RugbyRebels

Sounds mostly like SANZAAR doesn't really care about concussion and brain injury.

The argument goes "punishing players isn't changing their behaviour enough, so what we need to do is... punish them less, 'cos that's bound to help".


I've been a supporter of orange cards for a while.
We have evidence that consistently giving red cards has changed behaviour before (spear tackles, tackling the man in the air) but that it takes a few seasons.
On player killing themselves though, we don't want to do that, because red cards ruin the game - despite them patently not ruining the game.

Because playing with 14 wo/men is harder than playing with 15 wo/men.

Players conbine to make teams.
Punishing the team IS punishing the player.
Players quite like winning.
Players are generally more forgiving of mistakes made in the process of winning, than of mistakes that result in a loss (or loss of bonus points, or loss of vital points differences, or...)

Which is worse?
A. You are suspended for 60 minutes, and banned for 4 weeks, but your team are down to 14 men for 20 minutes, and win the match.

B. You are suspended for 60 minutes, and banned for 4 weeks, your team are down to 14 men for 60 minutes, and lose the match. And it's all your fault.


Now, if you want to increase the bans and reduce the tolerance/ mitigations, then I'm all for it. But as far as I'm aware, that's not what's going on here.

The only positive I can think for the 'Orange card' is that it might make referees use it more. If rugby is serious about player welfare and reducing the height of hits then greater use of 20 min sanctions where there is clearly no evidence that the high hit was intentional would act as an additional warning without putting the refs under pressure regarding ruining the game.

But, there should be a red card which is off for the entire game with no replacement. If the act is deemed to be deliberate and dangerous (or involved head butts, gouging etc) then no arguments straight off and remain off.

I'm not fully convinced that losing a player ruins a match. It does make it harder, which is kind of the point, but equally many teams down to 14 play better and can still nick a win.

Regarding referee interpretation, thats a consistent pain which world rugby has to address. I get referees making mistakes, they are human and won't get everything right. But knowing that you are playing with a ref who is a known home bird is tough when playing away.

Sandydragon wrote:The only positive I can think for the 'Orange card' is that it might make referees use it more. If rugby is serious about player welfare and reducing the height of hits then greater use of 20 min sanctions where there is clearly no evidence that the high hit was intentional would act as an additional warning without putting the refs under pressure regarding ruining the game.

But, there should be a red card which is off for the entire game with no replacement. If the act is deemed to be deliberate and dangerous (or involved head butts, gouging etc) then no arguments straight off and remain off.

I'm not fully convinced that losing a player ruins a match. It does make it harder, which is kind of the point, but equally many teams down to 14 play better and can still nick a win.

Regarding referee interpretation, thats a consistent pain which world rugby has to address. I get referees making mistakes, they are human and won't get everything right. But knowing that you are playing with a ref who is a known home bird is tough when playing away.

That's something I'm in favour of and a reason why I quite like the idea of a 20 minute red/orange card. There is absolutely no doubt that refs in England started bottling it towards the end of the season with mitigation being based around "it wasn't a dominant tackle" because they were scared to be the person who decided the game. If bringing in a 20 minute red means they will be brandished more often, I'm in favour.

Puja

Just make sure its a different colour so its really clear what's going on.

Yellow Card for technical infringements.
Orange card for dangerous but not deliberate play*
Red for deliberate foul play.

* I know this will be contested. Thinking back to the 2021 6 Nations when the Scottish player got red against Wales for a high tackle. My first thought was that it was very harsh and more clumsy than deliberate. But a week or so early with Peter O'Mahoney slamming into Tomos Francis (repeating something he did in a club game only a couple of months earlier) my thought was that he intended to cause harm and the red was more justified. But its often not as clear cut as say when the French lock decided to have a pop at Wainwright in the RWC, which was a clear red all day long.

Sandydragon wrote:Just make sure its a different colour so its really clear what's going on.

Yellow Card for technical infringements.
Orange card for dangerous but not deliberate play*
Red for deliberate foul play.

Exactly.

If there's a need, then it's somewhere between the red and the yellow, not a replacement for either.

