against Italy and and one of the 'big 5' for promotion. 

Well they just beat Wales so if this had been a ‘division 2’ game you’d expect it’d be Georgia rather than Wales getting promoted the next season. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Well they just beat Wales so if this had been a ‘division 2’ game you’d expect it’d be Georgia rather than Wales getting promoted the next season. :dunno:

they beat wales once, they would also have to finish above wales in the final table and likely Italy.  I'd take that bet all day long. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Yes, but the top 4 play each other twice, so you would get Eng V France twice etc.  rather than the once a year now.

More doesn't mean better though - part of the joy of the 6N is that only play each other once each year, which keeps things fresh, even though you're playing them year in, year out.

 

There's no good answer TBH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

2 divisions of 4 and 6 teams, 4 nations would play home and away, lower league of 6 would do what they do now, with promotion and relegation for top and bottom makes total sense.  

right now division 1 would be 

Ireland, France, England, Wales

Division 2 would be 

Scotland, Italy, Georgia, Spain, Portugal, Romania

there's no reason you couldn't have a 3rd division with promotion/relegation into the 2nd one. 

Wales were fifth in this year's six nations so should swap with Scotland in that set-up. I don't think there would be a lot of enthusiasm for a top division lacking Wales.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a Six Nations with promotion/relegation, it would make more matches important, but it doesn't look likely to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ljkeane said:

Ireland are a real contrast to England and New Zealand earlier. They didn't play well, probably not helped by losing Sexton late, and the Wallabies played quite well but they don't ever make it easy for their opposition.

It is nice to be winning but Ireland could easily have lost to South Africa and Australia.  Eventually that little bit of luck is going to go against you, unless we find a few more gears.  Been able to beat a team like South Africa is a confidence booster though.  On the other hand, our dependence on Sexton is a little alarming.  Especially since there is nearly always something wrong with Carbery.  And every other fly half has little experience, although there are plenty around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So both England and Wales have pulled the trigger on a change of head coach a year out from the World Cup.

It makes sense for Wales. The hope with Pivac was that he'd expand their attacking game but it hasn't really worked out. They've basically been playing a less good version of the Gatland team. I'm not entirely convinced getting Gatland back in is going to solve all their problems (especially without Edwards) but he's an improvement on Pivac.

England obviously don't have as clear a plan for what they're going to do post Eddie Jones (it looks like it's going to be Borthwick) but I think they had to do it. There are some people who're arguing that Jones had a long term plan for the World Cup and England should have stuck with him but I don't see it. How long can being rubbish be some sort of secret game plan rather than just actually being shit? Jones does have some good qualities as a rugby coach but he's just so abrasive I think there's just a limited shelf life before he's alienated too many people for the set up to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Pretty surprising turn of events in Australia with Rennie getting the sack and Eddie Jones back 15 years(?) after his last stint as Wallabies coach on a five year contract.

It feels at bit harsh on Rennie who I think has been doing a reasonable job when you factor in all the injuries they’ve had but Jones is a very good coach, at least he is until he’s had time to piss everybody off and go down weird rabbit holes. I think Australia probably will be more of a threat this World Cup now, not sure about the five year contract bit though.

So three of the major teams in Wales, England and Australia have pulled the plug on their long term plans and made a coaching change a year out from the World Cup now. It’s going to be interesting to see how it all goes.

Edited by ljkeane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to bother posting about this because I'm not sure how much anyone here really cares about amateur rugby in England but this is a terrible decision by the RFU taken without bothering to consult anyone it's actually going to have an impact on by the look of things. Participation in amateur rugby is a massive problem at the moment (it's been declining for a while and has fallen off a cliff post covid), hugely pissing off the people who're actually continuing to play is really, really not going to help with that.

I'm probably going to sack in playing at the end of this season because of this and going by the general reaction to this announcement I think a lot of other people are to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continue to watch rugby matches during my weightlifting sessions.  I’ve been limited to just the Gallagher Premier League because NBC/Peacock no longer has US broadcast rights for the Heineken European Cup.  I believe they still have the 6N at least.

