RPA Chief Executive says June tours not sustainable

by HammerofThunor Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:48 pm

Further calls from the (English) Rugby Player Association (RPA) that too much rugby is taking it's toll on the players; especially for those going on the June tours.

This is then tied in with some of Bruce Craig's comments (for the SH folk who don't keep track, he's the Bath owner and pretty vocal about changing things up. Talks a lot of Poopie but some sense)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29796327

BBC wrote:Rugby union's season structure must change for the sake of player welfare, Rugby Players' Association (RPA) chief executive Damian Hopley has said. England are missing at least 10 players through injury for the November Tests, while Wales also have absentees. Hopley believes longer rest periods could help reduce the number of injuries in the game.
"The sooner we can address some of these issues the better," the former England back told BBC Radio 5 live.
"We have seen a greater volume [of injuries] this year. Looking at the schedule over the last two seasons - with the Lions tour in 2013 and the New Zealand tour in 2014 - there is always an accumulation effect."

The newly-appointed chairman of the RPA, Northampton lock Christian Day, agrees that the current schedule is asking a lot of players. "I would certainly say we are testing the limits on what is attainable," Day told BBC Radio 5 live. "There has to come a breaking point, and I hope before we come to that breaking point we have a serious look at the length of time a player gets to rest each season."

Hopley believes the international window in June - when the northern hemisphere teams visit the south - is not sustainable, with players touring after a gruelling domestic campaign. "Getting everyone to leave self-interest at the door is the hardest issue," he said. "Ultimately broadcasters will have a big say but if you get the playing structure right, the commercial issues will follow. "Rugby has not traditionally been very good at joined-up thinking, but I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to do this."

Bath owner Bruce Craig has long been an advocate of a global calendar, and Hopley agrees that a cohesive approach to scheduling the season between the two hemispheres will bring benefits in the long-term.
"You have to get people in the room who are committed to trying to find a solution," he added. "Whether that is starting the season later, looking at that June window and moving it into October... these are some of many ideas flying around."

The 2015-2016 Premiership season will start in October because the World Cup is being held in England, and Hopley said this could show the positives of a longer break. "It's going to be very interesting to see how it affects them physically and mentally to be completely refreshed, rather than patching themselves up to get through the next campaign," he added. The international schedule is locked in until 2019, with the World Cup in Japan taking place at the end of that year, but Hopley remains hopeful. "We've got a good opportunity now to come up with something that can be future-proofed to 2023 Rugby World Cup, and beyond," he said. "Rugby is moving in the right direction. I just hope we can look at the player welfare issue as the most important piece of it and not just try and hammer out more games."

by **Biltong** Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:56 pm

It is a bit hypocritical to suggest the tours down South is the problem, perhaps we should cancel the November tours as well, then just meet up for world cups and let club rugby run world rugby scheduling?

by HammerofThunor Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:06 pm

I think, or at least hope, that the thinking is having a tour at the end of the season is bad. So the idea would be to restructure so the SH tours weren't at the end of the season.

by **Biltong** Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:22 pm

The situation in my view is arse about face.

Test rugby brings in the big bucks, but the clubs don't give a hoot as it doesn't influence their income directly, the Rugby players are paid by the clubs so they will go with who pays them, the clubs want the full 52 weeks available to them that is really it, the supposed concern about player welfare is more a club problem than a test problem.

The clubs are starting to have too much power in my view, they will eventually get their way and we will see tests once in a blue moon.

by Poorfour Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:39 pm

Biltong wrote:The situation in my view is arse about face.

Test rugby brings in the big bucks, but the clubs don't give a hoot as it doesn't influence their income directly, the Rugby players are paid by the clubs so they will go with who pays them, the clubs want the full 52 weeks available to them that is really it, the supposed concern about player welfare is more a club problem than a test problem.

The clubs are starting to have too much power in my view, they will eventually get their way and we will see tests once in a blue moon.

But Hopley doesn't represent the clubs, he represents the players. All he's actually said is that tacking a tour onto the end of a season that doesn't have rest periods is a recipe for more and more injuries.