I'd also suggest that if an orange card is introduced, we can then put a time limit on TMO interventions (as in, time that footage is being reviewed, so the the French don't just take the whole time to find the right incident); but with an Orange card, the TMO gets as much time as they like to review it in more detail, and decide if it gets upgraded to a red or not, or potentially even downgraded to a yellow.

Or maybe, even just 1 card for TMO review.
Live, the ref gets full speed reviews from 2/3 angles (that actually show the incident, obviously) and either cards or doesn't.
The player then leaves the pitch and the TMO looks at all the angles (and I mean all of them, not just the ones the broadcaster wants to show them) and decides on the degree of punishment; 10 minute sin-bin, 20 minutes and an enforced replacement, off and stay off.

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Just make sure its a different colour so its really clear what's going on.

Yellow Card for technical infringements.
Orange card for dangerous but not deliberate play*
Red for deliberate foul play.

Exactly.

If there's a need, then it's somewhere between the red and the yellow, not a replacement for either.

I'd also suggest that if an orange card is introduced, we can then put a time limit on TMO interventions (as in, time that footage is being reviewed, so the the French don't just take the whole time to find the right incident); but with an Orange card, the TMO gets as much time as they like to review it in more detail, and decide if it gets upgraded to a red or not, or potentially even downgraded to a yellow.

Or maybe, even just 1 card for TMO review.
Live, the ref gets full speed reviews from 2/3 angles (that actually show the incident, obviously) and either cards or doesn't.
The player then leaves the pitch and the TMO looks at all the angles (and I mean all of them, not just the ones the broadcaster wants to show them) and decides on the degree of punishment; 10 minute sin-bin, 20 minutes and an enforced replacement, off and stay off.

That is a *genius* idea. It's a fairly quick TMO decision to decide "something ought to be done" and it saves the live viewers the 5 minutes of watching the referee squint up at the big screen and equivocate whether the player dipped slightly or not.

Puja

I feel like there must be some drawback because I’ve not seen anybody mention that, and on the face of it that would save a huge amount of time.

Is there some potential complication with front row replacements being permanent v temporary? Not quite though that one through yet.

How would you announcement process work when they’ve made their decision? I suppose it’s no different to a player returning from an HIA.

Mikey Brown wrote:I feel like there must be some drawback because I’ve not seen anybody mention that, and on the face of it that would save a huge amount of time.

Is there some potential complication with front row replacements being permanent v temporary? Not quite though that one through yet.

How would you announcement process work when they’ve made their decision? I suppose it’s no different to a player returning from an HIA.

Signalled on the stadium screen like in cricket?

Puja

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Just make sure its a different colour so its really clear what's going on.

Yellow Card for technical infringements.
Orange card for dangerous but not deliberate play*
Red for deliberate foul play.

Exactly.

If there's a need, then it's somewhere between the red and the yellow, not a replacement for either.

I'd also suggest that if an orange card is introduced, we can then put a time limit on TMO interventions (as in, time that footage is being reviewed, so the the French don't just take the whole time to find the right incident); but with an Orange card, the TMO gets as much time as they like to review it in more detail, and decide if it gets upgraded to a red or not, or potentially even downgraded to a yellow.

Or maybe, even just 1 card for TMO review.
Live, the ref gets full speed reviews from 2/3 angles (that actually show the incident, obviously) and either cards or doesn't.
The player then leaves the pitch and the TMO looks at all the angles (and I mean all of them, not just the ones the broadcaster wants to show them) and decides on the degree of punishment; 10 minute sin-bin, 20 minutes and an enforced replacement, off and stay off.

I do like that. The ref gets the call on whether an incident has happened and can give the player a card, obviously consulting with the TMO. TMO can then review for severity.

Only thing missing is the sound effects to accompany the on screen message!

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Just make sure its a different colour so its really clear what's going on.

Yellow Card for technical infringements.
Orange card for dangerous but not deliberate play*
Red for deliberate foul play.

Exactly.

If there's a need, then it's somewhere between the red and the yellow, not a replacement for either.

I'd also suggest that if an orange card is introduced, we can then put a time limit on TMO interventions (as in, time that footage is being reviewed, so the the French don't just take the whole time to find the right incident); but with an Orange card, the TMO gets as much time as they like to review it in more detail, and decide if it gets upgraded to a red or not, or potentially even downgraded to a yellow.

