Rugby 2021-2022 Season

Tomkins is starting to grow on me. He’s deceptively strong.

Is it me or are Silly Dally and Shane the two least insightful co commentators it's possible to have

Dally is awful.  I don't mind wee Shane

Second half much better. Adam’s is such a good winger.

Shane Williams is good. Passionately Welsh but still objectively fair.

Dally is awful. I don’t mind wee Shane

Agreed.
Wales have 30 seconds to score a wonder try

I said it pages ago but he's probably not a top level ref.

he’s probably not a top level ref.

Bit of an understatement

Well, had Wales been halfway competent in the first half we could of won that. England look turgid at the moment.

**** me Woodward is deluded!!! If England play like that v Ireland they'll be destroyed!

I think the only hope for England World Beaters is that they have the green machine in Sweet Chariot HQ. France could and should wipe the floor with them in Paris.

After watching all that back to back - France are a cut above. They will need to do something very French not to get a Grand Slam out of this. The offloading game is ridiculously good and so hard to defend against.

What was interesting was the tactical thick headedness of both Wales and England. Neither side is good enough for that much poor decision making. Although kudos for England taking the penalty points when the game was such a mess

**** me Woodward is deluded

As is Martin Johnson..."England will be pleased with their defence"...leaking 3 tries against a not very good attacking team

England will lose to Ireland and France. Batering away with no clue at Wales in the second half exposed thier usual lack of ideas / playmakers.

I really like marcus Smith and whilst he scored the majority of England's points, I'm not sure how he received man of the match.
Winning away at Twickenham is never easy, so I thought there were a few things to be pleased with from Wales.

I like Smith but thought he looked quite dodgy in the tackle today.

**** me Woodward is deluded!!!

I watched the match, I know nothing about rugby except for the fact that he seems to know less than me. 🙂

Was lovely to see acuthbert back to his rampaging best yesterday, maybe not as quick as he was but Nowel hardly laid a finger on him all game!! After his extended break down in a Wales shirt where everything he touched went wrong yesterday was a real delight for him I'm sure.

I like Smith but thought he looked quite dodgy in the tackle today.

Yep, when he's not hidden on the wing he's a target, little Timmy Tompkins was blasting through the England midfield second half. Henshaw or Aki v Smith and Slade could get ugly

Off to take my son to play Farnham today, will have to suffer someone telling me Wilkinson started playing here every 3mins!! 😜

I'm not sure how entertaining this Ireland v Italy game will be - there's little doubt Ireland will be far to good.
However, it would be good to see enough from Italy to suggest they can give Scotland a run for their money when they play them in Rome in two weeks time.

Ireland look good. Although I'm sure the build up to the first try Doris' pass was forward

well that red card has ruined the game

Yep, no point watching now : (

Yep. A red but this why it ruins the game. Uncontested scrums?

Well, if the tackler could bend his knees and not smash the ball carrier’s chin with his shoulder, he might mitigate the risk of ruining the game. Granted, I see your point in it possibly ruining the game as a spectacle. He had plenty of time to get lower. He didn’t. Red card. It’s not like it should come as a surprise.

13 players. It's not a game.down a winger down an 8.
Ref told 8 to leave the pitch then because it's uncontested there must be 8 in the scrum.
So any defensive scrum will have 5 backs,

I agree with the red card but it still ruins the game as now they are down to 13

Ok, so it’s kinda just a training game now for the green machine. Red cards don’t ruin games. The player who has recklessly got himself the red card has ruined the game.

The Laws are an arse.

Red card was fair. No hooker on the bench so a prop is brought on to “stand” in the front row at the expense of someone on the field.

And then loose another player because the laws are a ****ing joke.

I feel for Italy there. It was going to be really tough afternoon with 14 players, 13 players it’s an absolute thrashing.

It’s a ****ing joke.

Can you tell I’m angry?

Can you tell I’m angry?

Thank **** it’s not an Irish referee as well. 😀

"If a front-row player is sent off, and the team cannot continue with contested scrums with players already on the field, then the team nominates another player to leave the playing area to enable an available front-row player to come on. The nominated player may act as a replacement."

Does that not read as sub? I don't read that as you go to 13. It reads as though you are at 14, off pops a winger in pops a prop. Still 14.

It does to me too, I still can't understand the 13 players thing.
To be fair, Italy are doing a great job considering.

But in the event of a red card to a front row player, and then it goes uncontested scrums, Law 3.19 / 3.20

If it happened later in the game and there are no fit front row players, then I’m not sure??????

That's 3.20 I've quoted.

Why is charging down a kick OK? If it was from a thrown pass, rather than a kick then it be a knock on at best, probably deliberate knock on and yellow card.

Rugby rules make no sense.

