World rugby injury prevention recomendations.

[Scotty]

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/2019/06/28/world-rugby-reveal-injury-prevention-recommendations/

50/22 Rule im not sure on.

It mentions lowering tackle height to waist to prevent the risk of head injuries?

What do you guys think?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I don't hate the 50/22, in theory, but it's just gonna end up in a ton more kicking and not making the game more exciting tbh.

Lowering tackle height sounds dumb. A hip/knee to the tackler is way more dangerous than a seat belt tackle. Gonna see a TON more cards for innocuous things, if the u20s is anything to go off, as well.
That said, I don't know what the answer is WRT head injuries in the sport, so maybe it'll work out.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I dont like the 50:22 rule one bit. Completely changes the dynamic of the game. Game will shift towards [kick-line out-maul], repeat ad nauseam. Thanks but no thanks.
And the rationale, dear god

Rationale: To create space by forcing players to drop back out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch.
Read more at https://www.premiershiprugby.com/20...evention-recommendations/#eUsI2ms0lhVD8ydQ.99

Seriously?

And lowering the height is not going to work. Ball carriers are lowering their centers of gravity and charging head firsts. It is, literally, impossible to stop someone doing that without touching his head and/or shoulder(s).

 

[Scotty]

Dont like either of the rules tbh. Head inuries from hips knees ect as said above.

50/22 i dont like either because it will lead to more kicking, we have reached a stage now wheres its alot of kicks to compete rather and keeping the ball in play. I just get get my head round why it would actually be better.

Will the pendulum sort of back 3 work with this or do we need bothsides and centre covered at all times?

Does anyone have more knowledge of this rule?

There are a few others on the link too.

 

[Scotty]

Dont like either of the rules tbh. Head inuries from hips knees ect as said above.

50/22 i dont like either because it will lead to more kicking, we have reached a stage now wheres its alot of kicks to compete rather and keeping the ball in play. I just get get my head round why it would actually be better.

Will the pendulum sort of back 3 work with this or do we need bothsides and centre covered at all times?

Does anyone have more knowledge of this rule?

There are a few others on the link too.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Hate the kicking rule. Too many lineouts and rolling mails as it is.

And I agree with the consensus that lowering the tackle height is both unrealistic in the real world, and not going to prevent head injuries anyway. However...

That said, I don't know what the answer is WRT head injuries in the sport, so maybe it'll work out.

Amen to that

Other interesting ideas buried in there too:

Reducing substitutions - been brought up a lot on here and elsewhere as a good way of creating space. Will tired players get injured more easily though?

The introduction of an infringement limit - never thought if this, an interesting thought, introduces a greater degree of jeopardy. A bit arbitrary though, and will it lead to teams "saving" their penalties for the red zone?

Goal line drop-out when an attacker is held up in goal - might discourage the constant pick and go stuff and courage more creative play in the 22. Unfair to punish a team for almost scoring I feel

 

[profitius]

The 50/22 rule is a good development. All that will do is put more pressure on defences and create more space for attack.

If teams are going to keep kicking then they will be easy to defend against.


The reduction in subs has been talked about for years and will result in lighter players because nearly all players will have to last the 80 min.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Reducing substitutions - been brought up a lot on here and elsewhere as a good way of creating space. Will tired players get injured more easily though?

100%.
I couldn't believe they actually proposed that. On one hand they tell you that safety comes first and then they want exhausted people on the field pushing their bodies to the limit "to encourage more space and opportunities". Let's have them ran a marathon the day before too, see how that plays out.

Some won't get just tired physically but mentally too. You stop focusing on technique, poor decisions are made, your reaction time slows down, your awareness drops.

I actually dont mind reducing the number of subs. I actually like it as a selfish guy watching the sport from confort of a nice pub, pint in hand. But my priority is not players safety. If you claim "player welfare being the number-one consideration" then that suggestion is, incongruent at best.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

deleted

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Don't think the 50/20 will change that much to be honest. That kick is a very hard thing to do and most teams already employ a three man pendulum in the back which will cover it adequately.

 

[mdaclarke]

Sounds like a load of pony. Didn't they try lowering the tackle height to waist level in a competition recently and they had to stop it as it resulted in more injuries.

Sounds like the rugby administrators should be running touch rugby,

One rule I would like to see is a rule that if you have a penalty advantage you get the opportunity to kick it out whilst in play and take the throw in from where the ball goes out.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I like the idea of lowering the number of subs. You might see more hamstring injuries but You won't be able to play those 40 minute 120kg monsters that are ruining the game in many ways.

 

[big ginger 8]

Am I the only one who thinks the last few years have seen players actually slim down overall and that pure size isn't as important to selectors as it was circa 2011?

I don't think limiting the amount of subs further would necessarily have that positive effect and it would absolutely increase risk of injury.

 

[Scotty]

In U20s they were trialing same amount of subs but a bigger bench, 3 subs must be the front row and the other 5 are who ever. Now teams have a squad of 28 but maybe 24 rather than 23 would work, could mean you have 4 backs SH FH Centre and Back three cover and you can use 3 as required, no need taking a SH off thats killing it or playing people out of position.

If that would work or not, Lowering subs would not help, tired players yes leave more space but also make more bad decisions, more bad tackles, more lazy ones meaning more swinging arms and high tackles.

 

[profitius]

In U20s they were trialing same amount of subs but a bigger bench, 3 subs must be the front row and the other 5 are who ever. Now teams have a squad of 28 but maybe 24 rather than 23 would work, could mean you have 4 backs SH FH Centre and Back three cover and you can use 3 as required, no need taking a SH off thats killing it or playing people out of position.

If that would work or not, Lowering subs would not help, tired players yes leave more space but also make more bad decisions, more bad tackles, more lazy ones meaning more swinging arms and high tackles.

That forces teams to become fitter or they lose.
That means they have to lose weight.
Smaller players mean there's less chance of injuries.

 

[Scotty]

That forces teams to become fitter or they lose.
That means they have to lose weight.
Smaller players mean there's less chance of injuries.

But players will still have different fitness levels and and the more tired players will increase the chance of injury.

I dont disagree with your logic but its 2 sides of the same coin.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I don't hate the 50/22, in theory, but it's just gonna end up in a ton more kicking and not making the game more exciting tbh.

Lowering tackle height sounds dumb. A hip/knee to the tackler is way more dangerous than a seat belt tackle. Gonna see a TON more cards for innocuous things, if the u20s is anything to go off, as well.
That said, I don't know what the answer is WRT head injuries in the sport, so maybe it'll work out.

Who's speaking here? Olyy or Owen Farrell???

 

[profitius]

But players will still have different fitness levels and and the more tired players will increase the chance of injury.

I dont disagree with your logic but its 2 sides of the same coin.

There'll always be different fitness levels. In general the smaller players tend to be fitter.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I dont like the 50:22 rule one bit. Completely changes the dynamic of the game. Game will shift towards [kick-line out-maul], repeat ad nauseam. Thanks but no thanks.
And the rationale, dear god


Seriously?

And lowering the height is not going to work. Ball carriers are lowering their centers of gravity and charging head firsts. It is, literally, impossible to stop someone doing that without touching his head and/or shoulder(s).

You can just imagine every time a team gets a turnover, usually the most exciting attacking times, they will kick the ball before the sweepers have reset

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Don't think the 50/20 will change that much to be honest. That kick is a very hard thing to do and most teams already employ a three man pendulum in the back which will cover it adequately.

Except when there are turnivers