Jump to content

Rugby: A New Dawn


ljkeane
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

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.

We have data, or least Ross Tucker is talking about his data, on tackles made under the current rules when people are choosing to make those types of tackles with different options available. I'm not a great rugby player by any means but I am a reasonable tackler. In fact I do usually try to make low tackles but I do it when I'm set in a good position to make a tackle, if I have to react late to a ball carrier I'm not set to tackle I'll usually make what Tucker's calling a 'soak' type tackle on the upper body. Under these new rules I wouldn't have that option so I would be having to make low tackles when I'm in a bad position to do so. That's a variable that's not accounted for in what he's talking about.

15 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

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)?

No I wouldn't be happy because it's another drastic change in the sport. But, yes, it probably would reduce the number of concussions. And rugby would still be a risky sport to play.

17 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

"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.

'Here are the risks to playing the rugby as we know them please sign a release saying you're aware of them and want to continue to play' is a pretty sound legal defence so far as I'm aware.

Here's the thing, ultimately any sport is there for the people who actually want to play them. Otherwise what's the point? It's very clear that the people playing rugby don't support these changes and for a sport already struggling with participation levels that's a big problem.

When was the last time you actually turned out to play a game? You seem to be pretty dismissive of the people who're actually going to be impacted by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

We have data, or least Ross Tucker is talking about his data, on tackles made under the current rules when people are choosing to make those types of tackles with different options available. I'm not a great rugby player by any means but I am a reasonable tackler. In fact I do usually try to make low tackles but I do it when I'm set in a good position to make a tackle, if I have to react late to a ball carrier I'm not set to tackle I'll usually make what Tucker's calling a 'soak' type tackle on the upper body. Under these new rules I wouldn't have that option so I would be having to make low tackles when I'm in a bad position to do so. That's a variable that's not accounted for in what he's talking about.

Amazingly - he specifically talks about it though.

And of course data comes from tackles made under the current rules; as mentioned above, you can't look at data from trials that haven't happened yet.

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

No I wouldn't be happy because it's another drastic change in the sport. But, yes, it probably would reduce the number of concussions. And rugby would still be a risky sport to play.

So, what we need is a trial like the French one, with both tackle height AND double tacklers removed, AND a trial like the English one where it's just the tackle height that's addressed?

And yes, I believe I've mentioned before that addressing risk is about mitigation, not elimination.

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

'Here are the risks to playing the rugby as we know them please sign a release saying you're aware of them and want to continue to play' is a pretty sound legal defence so far as I'm aware.

Not if it's an alternative to mitigation - as far as I'm aware (I'm no lawyer - but there are a few law suits going through from people who absolutely disagree with you here.

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

Here's the thing, ultimately any sport is there for the people who actually want to play them. Otherwise what's the point? It's very clear that the people playing rugby don't support these changes and for a sport already struggling with participation levels that's a big problem.

I can guarantee there will still be people who actually want to play the sport.

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

When was the last time you actually turned out to play a game? You seem to be pretty dismissive of the people who're actually going to be impacted by this.

Ah, so we're getting personal now are we?

4 days ago though, as you asked.

ETA: ignoring the last sentence as it's from anger not rationality, as was my initial reply to that. Suffice to say, I haven't given my opinion on the new regulations yet, but I am and always will be on the side of safety, rather than dismissiveness

Edited by Which Tyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Amazingly - he specifically talks about it though.

You're going to have to quote that as I'm definitely not seeing him talk directly about that at all.

And lets be clear his actual study on reducing tackle height didn't show a reduction in concussions. I accept that he states his reasons for believing the results of that study weren't particularly good but that's the data he actually has on changing tackle height rules.

16 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

4 days ago though, as you asked.

Good for you. Perhaps you have some understanding of exactly how difficult it is to get a 15 a side game played at the moment then.

18 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

The last sentence is - frankly horrendous though. I'm on the side of fewer dead people, fewer people who don't recognise their children, fewer people with dementia and motor neurone disease - but apparently, I'm also "dismissive of the people who're actually going to be impacted by this" - despite not actually giving my opinion on the changes yet.

You've given your opinion on consulting people playing the game on the decision.

The absolute fail safe way to have fewer dead people, fewer people who don't recognise their children etc, etc due to rugby related head injuries is to not play rugby. We don't need to play contact sports, it's not a necessity, it's a choice people are making. Choosing to take various levels of risk for an activity they enjoy is a choice we allow people to make all the time. Boxing, MMA, horse riding, mountain biking, heading a football, rugby, they all carry various levels of risk and we let people make their own decision on whether the trade off between the risks involved and the benefits they get from it are worth it to them.

