Injury/Suspensions List

[Tigerbeat]

Rugby is a contact sport and over the years the authorities have done a lot to clean up the game to prevent injuries. Contact with the head has its consequences and is rightly addressed with protocols including sanctions and HIAs etc.
There have been some incidents in recent weeks (Banahan, Van Wyk, Thorley) where the contact has been head on head and all the players have been red carded and subsequently banned...
In my opinion, these were all rugby accidents and did not warrant a Red card.
There was no intent, no forearm or shoulder aiming for the players head. The tackle was made below shoulder height and heads subsequently clashed, tackling player not leading with his head to make contact. Soon we are going to have an instruction that all tackles must be 6" above the waste........may seem ridiculous but there are going to be accidents and this needs to be recognised. The refs are very much in a tunnel where they cannot deviate from the outcome of a red card being awarded.
Am all for players safety, but there are going to be accidental collisions............it is a contact sport.
Red cards should used for foul play where the contact has been made with a forearm, shoulder etc........

[ads]

Going on the severity of the injuries to the player is ridiculous too! So Banahans accident caused more damage than Hepetemas shoulder to the head so he gets a longer ban?! Laughable!

Banahan injured himself!

[Scott1]

Going on the severity of the injuries to the player is ridiculous too! So Banahans accident caused more damage than Hepetemas shoulder to the head so he gets a longer ban?! Laughable!

Banahan injured himself!

I was talking about the other player. Someone just posted that because he was injured more than Hepetemas victim Van Wyk it meant that his ban was longer. Unless I misread.

[TigerFeetSteve]

Going on the severity of the injuries to the player is ridiculous too! So Banahans accident caused more damage than Hepetemas shoulder to the head so he gets a longer ban?! Laughable!

Banahan injured himself!

I was talking about the other player. Someone just posted that because he was injured more than Hepetemas victim Van Wyk it meant that his ban was longer. Unless I misread.

https://twitter.com/EnglandRugby/status ... 79811?s=19

It was me who posted about the injury, I was just quoting off the tweet from the RFU where it has a tick in the player injured column, what would be the real kick in the teeth is if it does mean himself, that means potentially not only is his ban longer because he injured himself (daft I know) but remember the ban doesn't start until he is deemed fit to play again, that means his injury counts double against him...

[Scott1]

Banahan injured himself!

I was talking about the other player. Someone just posted that because he was injured more than Hepetemas victim Van Wyk it meant that his ban was longer. Unless I misread.

https://twitter.com/EnglandRugby/status ... 79811?s=19

It was me who posted about the injury, I was just quoting off the tweet from the RFU where it has a tick in the player injured column, what would be the real kick in the teeth is if it does mean himself, that means potentially not only is his ban longer because he injured himself (daft I know) but remember the ban doesn't start until he is deemed fit to play again, that means his injury counts double against him...

Thanks TS. In a bit of a tantrum about this whole situation as you’ve probably guessed
Needs ripping up and starting again for me,common sense needed!

[TigerFeetSteve]

I was talking about the other player. Someone just posted that because he was injured more than Hepetemas victim Van Wyk it meant that his ban was longer. Unless I misread.

https://twitter.com/EnglandRugby/status ... 79811?s=19

It was me who posted about the injury, I was just quoting off the tweet from the RFU where it has a tick in the player injured column, what would be the real kick in the teeth is if it does mean himself, that means potentially not only is his ban longer because he injured himself (daft I know) but remember the ban doesn't start until he is deemed fit to play again, that means his injury counts double against him...

Thanks TS. In a bit of a tantrum about this whole situation as you’ve probably guessed
Needs ripping up and starting again for me,common sense needed!

Well I will seriously lose it if the Carreras gouging incident isn't harshly punished, that was a REAL shocker, but after seeing the French guy only got 2 weeks I'm a little nervous that he may get away without the big ban that deserves...

[Tiglon]

We have to remember what the authorities are trying to achieve here. They aren't trying to get rid of intentional head contact, they're trying to get rid of all avoidable head contact.