What he seems to be calling for is a global season. In practice, for that to work without cutting internationals (which I think everyone wants to retain), we have to cut club games, and that can only happen if the unions provide enough financial support that the clubs can afford to play fewer games. Hopley clearly believes that there's enough money to do that.

What's clear is that the current situation can't hold much longer.

by **Biltong** Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:49 pm

I get what he says, but think about it, there is an end of season for the NH (June) and an end of season for the SH (November)

The majority of players don't play test rugby, they get paid by the Clubs, who's voice do you think they are?

The Clubs.

If the RPA was only speaking on behalf of test players then it would be a minority that have an issue, why do ALL players have an issue if they don't play test rugby, it is the Clubs struggling with injuries of test players.

by The Great Aukster Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:51 pm

That has to be one of the most illogical articles I've read in ages. Instead of spreading out the games to allow players recovery time in between they play away in October and again at home in November? That should really ease the strain on players! No mention of the Franglo Cup either - does it go on during the Tests so as not to disrupt the AP? What about the SH players - they have S15, RCC, then Home Tests and then away NH Tests. Hopley doesn't seem to be especially proficient at joined up thinking himself.

It would make far more sense to have the "June" Tests in April when the NH players still have some gas in the tank and a 6N series under their belts. During this period the club season would have their players rested ready for the final push for silver and the impact of the season would be spread over all the clubs rather than concentrated into a few Test teams. Of course that would be too Union-centric for the PRL so it looks like October!

by quinsforever Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:28 am

players are being flayed on the alter of commercialism.

where that causes problems is in the UK and Wales and France where clubs primarily pay the players salaries.

there is far too much international rugby for my liking, with tours denuded of relevance happening at the same time as the Lions, or overlapping with the Aviva playoffs FFS.

clint eastwood had it right. Frak.

by quinsforever Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:29 am

not frak. cl4sterf4ck.

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:21 am

The International players all get well paid for touring, match fees etc - its not like they are doing it for nothing. Going on a Lions Tour is worth 60K+ win bonuses to the players.

Like Biltong says, it doesn't affect all players. Its laughable as well that the Irish Provinces gets slagged off for making sure that all our touring players get the same amount of time off as everyone else - this means that its generally the end of Sept (1 month after everyone else) when they start playing in the Pro12).

by quinsforever Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:01 am

there is no separation between province and country in ireland. its a single player contract.

so your players dont even figure in this discussion. or this article. as its about the english players union.

by blackcanelion Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:15 am

I think the answer is relatively simple. I think everyone can be happy. We can solve a number of problems here.

1. Get rid of the November tours. Too much rugby. The chief issue is for Northern clubs and 6 nations so ditch the home internationals in Europe. This will solve the overplaying issue for 6 nations sides. European sides could still play RC teams away in June so they would still get the competition.

2. Allow restrict the times that northern clubs have to release 6 nations players to the June tours (whilst keeping the present restrictions for all other players). It will ensure that nations outside of Europe wont be adversely affected and still allow for development of the game outside of Europe. NZ, SA, Argentina, Australia could play in places like Japan, Georgia, Canada and the US in November and help spread the game.

3. Tighten up qualification restrictions for player moving between nations and qualifying for national sides. Always good.

4. Move the World cup to April (it no longer makes sense to have it in September). Super Rugby and RC can change their timetables and European clubs could be less adversely affected. It probably requires a change to the 6 nations. But lets face international rugby isn't important in Europe and it would allow a better club competition. RC has had to do it and made it work. So it can be done. It makes sense to modify the 6 nations rather than the RC as it appears the international/club interface issue is much more of an issue up north.

Great all sorted. Very Happy

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:21 am

quinsforever wrote:there is no separation between province and country in ireland. its a single player contract.

so your players dont even figure in this discussion. or this article. as its about the english players union.

The IRFU recognises the problems about overplaying players and are doing their best to look after the welfare of the players. The IRFU have more control over the players, but they are not abusing that control by overplaying them. They are making sure that they are looked out for and it is a reason why players want to stay in Ireland because of this.

