Rugby Championship 2022
-
@gt12 said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@junior said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@stodders said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
With more and more ex-players coming out of the woodwork with early onset dementia, World Rugby has to do something about collisions to the head.
They've gone hard and heavy, and unsympathetic to 'happenstance' / 'bad luck' / 'accidental' and most referee teams are flashing RCs for these incidents.
If you go with the 20-min RC then the player has to see some form of match ban down the line.
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
WR has to do away with HIA.
If the player leaves the field due to a head knock then they can't come back on, and they're stood down for 3-weeks like in the old days.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
And WR needs to bring back once the ball-carrier hits the deck they have to either pass immediately or let go of the ball.
This will go a long way to avoiding head contact, speeding up the game, making the tackle area contestable, and punishing those who are unwilling to change their tackle technique.
Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter, Porter.
If the judiciary had given him a 3 week ban like Ta'avo, this sort of thing wouldn't flare up as much. It makes the whole thing appear to be a subjective lottery depending on who the ref is (yellow or red during the match), who the citing officer is (do they disagree with the ref if given a yellow) and who is the judicial committee members (do they disagree with the ref or the citing commissioner). How complicated do you want to make it!
Instead, everyone is now looking if the contact is absorbing or not. What a farce. Who would be a ref now?
If WR are serious about combating head contacts, they can either draw a big red line that says ANY head contact, no matter if it is accidental or absorbing (or any other wiggle-room adjective you want to put in front of the words "head contact") is an automatic red, then fine. Many won't like it, but it is a broad brush. no interpretation needed by refs.
Or they can let accidental head clashes for poor technique, players being off balance, reacting to a player changing direction,, being pushed by someone else into a player etc. be sanctioned with a yellow card, which at least won't cause the furore that it has done and the sanction can then be determined by the judiciary post-game who can take their time to ensure they reach a consistent judgement that supports WR's drive to reduce head contacts.
If a player is a repeat offender, then they will get longer bans unless they change their technique.
I used to hate it, but I am thinking maybe the AFL approach to high contact might be the better way forward. In the AFL, any high contact - no matter how forceful - is an automatic free kick. They also define high contact as basically anything from the shoulders and above, and apply this rule very strictly.
It can be frustrating, because it occasionally leads to free kicks for purely accidental and completely innocuous incidents - think an arm draped over a shoulder - as well as certain players trying to buy free kicks by ducking into contact (but I think this has now been resolved). But what it does do encourage players to avoid any high contact of any nature whatsoever.
What we have in rugby is a situation where some high contact - "high" here being anything at or above chest height - is punished brutally, but in fact most of it is rewarded.
You want to protect the head? Then sanction any contact of any kind that is even remotely close to the head, and then provide harsher punishments for those that actually result in forceful contact to the head. If I know that I could be giving away 3 points basically anytime I go in to make a tackle, I am going to be a lot more careful than if I think I've got a one in 50 chance of getting a red card, but am far more likely to fold my opposite number and kill the opposition's attack.
All that the current situation is doing is protecting WR from massive damages claims - it's doing fuck all for player safety and even less for the game as a spectacle.
This is an interesting idea, but my guess is that 99% of the time, players have the heads facing well above their shoulders, but in rugby it's now so common for players to be leading with the head, that we couldn't go five minutes without 30 penalties.
You'd need to couple it with some tweaks to reward players to go low, and enable contests on the ground without massive collisions.
Maybe there's an onus of care on the carrier too - intentionally dipping into contact becomes forbidden - basically you have to stay upright. Some of the hunchback carrying makes me shake my head -
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Machpants said in Rugby Championship 2022:
Good news
Dumb
It’s done
Move on
Why? There’s two very valid views on this. Does one get to come out on top just because ? Even if the other sees it as detrimental?
World Rugby has said no dice
No?
That’s funny. We’re still part of WR yet….?
It was a trial. The Law Review Group wanted the trial to go worldwide but those that haven’t even tried it shut that idea down. So the trial continues despite the ludditesSo are the enlightened going to continue to plow the furrow in the hope of converting us luddites?
That’s usually how history has panned out.
I’m interested in your take on the flawed logic that a 20 minute red isn’t enough of a deterrent yet a full game red at the 60 minute mark is. Do players get deliberately clumsy after 60 minutes because the deterrent is less in the NH or does it just happen when it happens like everywhere else?
To me there seems to be one side wanting to try something and another group adamant that it wont work without trying it. Given that the points against are based on 'what might happen' and that the current RC system shows little evidence of working well except for an ability to show strong lip service to the head injury issues, why not have a trial?
If WR won't let it happen world wide (as their own advisory group recommended) then why the negativity of collecting data and see in the difference from the SANZAAR teams?"Morris said Sanzaar stands alongside World Rugby’s work on managing foul play and player welfare and will conduct a formal research project during the Rugby Championship, with all comparative findings to be shared with World Rugby at the end of the season.
