Injury news

[jgriffin]

My personal opinion is that it was the Jonah Lomu effect, followed by the influx of RL coaches into RU with increasing influence on defensive systems that started the damage. Because you can tackle upright the immediate defensive need in RL is to get up quick and stifle development of play for 5 tackles. However in RU you have to do that until the next mistake (like in old RL), which I can assure takes a long time!

So defensive lines have to get up fast and very hard. As they do so (viz Wasps under Edwards tuition) attacks have to either get very evasive or front up physically. Evasive works when you have space in front of you, which you don't always have, especally with the offside line being on the back foot AND reffing teams being hopeless at enforcing it; being big and fast as a back does drag in defenders and largely nullifies their hits. Then we get into a war of attrition.
Most modern sides try to mix 'n match evasion and force, but overall the trend is to go for bigger and bigger.

The other factor is the laissez-faire attitude to the tackle area, where for the last 6 years or more the multiple flying bellyflops and the shoulder-missile have percolated from the SH via the Pro12 into everyones play. Too often players get hit, after the initial tackle, by random players from any old direction flying in; supporting players often get clobbered as collateral damage. Shoulder, trunk and knee injuries follow (impact and/or rotation) as well as hamstrings (because most hamstring injuries in running activities are caused by eccentric loading, absorption of impact rather than concentric extension, and unexpected impact can drive a player back on a static, isometric contraction - that rips fibres).

[MurphysLaw]

[quote="tigerburnie"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29456488

It is getting to the alarming stage how many serious injuries are happening, makes you wonder if the game needs to be looked at here. I don't recall how this injury occured, but as the players get bigger and the hits get harder, more damage seems to be happening.[/quote]

Yup, and JG's post just about sums it up.
For those posters telling us that this is a problem particular to Tigers,and pointing fingers at the training/fitness regime, well it isn't.
Johnson's situation seems similar to that of a couple of the Tigers players recently in that medical advice to wait to see if injuries heal without resorting to surgery has unfortunately not worked.

As an aside,there was an interesting article in last Sunday's Observer magazine (sorry no link) about schoolboy rugby, questioning whether it is now too dangerous. As with the pro game, some, especially older boys, are getting bigger and the number of injuries at this level is also increasing. No calls yet for rugby to be banned, but more a desire to make people aware of the risks, and to make it safer and enjoyable. I think there will come a time soon when the governing bodies of the sport will need to take a look at ways to mitigate this, perhaps through tweeks to rules and laws, and/or better refereeing.

[G.K]

As many have said and as JG repeats yet again if the refs would simply enforce the laws correctly at the breakdown to stop players hurtling in to rucks, often not through the gate, and going off their feet and often leading with their shoulders then at least some of the injuries may not occur.

It's somewhat pointless to discuss tweaking the laws when refs don't correctly apply the current ones.

[MurphysLaw]

Hence the point about better refereeing. However, tweaking the rules in a way which clarifies grey areas, and/or makes things more obvious and therefore easier to referee would be far from pointless.

[GS]

As many have said and as JG repeats yet again if the refs would simply enforce the laws correctly at the breakdown to stop players hurtling in to rucks, often not through the gate, and going off their feet and often leading with their shoulders then at least some of the injuries may not occur.

It's somewhat pointless to discuss tweaking the laws when refs don't correctly apply the current ones.

Well Mr Garner did just that to stop Crane from doing it again. I couldn't see any reason for what JC did other than to injure the prop he hit.

[Rykard]

As many have said and as JG repeats yet again if the refs would simply enforce the laws correctly at the breakdown to stop players hurtling in to rucks, often not through the gate, and going off their feet and often leading with their shoulders then at least some of the injuries may not occur.

It's somewhat pointless to discuss tweaking the laws when refs don't correctly apply the current ones.

Well Mr Garner did just that to stop Crane from doing it again. I couldn't see any reason for what JC did other than to injure the prop he hit.

tbh cranes shoulder didn't seem that hard to me, whereas some of the clearing out at the start of a ruck seems a lot 'harder' , all angles off feet etc. I agree with the comments above , if that was stopped then there would be fewer injuries - in recent times both oty and hartley did there shoulders trying to clear out..

[MurphysLaw]

It's not looking good for Louis......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29459293

Seems a temporary replacement is being sort.

[Rykard]

that is not good news, but hopefully caught before it is debilitating for him.

[4071]

It's not looking good for Louis......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29459293

Seems a temporary replacement is being sort.

It's probably about time he did retire for the benefit of his long-term future. There was talk of him having to retire about 3 years ago with this same recurring back injury. He's done :censored: well to carry on this far, but his long-term health has to be a consideration.

I gather the latest injury replacement is to be Lou Reed. He's not very good, but then again there aren't going to be any good players knocking about at this stage of the season.