The RFU, and ultimately World Rugby, should care about the interests of their members and they should keep them informed about the risks involved in the sport and make marginal changes to the sport to keep people safer. If they feel making drastic changes to the nature of the sport is necessary they can even present their arguments for doing so but they should absolutely take that decision to the people who're directly involved in the sport. The RFU Council is supposed to represent their constituent members and from the general reaction here is clear they're failing in that role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ljkeane said:

You're going to have to quote that as I'm definitely not seeing him talk directly about that at all.

And lets be clear his actual study on reducing tackle height didn't show a reduction in concussions. I accept that he states his reasons for believing the results of that study weren't particularly good but that's the data he actually has on changing tackle height rules.

Good for you. Perhaps you have some understanding of exactly how difficult it is to get a 15 a side game played at the moment then.

You've given your opinion on consulting people playing the game on the decision.

The absolute fail safe way to have fewer dead people, fewer people who don't recognise their children etc, etc due to rugby related head injuries is to not play rugby. We don't need to play contact sports, it's not a necessity, it's a choice people are making. Choosing to take various levels of risk for an activity they enjoy is a choice we allow people to make all the time. Boxing, MMA, horse riding, mountain biking, heading a football, rugby, they all carry various levels of risk and we let people make their own decision on whether the trade off between the risks involved and the benefits they get from it are worth it to them.

The RFU, and ultimately World Rugby, should care about the interests of their members and they should keep them informed about the risks involved in the sport and make marginal changes to the sport to keep people safer. If they feel making drastic changes to the nature of the sport is necessary they can even present their arguments for doing so but they should absolutely take that decision to the people who're directly involved in the sport. The RFU Council is supposed to represent their constituent members and from the general reaction here is clear they're failing in that role.

Here:

"More concerningly, and relevant to this story, was the negotiations and discussions about what to do when the ball carrier went into contact bent, and at a low height, leading with their head.  This often happens near try-lines, and also in so-called pick and go situations.  Even in the wider elite game, this issue came up a lot.  People would protest harsher sanctions, saying "It is impossible for the tackler to avoid head contact if the ball carrier is in a pick and go move".

The thing is, if you watched rugby any time between 2010 and 2017, long before the high tackle and head contact focus came along, you'd see 30 to 50 of these situations every match, and they were never an issue.  Almost always, the ball carrier would duck down, lead with their head into the tackler, who typically stayed upright and 'soaked' the player.  This situation would produce head contact, so strictly speaking, it has always been a 'high tackle', but they were never sanctioned, and nor would they be with a zero tolerance directive or a law change. They involve a bent ball carrier against an upright tackler, and head contact from the ball carrier's head to the tackler's torso or arms, in a wrap tackle.

We know that the risk from these is low, and so there's no need, even from a risk perspective, to act on these.  They were never penalised, not before 2017, not since, but they became the focal point of dispute.  In the attempts to navigate this issue, I believe a perception was created that the tackler had to be lower than the ball carrier, no matter what the ball carrier did.

This was, in my opinion, an imagined or exaggerated problem, but it became crucial, because the response by coaches and players to lowering tackle height was to forget that these ball carrier induced head impacts have always been quite common.  Instead, tacklers began reacting to the ball carrier in what became a 'race to the ground' while still trying to 'hit' the opponent in a dominant tackle.  As a result, a lot of dangerous tackles were created where tacklers were trying to contact ball carriers low, the result being that two heads were still sharing airspace, but with both players charging into each other low to the ground.  An image of elephant bulls fighting for territory comes to mind.

It needn't have been like this.  A tackler who remains upright and "high" could safely and legally execute a tackle on a bent ball carrier, even with the lower tackle height trial, but this happened less and less often, replaced instead by something we can predict would increase risk.  This was, in hindsight, confusion created by consultation and the attempts to get buy in.  A simple instruction would have worked better, but the road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions..."

 

I'm not sure how you can read that, refer to it specifically, and simultaneously say that he is not accounting for it.

Edited by Which Tyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I'm not sure how you can read that, refer to it specifically, and simultaneously say that he's ignoring it.

Er, he's talking about his study which produced the result of showing tacklers experienced a higher rate of concussions under new tackle height lowering rules. I'm not really sure that's consistent with what you've been saying. More to the point he's actually talking about behavior changes with defending the pick and go which is fine but not really what I meant.