So Ireland could now sub the pack, apart from the front row, with backs.

Just watched the start up to the red card. Italy got a surprising amount of success at the break down. Thought the ref got the red card slot on and handled everything very well. Couldn't be arsed to watch the rest.

He had plenty of time to get lower. He didn’t.

How much time did he have? Plenty in the slo-mo replay but how much in real life?

It's a sport where big fast blokes run at eachother and, with the best will in the world, sometimes heads will be involved in collisions. The ref was right in his decision (as the law stands) but, as A_A points out, you couldn't be bothered to watch any more.

The point of all this "protect the head" stuff is safety. That's somewhat misguided seeing as most concussions are suffered by the tackler not the tacklee. If refs don't have leeway to use their own judgement subjectively then you end up with farcical results like today.

I saw a Super rugby game last year where the ball carrier slipped and the tackler almost took his head off. The ref didn't even give a penalty and the whole crowd stood and applauded as they weren't subjected to interminable replays and a man getting sent off and the game being ruined.

The enforcement of the law is an ass. It's ruining the game. The key to avoiding concussions is monitoring and managing blows to the head not forensically examining every slo-mo detail so the refs can dish out cards like confetti.

The failure to manage Thomas Francis' head injury on Saturday was far more dangerous than anything else I've seen this weekend.

I saw a Super rugby game last year where the ball carrier slipped

allowed for in tbe rules.   There is subjectivity and also also in some circumstances mitigation is allowed.  Attempt at a legal tackle that gores wrong ie the tackled player slips - mitigation can be applied.  No attempt at a legal tackle ie it was always high - no mitigation can be applied

Indeed. But hey, the game’s gone soft and the laws’ prevention of players injuring one another’s heads to the point of long term injury is hindering my enjoyment of the game!

“Are you not entertained?”

Indeed. But hey, the game’s gone soft and the laws’ prevention of players injuring one another’s heads to the point of long term injury is hindering my enjoyment of the game!

“Are you not entertained

What a pathetic response.

I made a perfectly reasonable point that monitoring and managing brain injuries is the way forward in minimizing concussions. There's no evidence at all that the current application of the laws regarding contact to the head is having ANY effect on concussion rates.

There should be a distinction between dirty or reckless play and accidental contact - but there isn't. As a result there are lots of nonsensical sendings off.

My 7 and 9yr old sons both play. I want them playing the safest game possible. The Italy red card and the failure to take Francis off the pitch demonstrate that World Rugby is getting it badly wrong.

There should be a distinction between dirty or reckless play and accidental contact – but there isn’t. As a result there are lots of nonsensical sendings off.

There is.

I read that post from DD as sarcasm BTW

There should be a distinction between dirty or reckless play and accidental contact

I don't think there should be (obviously if someone clotheslines someone that's different from being too knackered to get low enough in the tackle but the immediate outcome should be the same, let the citing commission decide on intent and length of punishment).

Players have to be strongly discouraged from going in high and risking a mis-timing in an attempt to make the dominant tackle or to wrap up the ball carrier.

We need to get away from this idea that a red card is a judgment on your character. It should be purely down to the fact that the way the player is playing is a danger to others.

I often see the argument that big players simply can't get low enough to tackle smaller players safely. Isn't rugby supposed to be a game for all shapes and sizes?

Where was the distinction on Sunday? There was nothing dirty or reckless in that tackle. There was contact between the head and shoulder. Why wouldn't it just be a penalty? Why a red card?

Cipriani got sent off for Gloucester a couple of seasons back. He kinda lent into the contact and pushed himself off to regain his position in the defensive line as another defender made the tackle. His shoulder happened to touch against the ball carrier's head. There was no impact as such. Contact to head - red card. Pointless.

Yes, I did get the sarcasm. I just didn't find it funny or helpful to the debate.

On the subject of slipping, that's already taken into account.

If a player is in a position to make a safe tackle and the ball carrier slips and there is contact with the head that's already not considered a penalty.

If the tackler is in a poor position and the ball carrier's head happens to dip 2 inches before that shouldn't be mitigation.

Where was the distinction on Sunday? There was nothing dirty or reckless in that tackle

A red card should not be a judgement on a player's character (that they are dirty or reckless). It should be a tool used to force players and coaches to adjust technique to minimize the chances of getting a red card.

. It should be a tool used to force players and coaches to adjust technique to minimize the chances of getting a red card

It's a valid point but the nature of the game dictates that it's impossible to completely avoid contact to the head at all times so should everyone be red carded all the time?

I don't know what % of concussions are suffered by the player being tackled but blows to the head occur all over the pitch in many, varying circumstances. Why single out the ball carrier alone?

It’s a valid point but the nature of the game dictates that it’s impossible to completely avoid contact to the head at all times so should everyone be red carded all the time?