The aim is to gather the necessary information that allows the 20-minute red card trial to be accepted into the full laws of the game in the future."
With more and more ex-players coming out of the woodwork with early onset dementia, World Rugby has to do something about collisions to the head.
Don’t think there’s any disagreement with that.
They've gone hard and heavy, and unsympathetic to 'happenstance' / 'bad luck' / 'accidental' and most referee teams are flashing RCs for these incidents.
If you go with the 20-min RC then the player has to see some form of match ban down the line.
That’s what happens. To reach the RC threshold it has to be foul play and goes to a ban from judiciary
If you go with RC and off for the duration, then only foul play needs to be reviewed and receive possible further sanction.
See above with regard to foul play. If you are suggesting a lower threshold for Red then your idea falls over if there is, say, a full Red 10 minutes to go from a team well in the lead. Where’s the punishment there?
WR has to do away with HIA.
If the player leaves the field due to a head knock then they can't come back on, and they're stood down for 3-weeks like in the old days.
Would lead to all sorts of “bloodgate” type scenarios and worse, players and teams hiding head knocks as much as they can. Like the old days a bad thing.
Coaches and players need to rethink the tackle area.
Agree. Majority of concussions don’t come from accidental high tackles they are just the more visible element. To use a popular term, the initiatives smack of virtue signalling without dealing with the main causes of bigger athletes, bigger contacts.
And WR needs to bring back once the ball-carrier hits the deck they have to either pass immediately or let go of the ball.
I would remove the pass as well. Go back to the underlying tenet that “rugby is a game played on the feet”. Banning rucking (another virtue signal) has contributed to this problem as now players can join rucks at great force cutting down adjustment time and has exposed heads in the way of charging shoulders.
This will go a long way to avoiding head contact, speeding up the game, making the tackle area contestable, and punishing those who are unwilling to change their tackle technique.
This unwilling concept is what pisses me off the most in the argument. Why is there a narrative that players/coaches are unwilling? If the laws allow you to tackle above the nipple line and ball carriers to lead with the head then the advantages of doing so will be used or rather you wouldn’t weaken yourself by not playing to the limit of the law. For WR to allow risky situations and accidents to be a consequence really is putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff while leaving a road along the edge.
Easily 90 odd percent of the head contacts we are seeing reds for are accidents or clumsy due to slow reactions. That’s why spectators are annoyed that games they are paying to watch (and it is a commercial game) are being ruined as an even contest on the whim of a marginal decision. Hence the 20 minute mitigation.
I still haven’t heard a strong argument that supports the “less deterrent” concept. Deterrents only work for deliberate acts.I would be more than happy for full reds if the laws changed so that when high tackles occurred it was obviously a transgression by its very nature.
-
It would be interesting to see when reds were awarded in full red card games. Because, according to the NH twenty minutes is not enough deterrent. So you'd expect the major of reds too be in the last half an hour or so. Or maybe they're just talking shit
-
I wonder sometimes what it would be like if instead of the plethora of cards we penalise teams points wise. For example, instead of a 15 minute yellow card we have a 15 minute period where each score by the non offending team is worth more. That way we keep 15 on 15 and the infringing team is punished.
Maybe something similar for red card scenarios, I don't know.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Rugby Championship 2022:
I wonder sometimes what it would be like if instead of the plethora of cards we penalise teams points wise. For example, instead of a 15 minute yellow card we have a 15 minute period where each score by the non offending team is worth more. That way we keep 15 on 15 and the infringing team is punished.
Maybe something similar for red card scenarios, I don't know.
It's already difficult enough
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Rugby Championship 2022:
I wonder sometimes what it would be like if instead of the plethora of cards we penalise teams points wise. For example, instead of a 15 minute yellow card we have a 15 minute period where each score by the non offending team is worth more. That way we keep 15 on 15 and the infringing team is punished.
Maybe something similar for red card scenarios, I don't know.
Given that we already have teams scrumming for penalties, I think the reverse incentive here might see teams playing for high shots.
We’d definitely have players even more all over the ref for anything slightly high / making head contact.
-
@gt12 said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crazy-Horse said in Rugby Championship 2022:
I wonder sometimes what it would be like if instead of the plethora of cards we penalise teams points wise. For example, instead of a 15 minute yellow card we have a 15 minute period where each score by the non offending team is worth more. That way we keep 15 on 15 and the infringing team is punished.
Maybe something similar for red card scenarios, I don't know.
Given that we already have teams scrumming for penalties, I think the reverse incentive here might see teams playing for high shots.
We’d definitely have players even more all over the ref for anything slightly high / making head contact.
Yep. Of course this will happen. In a game where the difference between winning and losing is paper thin, any advantage will be sought (sadly). Professionalism drives out a lot of the values that were valued under amateurism. Winning is what counts. By any means necessary.
-
you know why rugby fucking sucks down here compared to that tiny little corner pocket of Europe?