What I'm saying is that his data on the risk level of various types of tackle (at the professional level by the way) is data from when players have the option to choose different types of tackles and (as probably generally good tacklers) have chosen a low tackle as the optimum option. If you remove other types of tackles as an option then people will have to start making low tackles when they don't think that's optimal and I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that might change the risk involved. Pick and goes are one such situation, true, but it's more than that.

Going through to one of his other articles on risk to tacklers what he has to say on the subject is: "Based on the above, I think that too low is bad, too high is definitely bad and something in the middle is best. Also, choice matters to the tackler, and taking it away is not ideal, because it may force the tackler to go low when it’s actually better to stay high."

Look we can argue back and forth on the minutiae of these various trials but it doesn't really change my opinion on this subject. I'm a little irritated by the people rushing to declare the science on this is black and white when the actual data we have is Tucker's arguably flawed study the Championship Cup which showed an increase in concussions, a Stellenbosch trial which didn't produce a statistically significant result (I had to double check with the World Rugby Welfare Officer rather weirdly posting the results on his twitter) and we'll have to wait and see what the FFR data is like. But I am willing to accept this may well produce, let's say, something like a 30% reduction in concussions like is being claimed.

Going back to my reply to Ithanos my issue with this is not that it definitely won't reduce the average number of concussions. My objections are, in no particular order, it might reduce the overall risk of concussion but I think it's likely to increase my personal risk, it's splitting the game in two, it's a fundamental change to the sport and, in my opinion, a 30% reduction in concussion risk does not justify that change. Now just my opinion on how the sport should evolve don't have to be imposed on everyone obviously but I'm clearly far from the only one and the fact that the RFU have chosen to ignore it's members particularly irritates me. Especially when as the supposed supporter of the community game participation levels is a very, very real problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay - I think we've been talking at cross purposes here.

A] I thought you'd said he'd failed to take into account soak tackles, and that removing them as an option is bad - when he'd specifically talked about exactly that.

B] You seem to think that I (and Dr Tucker - though less so now) are defending these changes and think that they're a good thing - when I've yet to venture an opinion on them, and am currently interested in discussing them, rather than attacking or defending them, or getting into discussions of personal opinion vs empirical evidence, or what counts as evidence being decided.

Edited by Which Tyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/reduced-tackle-height-the-focus-of-community-rugby-game-innovations-for-2023/

Quote

 

Reduced tackle height the focus of community rugby game innovations for 2023
1 November 2022
[b]...[/b]
The new initiatives were trialled in selected grades last year and Lancaster said feedback from players, coaches and referees confirmed the focus on reducing tackle height was the right approach for the community game.

“Our participants have told us that they want to see improvements made to the tackle and breakdown areas, so that’s been our focus. The resounding feedback we’ve received from this season’s trials is that the game is more enjoyable to play and safer when the tackle height is reduced to below the sternum, or what some people will know as the belly.”

Feedback from community grades trialling the reduced tackle height in the 2022 season found that 78% of participants believed it improved the tackler’s safety, 73% felt it made the game faster and 72% thought there were more opportunities for offloads.
[b]...
ARTICLE CONTINUES[/b]

 

 

I've also found this, a full match played under the French initiative rules, so that we can see what that one actually looks like:

 

Level is the final of Fédéral 3 - 7th level for the French system; equivalent to mid-table in Regional 2 (6th level) of the English system - more-or-less playing to break into the top 200 teams.

Edited by Which Tyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a less depressing rugby front it's the first week of the Six Nations this weekend and there are reasons to be hopeful for most of the teams involved. It's a new(ish) era for England and Wales and they'll both be hoping to see improvements heading into the World Cup. Ireland and France are justifiably amongst the favourites for that World Cup and they'll both be wanting a tournament win to continue to build to the end of the year in a positive fashion. Italy's youth rugby set up has been looking pretty good for a while and they'll want to really start seeing that translate into being a competitive team at senior level. Scotland probably have had a bit of a less dramatic few months than other teams but the question for them is finding some consistency, they've got talent and they frequently play quite well but they really need to start being reliably good.

Wales v Ireland. Ireland are pretty reliably good these days and even missing Furlong you'd expect them to put in their standard good performance. How much of an influence Gatland's going to have on Wales is the big question here. You'd think the plan for this tournament is to make Cardiff a deeply unpleasant away trip for Ireland and England this year.

