IRB medical conference. . .

[chopper15]

Mark Reason’s article in today’s Telegraph.

The RFU's own doctor, Simon Kemp, was the co-author of a medical article that stated midfield backs were most at risk of injury. It concluded: "Stricter implementation of the laws of rugby relating to collisions and tackles above the line of the shoulder may reduce the number of head/neck injuries sustained by ball carriers."

Yet the laws remain largely unenforced. In the opening minutes of last Saturday's match between Wales and New Zealand, Martyn Williams took out Conrad Smith with a late shoulder charge. It did not even warrant a penalty kick. No wonder so many people are getting hurt.

That type of tackle feeds down the levels and age groups and is being replicated in schoolboy rugby. It is one reason why New Zealand selects its school teams according to size and not age. Too many people were being hurt by reckless tackles in physical mismatches. (my underline)

Three-point solution

1. All spear tackles, taking out a man in the air, high hits with the shoulder or straight-arm tackles should produce an automatic red card. No questions, no excuses. Get rid of the awful word ‘contextuality’ that encourages referees to overlook violent acts. (my underline)

2. Defences must be allowed to compete for the ball on equal terms.Attackers must release the ball immediately when tackled. That will create an incentive for defenders to tackle low in order to get man and ball to ground as quickly as possible.

3. Reduce the number of replacements to two, so we do not have ‘impact’ substitutes coming on and blasting into tired players.

Full text;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...estions-risk-making-rugby-more-dangerous.html

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Yet the laws remain largely unenforced.

Like crookeed feeds I think this another showbiz rugby vs most rugby. I have YC'd a player this year for a charge and RC'd a player two weeks ago for a high tackle.

I'm doing my bit :bday:

 

[dave_clark]

the replacements suggestion is bollocks - all that would happen is people would stay on while injured. maybe that's what happened in the good old days, but now it certainly wouldn't prevent injuries getting worse.

 

[OB..]

1. All spear tackles, taking out a man in the air, high hits with the shoulder or straight-arm tackles should produce an automatic red card. No questions, no excuses. Get rid of the awful word ‘contextuality’ that encourages referees to overlook violent acts. (my underline)

Unrealistic because that would merely reset the definitons. Referees would change their criteria as to what consitutes a straight arm tackle etc. You can have an effect by eg the IRB pronouncement on high tackes, but mandatory red cards will be seen by everyone involved as wildly OTT. Referees MUST be allowed to use their judgement.

2. Defences must be allowed to compete for the ball on equal terms.Attackers must release the ball immediately when tackled. That will create an incentive for defenders to tackle low in order to get man and ball to ground as quickly as possible.

At one time releasing the ball was the only thing a tackled player was allowed to do. By going back to those days we can learn something about the effects of allowing the current development. Probably worth doing, and certainly essential before making any experimental moves.

3. Reduce the number of replacements to two, so we do not have ‘impact’ substitutes coming on and blasting into tired players.

David Perry took a pain killing injection so as to play on, and so ruined his knee that he had to give up rugby.

At top levels it is not so much the number of subs as their use that spoils the game. I would allow 7 on the bench to provide adequate cover for injuries, but only allow, say, 4 to be used. That would encourage managers to hold back on tactical use in case they get an injury to deal with.

 

[OB..]

1. All spear tackles, taking out a man in the air, high hits with the shoulder or straight-arm tackles should produce an automatic red card. No questions, no excuses. Get rid of the awful word ‘contextuality’ that encourages referees to overlook violent acts. (my underline)

Unrealistic because that would merely reset the definitons. Referees would change their criteria as to what consitutes a straight arm tackle etc. You can have an effect by eg the IRB pronouncement on high tackes, but mandatory red cards will be seen by everyone involved as wildly OTT. Referees MUST be allowed to use their judgement.

2. Defences must be allowed to compete for the ball on equal terms.Attackers must release the ball immediately when tackled. That will create an incentive for defenders to tackle low in order to get man and ball to ground as quickly as possible.

At one time releasing the ball was the only thing a tackled player was allowed to do. By going back to those days we can learn something about the effects of allowing the current development. Probably worth doing, and certainly essential before making any experimental moves.

3. Reduce the number of replacements to two, so we do not have ‘impact’ substitutes coming on and blasting into tired players.

David Perry took a pain killing injection so as to play on, and so ruined his knee that he had to give up rugby.

At top levels it is not so much the number of subs as their use that spoils the game. I would allow 7 on the bench to provide adequate cover for injuries, but only allow, say, 4 to be used. That would encourage managers to hold back on tactical use in case they get an injury to deal with.

 

[Deeps]

How about restricting the weight of players in a height to weight ratio according to position; make them lighter and faster, don't let them bulk up.

 

[chopper15]

With only 26 on the pitch and no lines-out/scrums as such, how does league compare with union in the injury stakes, at 'elite' levels?

 

[Greg Collins]

league has been a professional game for many years, union players are still coming to terms with what professionalism entails in terms of physique, technique and collisions. an increase in injury compared to former days as the gym bunnies conquer all is inevitable but in time will be seen to become the new acceptable level of attrition. all elite level sports have them.