For the first two weeks of this supposedly prime competition, the games are 1am and 5am Aus time. Number of casuals that will watch either? 0.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby Championship 2022:
you know why rugby fucking sucks down here compared to that tiny little corner pocket of Europe?
For the first two weeks of this supposedly prime competition, the games are 1am and 5am Aus time. Number of casuals that will watch either? 0.
It's better than the Wallabies playing the ABs first up and getting pumped - simultaneously losing any chance at the Bledisloe and The Rugby Championship in the space of 2 games - which has been the case for the last decade.
-
@mariner4life and that would be the great thing if a domestic comp was a bigger focus...these 3am games would be the icing on the top...and event....rather than being told this is the most important thing
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@mariner4life and that would be the great thing if a domestic comp was a bigger focus...these 3am games would be the icing on the top...and event....rather than being told this is the most important thing
our entire structure is archaic and fucked.
-
-
@Bovidae said in Rugby Championship 2022:
SA is quite happy to have afternoon tests, even if that time is the worst for NZ/Aust viewers. But down this part of the world our broadcasters still want evening tests to maximise revenue.
NZR did run a big survey which many of us responded to and outcome was that the majority here want to watch in he evening. The deeper rugby fans like afternoons and that's why NPC is mainly a daytime thing now. They did also pull kick offs forward by half an hour on that feedback
-
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Bovidae said in Rugby Championship 2022:
SA is quite happy to have afternoon tests, even if that time is the worst for NZ/Aust viewers. But down this part of the world our broadcasters still want evening tests to maximise revenue.
NZR did run a big survey which many of us responded to and outcome was that the majority here want to watch in he evening. The deeper rugby fans like afternoons and that's why NPC is mainly a daytime thing now. They did also pull kick offs forward by half an hour on that feedback
Problem with this line of thinking is that you end up catering for those who are marginal/casual fans and haven't made any investment in the game; but you think they might throw a couple dollars in the pool so you invest in them at the expense of the core fan who has propped up the game in the past and present but possibly not the future because you continue to alienate them!
Genius honestly and reason #467 to rocket marketing people into the sun.
-
@Frye said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Bovidae said in Rugby Championship 2022:
SA is quite happy to have afternoon tests, even if that time is the worst for NZ/Aust viewers. But down this part of the world our broadcasters still want evening tests to maximise revenue.
NZR did run a big survey which many of us responded to and outcome was that the majority here want to watch in he evening. The deeper rugby fans like afternoons and that's why NPC is mainly a daytime thing now. They did also pull kick offs forward by half an hour on that feedback
Problem with this line of thinking is that you end up catering for those who are marginal/casual fans and haven't made any investment in the game; but you think they might throw a couple dollars in the pool so you invest in them at the expense of the core fan who has propped up the game in the past and present but possibly not the future because you continue to alienate them!
Genius honestly and reason #467 to rocket marketing people into the sun.
Fantastic jumping to conclusions.
IIRC the survey also asked how often you attended live games, what levels you watched, how often you watched etc etc
I have no idea how they analysed the results but it was far from simply 'what time do you want games to start' -
@Frye said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Bovidae said in Rugby Championship 2022:
SA is quite happy to have afternoon tests, even if that time is the worst for NZ/Aust viewers. But down this part of the world our broadcasters still want evening tests to maximise revenue.
NZR did run a big survey which many of us responded to and outcome was that the majority here want to watch in he evening. The deeper rugby fans like afternoons and that's why NPC is mainly a daytime thing now. They did also pull kick offs forward by half an hour on that feedback
Problem with this line of thinking is that you end up catering for those who are marginal/casual fans and haven't made any investment in the game; but you think they might throw a couple dollars in the pool so you invest in them at the expense of the core fan who has propped up the game in the past and present but possibly not the future because you continue to alienate them!
Genius honestly and reason #467 to rocket marketing people into the sun.
I doubt marginal/casual fans would be interested enough to complete that survey.
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Frye said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Crucial said in Rugby Championship 2022:
@Bovidae said in Rugby Championship 2022:
SA is quite happy to have afternoon tests, even if that time is the worst for NZ/Aust viewers. But down this part of the world our broadcasters still want evening tests to maximise revenue.
NZR did run a big survey which many of us responded to and outcome was that the majority here want to watch in he evening. The deeper rugby fans like afternoons and that's why NPC is mainly a daytime thing now. They did also pull kick offs forward by half an hour on that feedback
Problem with this line of thinking is that you end up catering for those who are marginal/casual fans and haven't made any investment in the game; but you think they might throw a couple dollars in the pool so you invest in them at the expense of the core fan who has propped up the game in the past and present but possibly not the future because you continue to alienate them!
Genius honestly and reason #467 to rocket marketing people into the sun.
I doubt marginal/casual fans would be interested enough to complete that survey.
Yeah it didn't get marketed out to casuals, it was pretty much a survey of those engaged with the sport at some level.
-
Stuff