Of course it has a relevance to the IRFU - changing the global calendar affects Irish players just as much as it would affect england players.

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:36 am

blackcanelion wrote:I think the answer is relatively simple. I think everyone can be happy. We can solve a number of problems here.

1. Get rid of the November tours. Too much rugby. The chief issue is for Northern clubs and 6 nations so ditch the home internationals in Europe. This will solve the overplaying issue for 6 nations sides. European sides could still play RC teams away in June so they would still get the competition.

Except rugby won't be able to survive without the revenue. As well as that people want to watch international rugby more than they want to watch club rugby. Without the touring All Blacks etc., the RFU could not afford Twickenham (bearing in mind that without 3/4 AIs, they could be down to 2 rugby internationals a year (from the Six Nations).

If the NH teams are not going to tour the SH (who also need the revenue of touring sides), they are not going to be bothered touring in the autumn.

There are about 12 internationals a year which compares to football (Rep of Ireland played 14 last year).

What about the amount of money players are going to lose out on by not getting match fees for playing in internationals and touring? Are the clubs going to be able to make up the difference?

By the way, the most viewed rugby game on Sky (UK) w/e 19 Oct competing with Champs Cup was Aus v New Zealand (137K) - International rugby is far, far more popular than club rugby.

by Guest Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:46 am

Changing the international calendar for the sake of overworked (and overpaid) players in a couple of countries seems a bit rich. Why should countries that manage player fatigue as best they can make sacrifices just so some privately owned NH clubs can make more money to lure more players. They are the ones that need to compromise on the issue, and if that means less games and broadcaster fees, so be it.

by blackcanelion Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:28 am

Sin é wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:I think the answer is relatively simple. I think everyone can be happy. We can solve a number of problems here.

1. Get rid of the November tours. Too much rugby. The chief issue is for Northern clubs and 6 nations so ditch the home internationals in Europe. This will solve the overplaying issue for 6 nations sides. European sides could still play RC teams away in June so they would still get the competition.

Except rugby won't be able to survive without the revenue. As well as that people want to watch international rugby more than they want to watch club rugby. Without the touring All Blacks etc., the RFU could not afford Twickenham (bearing in mind that without 3/4 AIs, they could be down to 2 rugby internationals a year (from the Six Nations).

If the NH teams are not going to tour the SH (who also need the revenue of touring sides), they are not going to be bothered touring in the autumn.

There are about 12 internationals a year which compares to football (Rep of Ireland played 14 last year).

What about the amount of money players are going to lose out on by not getting match fees for playing in internationals and touring? Are the clubs going to be able to make up the difference?

By the way, the most viewed rugby game on Sky (UK) w/e 19 Oct competing with Champs Cup was Aus v New Zealand (137K) - International rugby is far, far more popular than club rugby.

The issue really is about the NH club competition. I'm not sure sides that are outside of this paradigm should be punished. I'd amend the six nations and November tours to include the likes of Scotland, Ireland and Italy. They obviously can work around the club commitments and could probably make their full commitment to the international game (and hence November and June tours). If this were the case a shortened 6 nations could still involved home games against England, France and Wales. Obviously the RC teams could also tour these Celtic nations in November.

The issue here is the English, French and potentially Welsh club systems seem to be incompatible with the international calendar. I think they should be given the option of shortening their international season, providing it doesn't affect other nations. True there is a loss of revenue to the national union if home games are lost, but that's the flip side of the coin. It should be up to that union and it clubs to weigh up the cost. In terms of withdrawing from international touring commitments that is also a choice unions should be able to make. I think though the IRB should be able to enforce sanctions that restrict access to decision making positions and committees on the IRB, participation in the Olympics and world cups.

England, France and Wales would still get 2 home games a year so fans would still get to see their teams play. Costs would go down as the home union wouldn't have to pay for as much player release time The added benefit would also relate to additional number of national players in the club competition (vs overseas players). So several of the issues raised by union and clubs would be somewhat ameliorated. There would presumably be an impact on world rankings and performance relating to restricted opportunities to play and the need to travel. But that's a small price to pay for seeing you club team play, twice a week, 10 months of the year in the local 10, 000 seat stadium.