Don't ask what the injury levels at elite level are, rather ask what are the attrition rates on the way up to elite level.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

league has been a professional game for many years, union players are still coming to terms with what professionalism entails in terms of physique, technique and collisions. an increase in injury compared to former days as the gym bunnies conquer all is inevitable but in time will be seen to become the new acceptable level of attrition. all elite level sports have them.

Don't ask what the injury levels at elite level are, rather ask what are the attrition rates on the way up to elite level.

What are the attrition rates on the way up to elite level?

 

[Greg Collins]

dunno, don't think anyone has ever done a proper study. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest they are much much higher than in the pre-open era, and that more players than ever are being sidelined through injury on the way up.

When I played, not that I was much cop, I was a big lump of a lad, usually in the biggest two or three on the park, consequently I migrated over time from outside centre as a youth to second row as an adult, or back row if playing down a team or back at centre if playing down two. I've not shrunk, esp. around the middle, but I when reffing colts I find myself looking up at centre's, winger's, some prop's, and the odd scrum half. The locks usually tower over me. The game is changing and with it the player's shapes. Bigger heavier players moving at the same speeds as yesteryear and colliding? Physics innit?

 

[DrSTU]

With only 26 on the pitch and no lines-out/scrums as such, how does league compare with union in the injury stakes, at 'elite' levels?

I gave a huge list of references last month in a thread that you were on about injury rates in Union and League. I take it you didn't read them?

 

[dave_clark]

maybe he's got you marked as a troublemaker and put you on his banned list?

 

[Account Deleted]

You can't judge things "out of context", that suggestion is nonsense.

 

[chopper15]

I gave a huge list of references last month in a thread that you were on about injury rates in Union and League. I take it you didn't read them?

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=95469#post95469

Sorry, Dr, I'll have a read of #30.

PS. Don't happen to know which one by any chance?

 

[DrSTU]

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=95469#post95469

Sorry, Dr, I'll have a read of #30.

PS. Don't happen to know which one by any chance?

Personally I have not seen any peer reviewed literature that states that bigger, stronger players are causing more injuries. As stated in those papers, the injuries that are occurring last longer not that there are more of them.

 

[barker14610]

Stu, I tried a Medline search and came up empty as well. I did find a report that says cheerleading is the most dangerous US sport

 

[voice of reason]

"....It is one reason why New Zealand selects its school teams according to size and not age. Too many people were being hurt by reckless tackles in physical mismatches...."

This is completely incorrect, I dont know how these "opinions stated as facts" get into articles. in NZ High School / College teams are always selected on age. My Son is 13 and in Year9 / Form3 - 1.70m 60kg plays in teams made up of both Year 9 & year 10 boys some who are 1.90m 80-100kg
this is completely normal through NZ.

Even in Primary school age - Junior school & club rugby is organised on a weight for age basis.
J1 - ages up to 12 open weight up to 70kg
J2 - age 12 - 45kg, Age 11 - 50kg, age 10 - 60kg
J3 - age 11 - 40kg, Age 10 - 45kg, age 9 - 55kg

and so on in every grade there are "Specials" allowed eg boys who maybe over-weight for the grade but receive dispensation. In J1 Grade 75-80kg 12 year olds are not uncommon at all.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"....It is one reason why New Zealand selects its school teams according to size and not age. Too many people were being hurt by reckless tackles in physical mismatches...."

This is completely incorrect, I dont know how these "opinions stated as facts" get into articles. in NZ High School / College teams are always selected on age. My Son is 13 and in Year9 / Form3 - 1.70m 60kg plays in teams made up of both Year 9 & year 10 boys some who are 1.90m 80-100kg
this is completely normal through NZ.

Even in Primary school age - Junior school & club rugby is organised on a weight for age basis.
J1 - ages up to 12 open weight up to 70kg
J2 - age 12 - 45kg, Age 11 - 50kg, age 10 - 60kg
J3 - age 11 - 40kg, Age 10 - 45kg, age 9 - 55kg

and so on in every grade there are "Specials" allowed eg boys who maybe over-weight for the grade but receive dispensation. In J1 Grade 75-80kg 12 year olds are not uncommon at all.

Its a long time since I have been involved in JAB rugby, but when I was I was in Christchurch, it was done a little differently.

Each age grade had two divisions with one regardless of weight and one based on weight.e.g

U15 = Under 15 years, no weight limit

U15W = Under 15 years, under 13 st

U13 = Under 13 years no weight limit

U13W = Under 13 years, under 12 st
etc etc.

Note: cant remember if I have the weights exactly right but you get the picture. This only applied to JAB (club) rugby, not the schools like Christ's College, CBHS, Xavier College, St Bedes, Burnside High etc who ran their grades pretty much as VoR describes.

 

[voice of reason]

Its a long time since I have been involved in JAB rugby, but when I was I was in Christchurch, it was done a little differently.

Ian - the CRFU JAB runs on similar lines to NHRFU & ARU junior weight for age categories - except from memory the upper weight limits are approx 5kg less.
Probably because there are fewer Polynesians in ChCh than up north !

 

[OB..]

When I was living in Maryland there was a major scandal in the Beltway Leagues (gridiron). These were based on weight divisions, and it was discovered that coaches were controlling their players' weights in order not to lose them. Some of these "controls" ranged from inadvisable to illegal.

There is no perfect system.