Rugby players to sue for brain damage!

[Big Dai]

OK, before anyone slags me off for being an old man and not knowing exactly what he's talking about. Injuries come from impinging on another body and the resulting dissipation of energy resulting from that collision. We are not turning back pages here, but chapters. I can't help thinking the laws as they were had a reason for being so and tinkering has just added to the issue.

Two forms of energy, potential and kinetic. Reduce the energy transfer. Reduce the risk of injury.

It's a tackle, not a hit. Cut the collision
and be more stringent on the height. (low and high) I've seen several tackles where there was an attempt to wrap…. But the shoulder has still gone in.

Referee the offside line. A blitz style defence means players are colliding more upright at the gain line. There's no space for a "proper" tackle.

Passive engagement at scrum time. Again reduce the impact. We used to get pinged for charging…...Stephen Hilditch sent a Frenchman off for the offence against England.

Get the game back on the ground. No lifting at line out time. The height those guys get to gives me a nose bleed. Get the mark back on the ground as it used to be.

There should be an offence for "Jumping in". Players getting off the ground to draw the penalty. This is a contentious one but I heard the noise George North made when he hit the deck after landing on Thommo. Thommo got sent off for that one…. But where could he go. Should he just let the soaring North claim the ball and score?

I'll get me coat.

[Tiglon]

OK, before anyone slags me off for being an old man and not knowing exactly what he's talking about. Injuries come from impinging on another body and the resulting dissipation of energy resulting from that collision. We are not turning back pages here, but chapters. I can't help thinking the laws as they were had a reason for being so and tinkering has just added to the issue.

Two forms of energy, potential and kinetic. Reduce the energy transfer. Reduce the risk of injury.

It's a tackle, not a hit. Cut the collision
and be more stringent on the height. (low and high) I've seen several tackles where there was an attempt to wrap…. But the shoulder has still gone in.

Referee the offside line. A blitz style defence means players are colliding more upright at the gain line. There's no space for a "proper" tackle.

Passive engagement at scrum time. Again reduce the impact. We used to get pinged for charging…...Stephen Hilditch sent a Frenchman off for the offence against England.

Get the game back on the ground. No lifting at line out time. The height those guys get to gives me a nose bleed. Get the mark back on the ground as it used to be.

There should be an offence for "Jumping in". Players getting off the ground to draw the penalty. This is a contentious one but I heard the noise George North made when he hit the deck after landing on Thommo. Thommo got sent off for that one…. But where could he go. Should he just let the soaring North claim the ball and score?

I'll get me coat.

Nothing unreasonable there at all.

Wasn't the aerial mark introduced to make it less attractive to kick the ball into the 22 and therefore reduce kicking? If that alone was changed back, would we just see a constant barrage of up and unders into the 22 every game?

For me the main focus should be on reducing frequency and force of collisions. There would be many ways of achieving this, the difficulty is in predicting side effects from any changes.

If tacklers were not allowed to move forward into a tackle, would that eradicate the "hit" and force defenders to make old fashioned tackles? Would it also encourage teams to keep ball in hand? What would be the unintended side effects?

[Big Dai]

I must admit the kick issue is my biggest conundrum. How do you reward a good kick, penalise a bad one and discourage kick tennis?

[Old Hob]

I'm not sure how you could stop "moving forward" into a tackle. Aggressive defences, even chasing a Garryowen would fall foul of this; and what about chasing a man who has gone past you? Surely there would just be a passive defence - not the same game at all. (Unless I've got the meaning all wrong)

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

If the mark goes as was the attacking player will jump for it, the defender either jumps & cant mark or gets pinged when the attacker falls over him..
The 40/20 kick might be the way forward rewarding a good positional kick force the 15 & wings back might make more room to run the ball.
Sorting the ruck area out is imperative for safety & the actual game, it might help to actually realise that if a player isn't upright when tackled it's not a high tackle, for force players to run upright, more chance of an offload, I think there is a chance to solve 2 problems with some lateral thinking.

[Tiglon]

I'm not sure how you could stop "moving forward" into a tackle. Aggressive defences, even chasing a Garryowen would fall foul of this; and what about chasing a man who has gone past you? Surely there would just be a passive defence - not the same game at all. (Unless I've got the meaning all wrong)

I don't think you've misunderstood. Aggressive defences would fall foul of it - less aggressive defence would mean reduced force of collisions. If you're chasing a man (or woman) who has gone past you, you're not moving forwards into the tackle (in relation to the pitch). The biggest problem for me would be how you would allow teams to defend on their own lines without it just being a try every time.

Anyway, I'm not actually proposing that, it's just a "what if"...