Unfortunately, as the game starts to grow in popularity in the US, the broadcast rights will disappear into various overpriced streaming services.  Just like I can no longer watch the FA Cup or CL in soccer.

Northampton Saints have been fun to watch.  I watched too much of the Leicester Tigers last year, which felt tactically repetitive and unimaginative.  It’s a pity that I cannot watch Leinster at all after enjoying their rugby so much last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ljkeane said:

I wasn't going to bother posting about this because I'm not sure how much anyone here really cares about amateur rugby in England but this is a terrible decision by the RFU taken without bothering to consult anyone it's actually going to have an impact on by the look of things. Participation in amateur rugby is a massive problem at the moment (it's been declining for a while and has fallen off a cliff post covid), hugely pissing off the people who're actually continuing to play is really, really not going to help with that.

I'm probably going to sack in playing at the end of this season because of this and going by the general reaction to this announcement I think a lot of other people are to.

Seeing the results from France, would you consider participating to at least the 2nd season of this change?

I haven't played since my early 20's, so I cannot attest to what it's like playing year in year out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ithanos said:

Seeing the results from France, would you consider participating to at least the 2nd season of this change?

I haven't played since my early 20's, so I cannot attest to what it's like playing year in year out.

No I'm pretty sure I'm done.

This isn't a marginal change, it's a fundamental shift in the sport. Just off the top of my head you won't be able to stop people offloading anymore, stopping pick and goes will be very difficult, are mauls a thing anymore? Hard to see how they could be. On top of that you're drastically limiting the tackler's options in how they can make a tackle, which I really don't like when it's my head that's being put in positions were I'm taking the risk of concussion.

In addition to that you're basically splitting rugby into two different sports; amateur rugby and professional rugby. That betrays what the sport is supposed to be about for me. Kind of the point is people can watch the Six Nations or whatever, think to themselves that's something they want to try and go down to their local club and start playing rugby. That won't be an option anymore. In fact since concussion is a bigger problem at the professional level why exactly are these changes only to the amateur game?

Also this is not in any way taking the risk of concussion out of the game. Most of the bad concussions I've see playing rugby are the tackler getting a knee/hip to the head. Maybe it does reduce the total number of concussions (although I'd like to see more detail on that) but it does it by reducing the risk to the ball carrier while increasing the risk to the tackler. Just thinking about it probably the safest type of tackle in the game in terms of concussion risk is scragging someone by their shirt and that's outlawed by these new rules.

I understand people are concerned about the dangers of head injuries and I'm not against exploring ways to reduce the risk but at some point we have to acknowledge contact sports is a risky activity and we should be asking the people who're voluntarily taking part what risks it is they're willing to take. Especially when what we're talking about here is not a panacea that somehow removes concussions from the game. That's what really annoys me here, that the RFU, which is supposed to represent it's members, hasn't even bothered to consult them on this.

Sorry for the long reply but I'm pretty irritated. What I'm probably going to do is get onto my club's chairman to see what we can do about getting the Cheshire representative on the RFU Council sacked.

 

Edited by ljkeane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ljkeane said:

Maybe it does reduce the total number of concussions (although I'd like to see more detail on that) but it does it by reducing the risk to the ball carrier while increasing the risk to the tackler.

Did you read my link on that? it includes a lot more detail, but I can provide you with plenty more if 20-ish minutes (60-ish if you follow Ross's links) isn't enough for you.
Alternatively, here's a quicker twitter thread by the same author (and author of many of the research papers that led to this):

The second part of your sentence that I quoted, is simply not true - as explained in the link.

 

I'm seeing a LOT of posts like yours - driven by anger and knee-jerk reactions, with little knowledge of the facts, and the 10 years worth of research that's led to this change (often whilst accusing the RFU of being knee-jerk, reactive, and with little knowledge of the facts and research). I've also had lots of conversations with people who "I need more information" or "I need to see the research" whilst 60 seconds later refusing to spend 5 minutes reading the extra information, and refusing to read any research (absolutely NOT accusing you of this)

Edited by Which Tyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Did you read my link on that? it includes a lot more detail, but I can provide you with plenty more if 20-ish minutes (60-ish if you follow Ross's links) isn't enough for you.

