Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
World rugby injury prevention recomendations.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 948175" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>Not sure this will make much difference, a well organised back 3 should have this covered anyway, but it will amost guaranttee that turn-over ball is kicked instead of run. Worth a try though (if we must change), which is what they're doing - the law of unintended consequences will inevitably throw something unexpected out of this.</p><p></p><p>I quite like this - it will probably increase the risk of minor injuries; but I'm okay with that. We'll need to see how much that risk increases, and whether it does open up matches, or increase risk of more serious injuries. WR are going for more research before putting it to a trial anywhere - which seems fair.</p><p></p><p>Theoretically, this is already the case; it's just not enforced. However, I fully support a working group looking at all issues of the ruck - there are many, most importantly the reckless charging in IMO.</p><p></p><p>Meh, this seems like "if you're not going to enforce the offside line, then do this to give us more time/space" I'd rather they just enforced the offside line.</p><p></p><p>The stats still show that the higher the tackle, the more likely it is to result in injury. So yes, the evidence does suggest that shoulder high tackles are more dangerous than hip or knee high tackle - especially for concussion, where the issue if the tackler being damaged, not the ball carrier. That latter point seems to be the bugger. IMO going to the waist is going too far - I'd be happy with armpit or nipple line, giving that leeway for a mis-judgement of an inch or so to still be "safe enough". I would make an allowance for seatbelt tackles though - I've not seen any evidence that they're dangerous for either player as they just get lumped in with "tackles above the shoulder". WR are suggesting a closed trial, I suspect this will be quietly swept under the carpet after a couple of months.</p><p></p><p>Yes. Absolutely yes. Should probably be brought straight in (for after the RWC)</p><p></p><p>Interesting - I'm never a fan of one-size-fits-all; and whilst not all offences are the same, the number "allowed" shouldn't be either. I guess it's worth a trial, but I instinctively don't like it.</p><p></p><p>Isn't a 5m scrum enough of an advantage / reward for good defence? Seems like it's designed to award teams with less-good scrums.</p><p></p><p>I don't watch enough 7s to comment</p><p></p><p>I haven't really got my head around the warning as it is, let alone any tinkering with it.</p><p></p><p>Seems to be a local issue with a local proposed solution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 948175, member: 73592"] Not sure this will make much difference, a well organised back 3 should have this covered anyway, but it will amost guaranttee that turn-over ball is kicked instead of run. Worth a try though (if we must change), which is what they're doing - the law of unintended consequences will inevitably throw something unexpected out of this. I quite like this - it will probably increase the risk of minor injuries; but I'm okay with that. We'll need to see how much that risk increases, and whether it does open up matches, or increase risk of more serious injuries. WR are going for more research before putting it to a trial anywhere - which seems fair. Theoretically, this is already the case; it's just not enforced. However, I fully support a working group looking at all issues of the ruck - there are many, most importantly the reckless charging in IMO. Meh, this seems like "if you're not going to enforce the offside line, then do this to give us more time/space" I'd rather they just enforced the offside line. The stats still show that the higher the tackle, the more likely it is to result in injury. So yes, the evidence does suggest that shoulder high tackles are more dangerous than hip or knee high tackle - especially for concussion, where the issue if the tackler being damaged, not the ball carrier. That latter point seems to be the bugger. IMO going to the waist is going too far - I'd be happy with armpit or nipple line, giving that leeway for a mis-judgement of an inch or so to still be "safe enough". I would make an allowance for seatbelt tackles though - I've not seen any evidence that they're dangerous for either player as they just get lumped in with "tackles above the shoulder". WR are suggesting a closed trial, I suspect this will be quietly swept under the carpet after a couple of months. Yes. Absolutely yes. Should probably be brought straight in (for after the RWC) Interesting - I'm never a fan of one-size-fits-all; and whilst not all offences are the same, the number "allowed" shouldn't be either. I guess it's worth a trial, but I instinctively don't like it. Isn't a 5m scrum enough of an advantage / reward for good defence? Seems like it's designed to award teams with less-good scrums. I don't watch enough 7s to comment I haven't really got my head around the warning as it is, let alone any tinkering with it. Seems to be a local issue with a local proposed solution. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
World rugby injury prevention recomendations.
Top