The idea is that everyone gets red carded until players and coaches adjust their technique.

The problem is that southern hemisphere refs are not applying the laws in the same way as northern hemisphere refs. Refs need to get an absolute bollocking for ignoring head contact but it just doesn't seem to be happening. The inconsistency is causing confusion which is why a Georgian referee is getting dogs abuse for making a 100% correct decision in his first 6 Nations game.

Look at tip tackles. It was an issue for a while until players and coaches adjusted and now it's very uncommon to see anyone doing it.

Same with the hit in the air.  when did you last see a player being cartwheeled?  Used to be common ow it is no more.  Players will adapt and stop the tackling high but it will take a season or two

Players will adapt and stop the tackling high but it will take a season or two

If it's applied consistently which, at the moment, is not happening.

Or rather, it's being applied fairly consistently on a hemisphere basis but not across the entire world, imo.

What actually causes most rugby concussion? The biggest impacts I see are forwards smashing in headfirst at rucks.

Personally I would like to see a maximum team total weight allowance, to stop the arms war of player bulk. The current carding rules are just tinkering at the edges instead of tackling the root cause.

Watching a Rugby League game makes me wince these days, as they seem to be ignoring the whole issue.

a Georgian referee is getting dogs abuse for making a 100% correct decision

The ref applied the laws as he's instructed. No criticism there.

But if anyone thinks Italy going down to 13 men for 60 minutes was a satisfactory outcome for the incident then maybe they've had too many blows to the head.

In the Francis incident, he and Watkin both took blows to the head. They were both tackling Ewels. Francis should've been removed from the pitch based on the fact that he fell over whilst trying to get to his feet and then staggered against the post once he'd got to his feet. These are "Criteria 1 Symptoms" and a player should be removed immediately and not return. The ref subsequently sent him for an HIA which he passed but 20% of Criteria 1 players pass HIAs anyway - the point being he shouldn't have had an HIA at all.

The vast majority of concussions are not suffered by the ball carrier. Red carding every slightly high tackle, no matter how inocuous, is not the way forward. Identifying and monitoring blows to the head and managing subsequent brain injuries is.

Personally I would like to see a maximum team total weight allowance, to stop the arms war of player bulk. The current carding rules are just tinkering at the edges instead of tackling the root cause.

That's one option but I think that finding ways to get the players running around more would help a lot.

Thing is, you could potentially kill two birds with one stone here. Often the reason players go in high is to wrap and prevent the ball carrier off-loading in the tackle. Misjudging these types of tackles is what leads to head contact.

If players were carded everytime they made contact with the head, regardless of intent, then they would have to start getting lower in the tackle which would lead to more off-loads in the tackle which would mean more time running back and less time sprinting forward when the ball is out of the ruck, resetting the line when the next ruck forms, and then sprinting forward again. This style of play favours larger players whereas a game where the ball is being kept alive is going to favour players who aren't carrying as much bulk.

Or maybe not, who knows.

But if anyone thinks Italy going down to 13 men for 60 minutes was a satisfactory outcome for the incident then maybe they’ve had too many blows to the head.

Classy.

It doesn't really matter if an individual game is 'ruined'. The idea is that all games are better in two or three seasons time.

I assume you remember Sam Warburton's red card in the WC semi-final? How many tackles do you see like that these days?

Red carding every slightly high tackle, no matter how inocuous, is not the way forward.

It worked for tackles in the air and tip tackles. Could we not try this for a season or two before we call the experiment a failure?

Mostly good points Bruce.

Whilst I obviously disagree with red carding every contact to the head by the tackler - if you want to be consistent then why not red card every player who makes contact to the head of any other player at any point no matter what they're doing?

Otherwise, I agree. We need lighter players which could be achieved by - No subs except for injuries (max 3) and maybe fewer players on the field altogether?

. It doesn’t really matter if an individual game is ‘ruined’. The idea is that all games are better in two or three seasons time

Yeah but I don't think this will make all games better in a few years time.

Tip tackling is a very specific issue but concussion is a broad issue. There will always be contact to the head when thirty big blokes are colliding with eachother for 80 minutes. You can't legislate for everything.

if you want to be consistent then why not red card every player who makes contact to the head of any other player at any point no matter what they’re doing?

I think the question you have to ask is, is there a fundamental technique that we can change to reduce the instances of head contact?

If there is and players aren't making that adjustment then yes, change the rules and red card to your heart's content until that fundamental behaviour is changed

Tip tackling is a very specific issue but concussion is a broad issue

Concussion is a broad issue but reducing head contact in the tackle is a specific issue (as is reducing head contact in the ruck).

Remember, tip/dump tackles were also part of the concussion issue.