I think it's a better solution in that it means host unions and clubs have to weigh the cost benefits to themselves from these decisions rather than pass the costs onto others.

by emack2 Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:13 am

The theory is good but bad from a financial point of view,how Clubs manage there players
is down to them.BUT there are to many Internationals played why not revert to classic
style short Tours.

Where you play 1 test plus 3 games versus Clubs that would allow more fringe players
a game.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:24 am

Some of the responses here seem very prickly, and guilty of not listening to what Hopley actually said.

The players association is making an undeniable point: too much rugby is bad for player welfare. At a time, when professionals have a better grasp of diet, conditioning and training, you might think their bodies ought to be in better shape to handle a sporting career.

However, the RPA found that injury-enforced retirements have risen 80% in three years. A finding last year by the Irish Rugby Union Player’s Association showed the average career is just seven years.

Hopley believes players need more rest and, as the schedule stands, the June tours are often a bridge too far. He isn't demanding an end to the June tours, he is pointing out that they are unsustainable given the other demands during the season.

What he is calling for instead, is a rethink of the season structure, rather than leaving it stand with players paying the price. If everyone says "We can't possibly lose X from the schedule" then nothing can change.

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:50 am

Reduce the number of CLub rugby matches, that is the real problem, test rugby brings in the money for most unions.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:40 am

Biltong wrote:Reduce the number of CLub rugby matches, that is the real problem, test rugby brings in the money for most unions.

The real problem is that there is no agreement on what the real problem is. That's why Hopley says "Getting everyone to leave self-interest at the door is the hardest issue..Rugby has not traditionally been very good at joined-up thinking, but I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to do this."

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 28, 2014 5:52 am

Rugbyfan we do know what the problem is, too much rugby.

That has been identified.

The question is how do you reduce the number of matches.

Now it is s known fact that test rugby brings in the money, and the national unions need that money for their governing bodies to run the game in their respective countries. If you reduce the test they have less money and rugby goes backwards.

The only solution is to reduce clubs matches.

by Guest Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:02 am

Tail wagging the dog.

Does Hopely campaign hard for clubs to reduce the number of games they play? Is he paid by the club comp?

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:47 am

Yeah, the tail has more money these days than the dog.

by blackcanelion Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:02 am

Rugby Fan wrote:Some of the responses here seem very prickly, and guilty of not listening to what Hopley actually said.

The players association is making an undeniable point: too much rugby is bad for player welfare. At a time, when professionals have a better grasp of diet, conditioning and training, you might think their bodies ought to be in better shape to handle a sporting career.

However, the RPA found that injury-enforced retirements have risen 80% in three years. A finding last year by the Irish Rugby Union Player’s Association showed the average career is just seven years.

Hopley believes players need more rest and, as the schedule stands, the June tours are often a bridge too far. He isn't demanding an end to the June tours, he is pointing out that they are unsustainable given the other demands during the season.

What he is calling for instead, is a rethink of the season structure, rather than leaving it stand with players paying the price. If everyone says "We can't possibly lose X from the schedule" then nothing can change.

Just reread the article. Think we hit it on the head. It seems to me a big part of the problem is club vs country in France and England in particular. What Hopley and others are trying to do is essentially make a problem of their own making an issue for the rest of the community.. I.e. we can't work it out between ourselves. You guys come in and make a sacrifice to help us. If I was the rest of the IRB community I'd be sorely tempted to say. By all means reduce your international demands for your clubs. Just ensure you don't impact on other unions schedules; i.e. release international players, don't make other teams alter their schedules. If you are going to drop games drop your home games first. There is no reason this has to be an issue for the rest of the world. My suggestions:
Drop your home games in November (I'm sure the Ab's would enjoy the longer break)
Drop some 6 nations games (I'd suggest home games so you don't disadvantage anyone else). You could scrap the 6 nations altogether. In the grand scheme of things it's no more important than any other tournament to people outside of it.