England v Scotland. The first obvious change of the Borthwick era is team selection looks more straightforward. It's a shame Kelly picked up an injury as I'd have liked to see them play with an actual 12 but I'd expect as a minimum the forwards to get better under Borthwick, everything else we'll have to see how it goes. Scotland I'd expect to be good this week. It's really how they follow up after getting fired up for a big game against England I'm interested in.

Italy v France. Normally a tough game for France. I'd expect France to pull away in the last quarter with their quality but they've fallen behind Ireland a little over the last year so I'd think they'll want to make a bit of a statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic first half from Ireland. They look a proper world number one side now. It's not that they're doing anything flash, there's just a real confidence in how they play. Start of the game with Wales fired up and a raucous home crowd at the Millenium; good kick pressure, spread the ball wide and pin Wales in the corner, score off forward carries from the resulting lineout. Wind very much taken out of the Welsh sails. Wales did have a few good moments but Ireland just stay composed and snuff it out when they have an opportunity.

ETA: Heh, after talking up Ireland's control in the first half they really didn't have a great second half. Still, despite being on the back foot for most of the second half their defence stayed solid and ultimately they've come away with the bonus point and a 7-7 scoreline for the half.

Better from Wales in the second half but Gatland won't like the wasted chances. Looking at it I do think not starting Reffell might have been a mistake. Tipuric's a cracking rugby player but Reffell's better in the breakdown and if you're going to have any chance against Ireland you need to slow down the ruck.

Edited by ljkeane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the start of the Borthwick era didn't go as well as could have been hoped. They did up the tempo a bit and the pack were pretty good in the loose. The set piece (and kick off receptions), fairly surprisingly, wasn't good though, if anything was going to improve I was expecting it to be the lineout. The defence for the first three Scottish tries was terrible. Lots to work on.

From a Scottish point of view they scored some good tries and showed a lot of resilience to come out with a win against England. That's actually become a bit par for the course for them over the last few years though. I'm sure the fans enjoyed it but, as I said before the match, I think the question for them is if they can follow it up next week with another win.

ETA: Good game in Rome. Italy have shown they can play some good rugby and it's good to see them backing themselves to do it but if they're going to win these games they need to improve their exits from their own half. Not a great performance from France though, I doubt the coaches will be happy with them letting Italy back into the game.

Edited by ljkeane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the past week to catch up on all the first round 6N matches.

Ireland deserved their win in Cardiff for an explosive first 20-25 minutes and then some resolute defending.  But Wales were a dogged opponent, buoyed by the home crowd and a new coach, and they posed some threat — especially from their tricky speedsters on the wing.  Wales were especially aggressive at counter-rucking, which cost them a lot of penalties for the first ~35 minutes, but then gained them a lot of penalties for the next ~30 minutes.  It’s possible Ireland could have moved up another gear if Wales ever came close on the scoreboard — perhaps they were just managing the game.

All the probabilities would indicate England should have won but their defending was very sloppy in the open field.  It was a real clash of style: England and France both use a forward-heavy attack: a long series of heavy ball carries into contact and rarely spreading the ball wide; with England also using a lot of kick-tennis to gain territory.  Scotland, like Italy, try to keep the ball moving to create space and evade tackles.  It means they will have much less time in possession (and have to defend a lot) but it poses a threat to a defense that expects to rely on power.  BTW, I don’t get the hype about Finn Russell.  He seems talented and brave, but under-delivers through bad decision-making (usually backing himself when he shouldn’t).  England’s use of both Farrell and Smith seems pointless.  I like the attempt to innovate tactically but they’re not getting any benefit from a second fly half, while they’ve downgraded the physicality of their midfield.  Itoje seemed unusually quiet in the counter-ruck. 

How was the French vs Italy game even as close as that?  Italy were kamikaze-like in bringing the ball out and should have been punished more. Their full back is a live wire but they have a talent deficiency at half-back and don’t yet quite have the positional coordination and handling among their forwards for the game they want to play, although in fairness they did a lot of good ball carrying, won their line outs and held their own against a very powerful scrum.  The French gave away far too many penalties, including a penalty try, and didn’t quite capitalize on some of their early chances. 

Edited by Iskaral Pust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I just heard the Ireland result without being able to watch the match yet. I really thought I could avoid spoilers on rugby.

Great win, especially with a few key players out injured.  I look forward to watching it later.