The second part of your sentence is simply not true - as explained in the link.

I did read your link and it's mostly him talking about studies he's done which don't include the trial of these actual rules in France. So he's not really talking about what effect these actual rule changes had. His data so far as I can tell isn't accounting for why players are making different types of tackles and how that dynamic changes when players lose the option to make anything other than a low tackle.

Also according to his own graphic 'upper body' tackles, which will now be outlawed, are significantly safer for the tackler than 'hip' or 'knee' tackles. It's head on head impact tackles he's saying are more dangerous than knee or hip impact tackles. But, fun bonus, head on head impacts can still happen when two defenders tackle low so we haven't even taken that out of the game (something I've done this season). 

In general I'm not inclined to just accept people's statements as facts just because they say we've done 'studies', studies can be badly designed or produce results that aren't actually significant so I'd like to see the actual studies rather than just accept them as gospel. And going back to the French lower league trial I'd be pretty dubious about how much head injury data is being reported accurately so I'd really like to see how they compiled their results.

Beyond all that going back to one of my points, ok, maybe this will result 10-20% reduction in head injuries or something like that but it's not taking the risk of concussion out of the game. Ultimately people who choose to play rugby are choosing to take the risk of injury to play and will continue to do so, at least consult with them on what risks it is they're willing to take.

 

Edited by ljkeane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I did read your link and it's him talking about studies he's done which don't include the trial of these actual rules in France. So he's not really talking about what effect these actual rule changes had. His data so far as I can tell isn't accounting for why players are making different types of tackles and how that dynamic changes when players lose the option to make anything other than a low tackle.

Also according to his own graphic 'upper body' tackles, which will now be outlawed, are significantly safer for the tackler than 'hip' or 'knee' tackles. It's head on head impact tackles he's saying are more dangerous than knee or hip impact tackles. But, fun bonus, head on head impacts can still happen when two defenders tackle low so we haven't even taken that out of the game (something I've done this season). 

In general I'm not inclined to just accept people's statements as facts just because they say we've done 'studies', studies can be badly designed or produce results that aren't actually significant so I'd like to see the actual studies rather than just accept them as gospel. And going back to the French lower league trial idea be pretty dubious about how much head injury data is being reported accurately so I'd really like to see how they compiled their results.

Beyond all that going back to one of my points, ok, maybe this will result 10-20% reduction in head injuries or something like that but it's not taking the risk of concussion out of the game. Ultimately people who choose to play rugby are choosing to take the risk of injury to play and will continue to do so, at least consult with them on what risks it is they're willing to take.

Given that the trial into the actual rules to be introduced in July 2023 doesn't happen until... July 2023; we can't study that data yet. But we can talk about the data from similar trials, such as in France and Fiji, for example.
He can't talk about future rules in the past tense.
He does talk about players making different types of tackles and how that dynamic changes.

 

Yes, upper body is safer than hip or knee - but we're talking about forcing anyone to tackle at hip or knee; and we already have data on tackles made at hip and knee level. Yes, of course head on head impacts can still happen - it's called mitigation, not elimination. How upset would you be if the RFU did take 2-person tackles out of the equation (like the French)?

 

I don't claim that you should just accept someone facts just because they've done "studies" but it's also idiotic not to accept that an expert in the field might know just a little bit more about their field than you or I; or to think that they haven't thought of things - just like in any walk of life.
If you want to see the studies, they're easy to find; so far, I've not had anyone actually try to; here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=rugby+%2B+concussion&filter=years.2013-2022. You can easily tinker with the search terms etc if you wish.
As for the French trial, I've not found a good write up yet, but I'm not going to disbelieve them because I consider my personal bias to be more relevant than actual expertise.

 

Yes, mitigation, not elimination. This is not a new principal for anyone who's lived through the last 3 years of world events.
People who choose to play rugby are currently trying to sue RFU, RFU and WR out of existence, for the injuries suffered. "We knew but chose not to do anything" is a legal defence that would be struck down before you'd even finished the sentence. When the evidence is decisive, no consultation is actually necessary - it'd be nice, and a complete waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...