The point is if you want change, you've got to be prepared to make sacrifices yourself. If you read this article, in terms of the international game, it's about others changing to benefit the English game. If they want the rest of the IRB to buy into it, the first thing I'd do is change the language and have a good hard look at themselves. Everything has to be potentially on the table.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:21 am

blackcanelion wrote:...What Hopley and others are trying to do is essentially make a problem of their own making...

How is the structure of the global season a problem created by players who play in England?

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:27 am

RUgbyfan, how many games does a club have in Europe?

BY my reckoning the Top 14 has 26 league matches, then semi and final, that is 28 matches

Then you have 6 pool matches in the Rugby Champions CUp plus quarter, semi and final, another 9

That is 37 matches in a 52 week year.

Test rugby takes 12 weekends.

Where do you think it the clash?

Similarly Aviva has the same issue.

by blackcanelion Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:54 am

As I read the article this about how the mix of the global season and English club season create an issue for players playing in both. It's so much an issue about the global club season per see.

There is an issue with the Global season for most nations. There are a number of issues going on, including but not limited to:
1) length of the season
2) access to players
3) the club v international tension
4) access to quality games
5) ability to maintain and grow the international game
6) ability to maintain and grow the club game
7) player welfare
etc, etc
These are same for all nations. The issue of player welfare and changing the system is pronounced in England in my opinion.

However, this article isn't about that. It's relatively clear that it's about England and English clubs. This is clear from what the journalist reports and from what the interviewed personalities say, and from what they don't say. For instance do you ever see scraping the November tours put forward as a solution? Looking at modifying the six nations (a pool system could reduce it to 3 weeks), moving the six nations. Shortening the season (changing the start date doesn't necessarily equate with a shorter season). Not likely the general thrust usually involves changes that involve a greater sacrifice from England's international partners.

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:28 am

Interesting that the SH press blame the use of rugby league coaches for a lot of the problems now. Some of the suggestions that the impact of the collisions need to be reduced (i.e., tackling below waist level).

Good article here:

OPINION: Rugby is at breaking point as officials continue to ignore a "smashed him bro" mentality, says Mark Reason.

The phrase "plagued by injuries" is close to a cliché, so commonplace has it become, but never has it been more true. Rugby is facing a plague, a pandemic that threatens the World Cup. Players are being broken like butterflies upon a wheel, torn apart as the game rolls on towards next October's end-game.

In one possible preview of that final England will play New Zealand at Twickenham in three weeks time. Punters won't get a refund on their tickets, but they are being cheated. The All Blacks may be missing a star or two, but England will be the walking wounded. Five Lions from their pack are in the casualty ward.

Someone said the other day that rugby was in good health. Oh, the irony. Rugby has never been less healthy. In the final round of the Championship a fortnight ago, Joe Moody, Jeremy Thrush, Conrad Smith and Matt Toomua all left the pitch because of concussion.

Smith and Moody, shamefully, were allowed to play on for a while. Toomua, who had been concussed the week before for goodness sake, would have played on if the Argentine doctor and match officials had not intervened. The Aussie was off his head and yet still apparently somehow passed the pitchside concussion test. That tells you how reliable that particular tool is.

Rugby is in crisis. Leicester, for many years the powerhouse of England's Premiership, have 22 players unavailable because of injury, including nine senior players from the front five. And the season has scarcely begun. This is not a freak occurrence. This is the result of cumulative high impact collisions and of the tackle being too high.

Let's start with the tackle height, because this is particularly affecting All Blacks rugby. It may be unusual for three players from one side to be concussed in one match but it is not extraordinary. Brodie Retallick also missed the South Africa game because of concussion. Kieran Read has yet to regain last year's brilliance because of concussive shellshock. We all fear for the long-term health of these men.

The principal villain in all of this is rugby league. When league's defensive coaches came into rugby union, the tackle height and the number of bodies involved in impact both went up. The inevitable result of this has been more knocks to the head.

A classic and symbolic example was the first tackle of the NRL's Grand Final. Running the kick-off out from his line, Sam Burgess was hit ferociously by two upright Bulldogs. The turning head of James Graham smashed the cheekbone and eye socket of Burgess. He has now been lost to union until at least December, harming his chances of making next year's World Cup.