I'm not even sure the tackle collisions are a problem any more - particular not if we're talking about head injury. Is it just the "breakdown" that needs to be changed?

[LE18]

I wasn't aware until today that the Women do not have HIA. I also fear for their health through blows to the chest area, and why this doesn't seen a concern in women's boxing? Injury in that area can cause cancer.

[Big Dai]

In the old days wasn't it a "Ball unplayable, scrum" call? Again this might all be fond nostalgia, but it seemed to come fairly quickly in the case of slowd ball.

The other issue is the repeated latch and drive near the line. It's pick your offence. Early latch in attack or offside in defence.

Why not scrum 5 this after a couple of attempts?

[Tiglon]

In the old days wasn't it a "Ball unplayable, scrum" call? Again this might all be fond nostalgia, but it seemed to come fairly quickly in the case of slowd ball.

The other issue is the repeated latch and drive near the line. It's pick your offence. Early latch in attack or offside in defence.

Why not scrum 5 this after a couple of attempts?

Didn't they have a crack down on the early latch and drive in the 90's? I vaguely remember it disappearing back then before gradually reappearing this century...

I think the ball unplayable situation was when players were generally allowed to lie on the wrong side and if you couldn't ruck them out of the way then that's your failure and it's a scrum. Then there were some photos of players post-ruck backs in the media and the rucking was banned, eventually leading to the current rhino impressions which almost certainly cause a lot more harm.

Don't hold me to any of that, I struggle to remember what I did yesterday so I might have imagined most of it...

[Big Dai]

In the old days wasn't it a "Ball unplayable, scrum" call? Again this might all be fond nostalgia, but it seemed to come fairly quickly in the case of slowd ball.

The other issue is the repeated latch and drive near the line. It's pick your offence. Early latch in attack or offside in defence.

Why not scrum 5 this after a couple of attempts?

Didn't they have a crack down on the early latch and drive in the 90's? I vaguely remember it disappearing back then before gradually reappearing this century...

I think the ball unplayable situation was when players were generally allowed to lie on the wrong side and if you couldn't ruck them out of the way then that's your failure and it's a scrum. Then there were some photos of players post-ruck backs in the media and the rucking was banned, eventually leading to the current rhino impressions which almost certainly cause a lot more harm.

Don't hold me to any of that, I struggle to remember what I did yesterday so I might have imagined most of it...

Just having some electronic banter with Posh Richard. Always good sport when Gloucester have not had a particularly good day.

How about playing an exhibition game (Varsity?) under pre 1980 rules as an experiment?

[Old Hob]

The crackdown in the 90s was on "truck and trailer" so called by the Australians in particular and assumed, by everyone else, that the reason they were against it was that they were no good at it

[nasher]

I think they may have a case. Since I played and watched every week the game has changed massively. The modern game ,to me, a a hybrid between rugby league and American football without adequate HIA protocols and padding. Years ago backs were slight, highly skilled at avoiding tackles, jinking, sidestepping, running and passing the ball the likes of Guscott,and Mike Gibson. Today backs are mini dump trucks as big as the forwards and skilled into running hard into the opposition to cause as much damage as possible before recycling the ball and doing it again. This change is probably the cause of increased brain damage. Those responsible are most likely coaches, club management and governing bodies aided and abetted by the media glorifying”bighit” and”smashing into the opposition” this is allowed because the rule book is now secondary to “game management”. I find the current game totally uninteresting despite following tigers for over fifty years, I find difficult to watch a complete game on tv so I do not watch just highlights.
Rant over unless there are changes there will be a death and then the sport may wake up or lose a million pound lawsuit.

[Tiglon]

The fans need to take a share of the blame, we celebrate a big hit as much as the media.

[trendylfj]

No-one wants any injuries but in any contact sport, they do and will continue to happen. The question which has to be answered is what can the lawmakers do to minimize them.

From my POV the ruck is the first place to start. Once the ref calls tackle or ruck no player should be allowed to join from either side. That would reduce the players coming flying in to effect a clear-out. and the 5-second rule starts from that point. If I was really being radical, I would also suggest that the offside line is 5 meters from the back feet. This would also encourage and provide the opportunity for more open play.

Secondly, for kicks from inside or outside the 22 - unless they find touch the kicker is the only one who can put others on-side - everyone else has to retreat - gets rid of the constant kick tennis and the dangerous action of having to catch the ball and being hit by the flying winger at the same time.

Finally, scrummage - I would leave alone. I think it is as good as it can be without going to rugby league style scrums

[mol2]

I wasn't aware until today that the Women do not have HIA. I also fear for their health through blows to the chest area, and why this doesn't seen a concern in women's boxing? Injury in that area can cause cancer.

To the best of my knowledge this is a myth.