The message to Van Wyk is that you need to tackle lower. If you go in completely upright you risk head contact. In fact it's pretty likely you're going to make head contact if you run in upright at another upright person.

Just. Tackle. Lower.

[ads]

Just checked the video to the game and it seems the quins player that Banahan tackled got straght up and didn't look injured to me!!

2:01.07 into the video below:

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/watch/ ... y-round-14

[Tigerbeat]

Has Carreras been cited?

[OakhamTiger32]

Has Carreras been cited?

https://www.ruck.co.uk/premiership-star ... -the-eyes/

An RFU statement reads: "Mateo Carreras of Newcastle Falcons will appear before an online independent disciplinary panel on Wednesday evening (24 March 2021)”

[Big Dai]

We have to remember what the authorities are trying to achieve here. They aren't trying to get rid of intentional head contact, they're trying to get rid of all avoidable head contact.

The message to Van Wyk is that you need to tackle lower. If you go in completely upright you risk head contact. In fact it's pretty likely you're going to make head contact if you run in upright at another upright person.

Just. Tackle. Lower.

Great...but at the moment, if you tackle at a level where head on head contact is likely but it doesn't happen there is no penalty. Have a clash of heads and it's a red card.

Doesn't seem quite right. IMHO

[Scott1]

Willemse got 2 weeks?! What?????!!!

[TigerFeetSteve]

Willemse got 2 weeks?! What?????!!!

Stated it was only "contact with the eye area" not either "intentional contact with the eye" or "reckless contact with the eye" and insufficient evidence to the contrary meant it only went in as a low end breach at that. So 4 weeks, down to 2 due to no previous...

https://twitter.com/RugbyInsideLine/sta ... 01479?s=19

I hope the RFU citing committee don't take that sort of line with the Carreras...

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

Willemse got 2 weeks?! What?????!!!

Stated it was only "contact with the eye area" not either "intentional contact with the eye" or "reckless contact with the eye" and insufficient evidence to the contrary meant it only went in as a low end breach at that. So 4 weeks, down to 2 due to no previous...

https://twitter.com/RugbyInsideLine/sta ... 01479?s=19

I hope the RFU citing committee don't take that sort of line with the Carreras...

I'm really surprised it wasn't deemed reckless contact with the eye - can only assume that Willemse's fingers were on the cheekbone & brow.

Also assume it was longer & reduced for good record & behaviour etc.

[ourla]

Rugby is a contact sport and over the years the authorities have done a lot to clean up the game to prevent injuries. Contact with the head has its consequences and is rightly addressed with protocols including sanctions and HIAs etc.
There have been some incidents in recent weeks (Banahan, Van Wyk, Thorley) where the contact has been head on head and all the players have been red carded and subsequently banned...
In my opinion, these were all rugby accidents and did not warrant a Red card.
There was no intent, no forearm or shoulder aiming for the players head. The tackle was made below shoulder height and heads subsequently clashed, tackling player not leading with his head to make contact. Soon we are going to have an instruction that all tackles must be 6" above the waste........may seem ridiculous but there are going to be accidents and this needs to be recognised. The refs are very much in a tunnel where they cannot deviate from the outcome of a red card being awarded.
Am all for players safety, but there are going to be accidental collisions............it is a contact sport.
Red cards should used for foul play where the contact has been made with a forearm, shoulder etc........

Your post is contradictory:

If "Contact with the head has its consequences and is rightly addressed with protocols including sanctions and HIAs etc." how can you then say "In my opinion, these were all rugby accidents and did not warrant a Red card."? How you would rightly address contact with head with little (sin bin) or no sanction?

You say they tackle's were made "below shoulder height" so how can there be direct contact to the head?

You say it's "accidental" but it's not accidental that they are making upright tackes is it?

Players should ideally be tackling waist or below. Chest height is OK but potentially leads to rising to the neck which becomes foul play. Players agree and accept this, why can't fans?