Or maybe, even just 1 card for TMO review.
Live, the ref gets full speed reviews from 2/3 angles (that actually show the incident, obviously) and either cards or doesn't.
The player then leaves the pitch and the TMO looks at all the angles (and I mean all of them, not just the ones the broadcaster wants to show them) and decides on the degree of punishment; 10 minute sin-bin, 20 minutes and an enforced replacement, off and stay off.

I do like that. The ref gets the call on whether an incident has happened and can give the player a card, obviously consulting with the TMO. TMO can then review for severity.

Only thing missing is the sound effects to accompany the on screen message!

"Owen Farrell will not be returning to the pitch - RED CARD!" {SadTrombone.Wav}

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Exactly.

If there's a need, then it's somewhere between the red and the yellow, not a replacement for either.

I'd also suggest that if an orange card is introduced, we can then put a time limit on TMO interventions (as in, time that footage is being reviewed, so the the French don't just take the whole time to find the right incident); but with an Orange card, the TMO gets as much time as they like to review it in more detail, and decide if it gets upgraded to a red or not, or potentially even downgraded to a yellow.

Or maybe, even just 1 card for TMO review.
Live, the ref gets full speed reviews from 2/3 angles (that actually show the incident, obviously) and either cards or doesn't.
The player then leaves the pitch and the TMO looks at all the angles (and I mean all of them, not just the ones the broadcaster wants to show them) and decides on the degree of punishment; 10 minute sin-bin, 20 minutes and an enforced replacement, off and stay off.

I do like that. The ref gets the call on whether an incident has happened and can give the player a card, obviously consulting with the TMO. TMO can then review for severity.

Only thing missing is the sound effects to accompany the on screen message!

"Owen Farrell will not be returning to the pitch - RED CARD!" {SadTrombone.Wav}

Puja

Followed by a huge cheer by anyone not wearing white. And perhaps a few who are...

Back to reality, the orange card makes a lot of sense and if the individual receiving it also has to remain off the pitch (but can be replaced after 20 mins), plus may face sanction post match (which also needs to be more consistent) then it could work.

But I note that the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage. None of the recommendations are objectionable in my view and I'd totally support removing tactical substitutions, but it isnt the best time to be seen to be undermining the red card for high tackles law, even if it might be proven that an orange card would be more effective.

A combination of limiting substitutions (though that feels a long way off) with the replacement required for an orange card might add a significant amount of the deterrent back to head-high collisions while retaining a 15 v 15 competition.

If you’ve made all your subs already then tough. Late game infringements essentially then get a harsher punishment.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I do like that. The ref gets the call on whether an incident has happened and can give the player a card, obviously consulting with the TMO. TMO can then review for severity.

Only thing missing is the sound effects to accompany the on screen message!

"Owen Farrell will not be returning to the pitch - RED CARD!" {SadTrombone.Wav}

Puja

But I note that the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage.

The RFU/WR trialled tackling below the armpit line in the Championship and didn’t get the results they hoped for:

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/4/220

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
"Owen Farrell will not be returning to the pitch - RED CARD!" {SadTrombone.Wav}

Puja

But I note that the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage.

The RFU/WR trialled tackling below the armpit line in the Championship and didn’t get the results they hoped for:

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/4/220

I still remain a touch dubious about that trial. It needs to be done across a whole season, with a pre-season of elite coaches preparing for it.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
But I note that the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage.

The RFU/WR trialled tackling below the armpit line in the Championship and didn’t get the results they hoped for:

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/4/220

I still remain a touch dubious about that trial. It needs to be done across a whole season, with a pre-season of elite coaches preparing for it.

Puja

Mmmm, interesting. I suppose in one respect the head hitting another head or a chest would still produce the force necessary to create a concussion (from the tacklers perspective). So is the problem that its bad tackle technique and the head is in the wrong place, or just that rugby players are now too large to safely tackle (at pro level) without additional equipment (which may not actually help since nothing can stop brain movement and concussion)?

I do agree that a trial should have been run over the full season with appropriate preparation to give it the best possible chance of proving whether this would be successful or not.

Also worth pointing out that you don't run the research once, and say that the question has been put to bed, especially when it's a pretty brief trial (and one of the 6 weekends is a definite and notable outlier), surrounded by the rest of a season playing to different regulations.