The injury dispensation cap is only 400k. We have to be close to that already and the season has barely started....

[Rykard]

It's not looking good for Louis......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29459293

Seems a temporary replacement is being sort.

It's probably about time he did retire for the benefit of his long-term future. There was talk of him having to retire about 3 years ago with this same recurring back injury. He's done :censored: well to carry on this far, but his long-term health has to be a consideration.

I gather the latest injury replacement is to be Lou Reed. He's not very good, but then again there aren't going to be any good players knocking about at this stage of the season.

The injury dispensation cap is only 400k. We have to be close to that already and the season has barely started....

if he has to retire that would take him out of the injury dispensation pot

[jgriffin]

It's not looking good for Louis......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29459293

Seems a temporary replacement is being sort.

It's probably about time he did retire for the benefit of his long-term future. There was talk of him having to retire about 3 years ago with this same recurring back injury. He's done :censored: well to carry on this far, but his long-term health has to be a consideration.

I gather the latest injury replacement is to be Lou Reed. He's not very good, but then again there aren't going to be any good players knocking about at this stage of the season.

The injury dispensation cap is only 400k. We have to be close to that already and the season has barely started....

Well he's going to be a lot of use, he died recently. John Cale's still up-and-running (though he's Welsh) and so is Mo Tucker (but she's allegedly a woman....)

[kpj tiger]

Apparently the dispensation player will come from a UK team not in England, had a quick scan of the locks possibly available and as well as Lou Reed (mentioned above) is there a possibility of Tom Ryder returning from Glasgow ?

[h's dad]

It's not looking good for Louis......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29459293

Seems a temporary replacement is being sort.

It's probably about time he did retire for the benefit of his long-term future. There was talk of him having to retire about 3 years ago with this same recurring back injury. He's done :censored: well to carry on this far, but his long-term health has to be a consideration.

I gather the latest injury replacement is to be Lou Reed. He's not very good, but then again there aren't going to be any good players knocking about at this stage of the season.

The injury dispensation cap is only 400k. We have to be close to that already and the season has barely started....

If Louis does retire, the cost of any replacement (less any terminal payments) are not eligible for the injury dispensation pot and come under the normal salary cap as the club will be saving the salary of the retired player which can then be used for any incoming player.

Any insurance payouts are excluded from the salary cap as the insurance premiums are included in the salary cap.

[G.K]

As many have said and as JG repeats yet again if the refs would simply enforce the laws correctly at the breakdown to stop players hurtling in to rucks, often not through the gate, and going off their feet and often leading with their shoulders then at least some of the injuries may not occur.

It's somewhat pointless to discuss tweaking the laws when refs don't correctly apply the current ones.

Well Mr Garner did just that to stop Crane from doing it again. I couldn't see any reason for what JC did other than to injure the prop he hit.

I don't disagree with that decision.

[mol2]

My personal opinion is that it was the Jonah Lomu effect, followed by the influx of RL coaches into RU with increasing influence on defensive systems that started the damage. Because you can tackle upright the immediate defensive need in RL is to get up quick and stifle development of play for 5 tackles. However in RU you have to do that until the next mistake (like in old RL), which I can assure takes a long time!

So defensive lines have to get up fast and very hard. As they do so (viz Wasps under Edwards tuition) attacks have to either get very evasive or front up physically. Evasive works when you have space in front of you, which you don't always have, especally with the offside line being on the back foot AND reffing teams being hopeless at enforcing it; being big and fast as a back does drag in defenders and largely nullifies their hits. Then we get into a war of attrition.
Most modern sides try to mix 'n match evasion and force, but overall the trend is to go for bigger and bigger.

The other factor is the laissez-faire attitude to the tackle area, where for the last 6 years or more the multiple flying bellyflops and the shoulder-missile have percolated from the SH via the Pro12 into everyones play. Too often players get hit, after the initial tackle, by random players from any old direction flying in; supporting players often get clobbered as collateral damage. Shoulder, trunk and knee injuries follow (impact and/or rotation) as well as hamstrings (because most hamstring injuries in running activities are caused by eccentric loading, absorption of impact rather than concentric extension, and unexpected impact can drive a player back on a static, isometric contraction - that rips fibres).

Some of it is down to tackled players not releasing immediately, the tackler being required to release immediatley and see the tackled player get up as if not held or roll over the ball, crawl a few yards and then present it and the ruck laws making it very difficult to turn over the ball so defences use big hits to dislodge the ball as they are really prevented from competing.

It would be safer if a tacked player is brought down (1 knee touches the ground) they have to place the ball immediately and not touch it until they are back on their feet. No rolling over to place it, no squeeze ball etc.

Turnovers would become more easy and less reliant on high speed impact.