You aren't going to find a silver bullet for the concussion issue. Once head contact in the tackle has been eliminated/reduced you go looking for the next behaviour that can be changed.

I think the question you have to ask is, is there a fundamental technique that we can change to reduce the instances of head contact

If the answer was a "yes" then I'd agree totally.

Tackles don't always happen like an RFU instructional video though. The tackler gets hurt more than the tacklee but I've rarely seen a ball carrier penalised for dipping a shoulder into a tackler's head.

Players are different sizes. People come in at different angles. People are off balance. People duck or stand up more going into contact. It's impossible to legislate for it all.....

You aren’t going to find a silver bullet for the concussion issue. Once head contact in the tackle has been eliminated/reduced you go looking for the next behaviour that can be changed

It's a good point but how are you going to stop the tackler banging his head?

Players are different sizes. People come in at different angles. People are off balance. People duck or stand up more going into contact. It’s impossible to legislate for it all…..

That's true, but in the case we are talking about here it seems clear that the player went in high to wrap and prevent the offload. This is a specific behaviour we can and should change.

And yes, players are different sizes. As I said, one of the complaints I often hear is that it's too difficult for large players to get down low enough to tackle smaller players safely every time.

We've just been talking about how the size of players needs to be reduced. Isn't this the perfect opportunity to encourage more Peter Stringers and Shane Williams into the game if we make it an advantage to be tiny?

Isn’t this the perfect opportunity to encourage more Peter Stringers and Shane Williams into the game if we make it an advantage to be tiny?

I totally agree but you still need your Martin Bayfield types to win the lineout so when they run into eachother - there'll be trouble! 😆

It’s a good point but how are you going to stop the tackler banging his head?

You can't but this is where it becomes even more important to reduce the mass and energy of the collisions.

I've given two examples of how continuing to enforce this rule may lead to a reduction in the size of players.

I’ve given two examples of how continuing to enforce this rule may lead to a reduction in the size of players

You have. I appreciated it.

The size\weight needs to be reduced. 7s is now a better game to watch than XVs.

7s is now a better game to watch than XVs.

If Marcus Smith isn't involved, can it even really be called rugby?

If Marcus Smith isn’t involved, can it even really be called rugby?

😆😆😆

Methinks you've been paying too much attention to the English media.....

He just has a man crush on Smiths hair!  Romaine Ntamack for me - the best hair in the 6N

......certailnly better than the latest round of front row hairstyles !!!

Romaine Ntamack for me – the best hair in the 6N

I concur. I watched him closely at Murrayfield and never a hair out of place.

However, best hair in 6N history? Has to be Dimitri Szarzewski. How you can stick your head into the middle of a scrum yet still emerge as if you've just walked out of a L'Oréal advert is beyond comprehension....

I think it was Rapheal Ibanez who when asked about Szarzewski said - " a very good player but too pretty for the front row but a few scrums will change that"

the failure to take Francis off the pitch demonstrate that World Rugby is getting it badly wrong

He did go off and then came back on as he was fine...

He did go off and then came back on as he was fine

The protocol is that if you're clearly dazed and have a loss of balance you go straight off and do not return. No HIA is administered.

If you watch the video of him after the tackle, he clearly wasn't fine.

If you watch the video of him after the tackle, he clearly wasn’t fine.

Fair enough I didn't see that.

Fair enough I didn’t see that

Yeah I hadn't realised either until I read a piece about it and went back and looked.

There are supposed to be medics watching and intervening if they see such things. Even if a player passed an HIA doctors can still order the player to stay off if they've seen such symptoms.

The question has to be, why wasn't that done on Saturday?

If that was your kid you wouldn't want them playing on after stumbling around like that, would you? Be they an Under 9 or a seasoned international.

HIAs seem to be considered differently by different countries / leagues / clubs.  some seem to see the 15 mins as time to get them fit to return rather than an assessment of if they are fit to return although this has reduced over the years.

Scotland and the two clubs here seem very cautious over this - Price on Saturday is the only time I can remember a Scots player returning after an HIA and he was clearly fine with no HIA needed even.

Its time to ramp up the seriousness with which this is taken IMO

and start fining / blacklist coaches who do not take it seriously

As an aside does anyone know what the fallout was over that disgraceful nonsense over an HIA in the u20s?

I completely agree about reducing the number of players on the field. More space will create more mobile players. Speed and power will still be important, but so will endurance. Reduce the number of subs. Maybe get rid of the flankers?
Also as scrums aren’t working, they just become a set piece, allow feeding straight to the back row.
Maybe get rid of rucks, allow the ball to be played backwards between the tackled players legs…..

Yes, I do prefer RL….sorry!!

You mean "run and wriggle" ?

You mean “run and wriggle” ?

In stereotypical northern accent “big men who run straight!”