Yes.  Amazing first half of rugby when it see-sawed a lot.  Ireland did need to win more given our recent record against France and maybe that told (plus playing at home) but it was a comfortable win in the end.  Ireland will probably look at why they didn't score a few more tries given they were very close on a number of occasions.  And France could have been down to 14 players quite early but beating a 15 man France means more.

Ireland looked good in one half against Wales but both halves here, which is a positive sign, given you can't allow France much of a chance.

Knowing we can win without some of our top players is also very reassuring.  Even Sexton can go off early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great match between Ireland and France, very close for most of it although the French started to struggle towards the end. The Scotland / Wales match was very scrappy in the first half with lots of errors, although Scotland managed to dominate in the second half and seemed to score points every time they got into the Welsh 22. It's strange seeing Scotland at the top of the table just behind Ireland on points difference. Wales might be pleased with the performance of some of their young forwards, but concerned about their seeming inability to score points.

There's still a long way to go but Ireland must be the big favourites for the championship now. Scotland may have two good victories but will have to play better to beat France away and Ireland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, cracking game in Dublin. It was always close (could have been even closer as I’m not convinced Lowe actually scored his try) but it it always felt like Ireland had the edge. To be fair Atonio could easily have seen red to make it more straightforward for Ireland but I’m glad it stayed 15 a side. 

Scotland just looked the better team against Wales. I said last week the issue for them was to follow up a big performance against England in the next game and they’ve done that. Now they need to kick on against one of Ireland or France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the most exciting of games today at Twickenham but given there was a lot of talk of this being Italy's best ever chance of a win against England Borthwick will be pleased enough with a reasonably comfortable win. For England the set piece ad defence clearly improved on last week and Lawrence and Willis were good coming into the side. They kicked the ball a lot but I can see why that was a tactic given how poor the Italian exits were last week and ultimately they've come away with five tries so you can't say it didn't work but a bit more variation in the attacking third would be nice.

From the Italian perspective I think losing Lamaro early knocked them off course a bit and by the time the got themselves into the game it was pretty much over. They could do with getting Garbisi back fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ireland vs France game was excellent but a bit surprising that the heavier French pack wasn’t able to dominate Ireland like a year ago.  They were mostly restricted to long range penalties as Ireland defended very well aside from one chaotic counterattacking try early on.  OTOH Ireland created a lot of good attacks and could have run up a very large score if not for being held up several times on the try line.  They really should have switched the ball out to the wing instead of continuing to attempt to power over in the middle.  Lowe was generally open 1v1.

McCloskey has nailed down the #12 shirt, with Aki looking better as a sub than a starter.  Keenan played very well in both games.  The scrum has been solid despite being outweighed, even with most of the front row missing.  Murray isn’t a great back-up for JGP at scrum-half but the third string #9 coming on as a sub for Murray has shown quick rucks and attacking instincts.  Lowe is up there with the best wingers in the world and Hanson was very good against France after a quiet opener against Wales.  Caelan Dorris is very good at #8.  I do wonder if O’Mahony should continue to start at #6 — he has great leadership and experience but not great pace or stamina now.  Top players like Van Der Flier and Ringrose seemed a bit quiet by their own high standards but I think that’s mostly the quality of the whole group just means they don’t stand out as much.

I’m sure we’ve peaked too soon once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotland vs Wales was more one-sided than I expected after Wales had an improved second half against Ireland.  The Welsh seemed bereft of all cohesion (they changed a lot of personnel) and lacked the passion of playing at home — they were chippy once again but not channeling that into positive aggression.  Finn Russell was a lot more effective for the Scots when facing so little pressure.  Scotland really like to attack down the left through Van Der Merwe and then switch it quickly cross-field, but how many right wings can stop him?  Young Dyer had a decent game on the wing against Ireland carrying the ball but looked defensively very suspect here — he may get targeted more now (Biggar didn’t help him with his blame-game; not good leadership there with a young player)

England vs Italy is why I usually don’t bother to watch Italy’s games.  England bullied them for most of the match and the only surprise was that it wasn’t really showing on the scoreboard until the yellow card.  Italy have definitely improved over time, and they gave the French a surprisingly close game last week (although they could have easily lost that by 20+), but it’s still a 5+1N rather than a true 6N.

The commentators were already looking ahead to the match-up between Scotland and Ireland as a possible championship decider.  I’d like to see how the Scots fare against the French before that.  That will be a better indicator of whether Scotland can do more than just raise their game to beat England, and whether the French have drifted into some problems they need to fix.

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...