Now it may well end up being that successfully lowering the tackle height doesn't reduce concussive incidence - and that study is a hell of a lot better than no study; but it's far from conclusive. If that IS the case, then we really need to go back to the drawing board.

Also worth noting that the problem tackles previously identified - "upright tackler" reduced from 25% to 20% - so it's tough to say that the trial achieved it's aim of reducing the number of "upright tackler" incidents, let alone secondary results such as concussive incidents. Conversely, the law of unintended consequences kicks in with the ball carrier position, for which the "upright carrier" drops from 35% to 29% - though previous research shows that both bent is better than both upright, it's still not great.

I’m not sure anyone thinks it’s case closed, I certainly don’t, it was just a rebuttal to the certainty contained in ‘the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage’.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m not sure anyone thinks it’s case closed, I certainly don’t, it was just a rebuttal to the certainty contained in ‘the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage’.

Id love to see the end of tactical subs and I do think that would make a significant impact on injuries in general.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’m not sure anyone thinks it’s case closed, I certainly don’t, it was just a rebuttal to the certainty contained in ‘the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage’.

Id love to see the end of tactical subs and I do think that would make a significant impact on injuries in general.

Agreed on subs, or at least a limitation. Maybe 4 subs in total, including for blood/injury/our proposed white/orange card idea.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’m not sure anyone thinks it’s case closed, I certainly don’t, it was just a rebuttal to the certainty contained in ‘the Progressive Rugby campaign team are calling for all tackles to be below the nipple line and a list of other recommendations to reduce the risk of brain damage’.

Id love to see the end of tactical subs and I do think that would make a significant impact on injuries in general.

Agreed on subs, or at least a limitation. Maybe 4 subs in total, including for blood/injury/our proposed white/orange card idea.

Puja

Subs for injuries as it used to be and blood replacements. Also happy for a sub after the 20 mins is up for an orange card. And thats it.

For the bench you would still need a replacement front row, plus one other replacement forward would be fair to cover the back 5. Perhaps also 2 backs, given the scrum half is such a specialist position in many ways? Thats 6, but unless you go uncontested scrums, you would need specialist LH and TH props, plus a hooker, so thats a constraint on reducing the number of subs. Big difference would be they would get used a lot less.

It would also open up space as big forwards would start getting tired ta the 60 minute mark, so backs would find more space on the pitch. Or forwards would become more athletic as a result. Either way it might make the game more open.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Id love to see the end of tactical subs and I do think that would make a significant impact on injuries in general.

Agreed on subs, or at least a limitation. Maybe 4 subs in total, including for blood/injury/our proposed white/orange card idea.

Puja

Subs for injuries as it used to be and blood replacements. Also happy for a sub after the 20 mins is up for an orange card. And thats it.

For the bench you would still need a replacement front row, plus one other replacement forward would be fair to cover the back 5. Perhaps also 2 backs, given the scrum half is such a specialist position in many ways? Thats 6, but unless you go uncontested scrums, you would need specialist LH and TH props, plus a hooker, so thats a constraint on reducing the number of subs. Big difference would be they would get used a lot less.

It would also open up space as big forwards would start getting tired ta the 60 minute mark, so backs would find more space on the pitch. Or forwards would become more athletic as a result. Either way it might make the game more open.

The only problem with banning tactical and having injury and blood replacements separate is that it's an invitation for cheating. As it turns out, the big 24 stone prop always turns his ankle 55 minutes into the game and needs to come off for the young starlet. Then you get into enforcing whether he's really injured or not and that's a mess.

Better to say 4 subs all game - sure, you can use them tactically if you want, but if a player goes down injured, that's your problem for having used them and you go down to 14. Only exception is for head injuries to make sure people aren't being forced to play through and cheating that can be easily enforced by making any player going off for a permanent HIA must miss the next week's match.

Puja

Independent doctor to assess the injury and the player’s bag checked for joke shop receipts?

Mellsblue wrote:Independent doctor to assess the injury and the player’s bag checked for joke shop receipts?

How can you check it an injury other than taking the player's word when they say, "Yeah, it hurts when I move it"?

Puja