The Englishman was so badly concussed that he could not remember his brother George's bullocking try until 24 hours later. Yet he was allowed to play on. Burgess said, "To be honest I couldn't feel the pain. My head was a little bit dizzy, a bit of blurred vision in the right eye." We see Burgess as a heroic figure and rightly so. He may be the most popular Pom in Australia since Ian Botham. Burgess is a hard man and a brave man. He was also badly let down. The medical people at the Rabbitohs should be prosecuted for so knowingly failing in their duty of care. Their negligence on the day is all too common in league.

It also typifies the attitude that league has brought to union. When union went professional it had to compete head-on with its younger brother, particularly in Australia. The "smash ‘em bro" culture was revered. I, too, love that about league. But after games like the grand final, the thrill, excitement and adrenalin are mixed with a sickly feeling. Was that rugby or dog fighting that we were just watching?

The impact on union has been as damaging as the blow to Burgess' face. The England lock Geoff Parling has had five concussions in 11 months. Richard Cockerill, his coach at Leicester, says, "You'd like to think that by December he'll be playing again. And there's no doubt about that, he will play again, there are no issues over that. It's just successive concussions in a short period of time."

There are plenty of issues over that. There are issues throughout the game. Damian Hopley, the head of England's Rugby Players' Association, said, "There were a record number of injury-enforced retirements last season due to injury, 26 players in total, just over two per club forced out of the game prematurely."

The last 100 England players to retire through injury have had an international career of barely three years. Every single England prop of the professional era has injury issues. Alex Corbisiero, Mako Vunipola and Dan Cole are all crocked. Some will be crippled by middle age.

The IRB is failing woefully in its administration of the game. It needs to get the tackle height down and it needs to reduce the force of impact and the frequency. Many "clean-outs" would get you arrested on the street. Yet the Argentine who endangered Richie McCaw received only a yellow card even after review.

Allyson Pollock, a mother, is so concerned at the trickle-down effect on schoolboy rugby that she has written a book, Tackling rugby - what every parent should know.

Here are three suggestions for the IRB. The first is Austin Healy's. He proposes reducing the length of dead time. Set pieces and penalties have to resume within, say, 20 seconds or it is a freekick. That would prevent anaerobic monsters blasting into each other like gridiron freaks on ozone, because they would be out of puff. My second suggestion is to require the tackle to start at waist level or below. Thirdly, allow no more than two replacements.

The alternative is a generation who will spend their later years in a wheelchair.

- Sunday Star Times

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/10634197/Reason-Tackle-impact-reaches-dizzy-heights

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:42 am

blackcanelion wrote:
Sin é wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:I think the answer is relatively simple. I think everyone can be happy. We can solve a number of problems here.

1. Get rid of the November tours. Too much rugby. The chief issue is for Northern clubs and 6 nations so ditch the home internationals in Europe. This will solve the overplaying issue for 6 nations sides. European sides could still play RC teams away in June so they would still get the competition.

Except rugby won't be able to survive without the revenue. As well as that people want to watch international rugby more than they want to watch club rugby. Without the touring All Blacks etc., the RFU could not afford Twickenham (bearing in mind that without 3/4 AIs, they could be down to 2 rugby internationals a year (from the Six Nations).

If the NH teams are not going to tour the SH (who also need the revenue of touring sides), they are not going to be bothered touring in the autumn.

There are about 12 internationals a year which compares to football (Rep of Ireland played 14 last year).

What about the amount of money players are going to lose out on by not getting match fees for playing in internationals and touring? Are the clubs going to be able to make up the difference?

By the way, the most viewed rugby game on Sky (UK) w/e 19 Oct competing with Champs Cup was Aus v New Zealand (137K) - International rugby is far, far more popular than club rugby.

The issue really is about the NH club competition. I'm not sure sides that are outside of this paradigm should be punished. I'd amend the six nations and November tours to include the likes of Scotland, Ireland and Italy. They obviously can work around the club commitments and could probably make their full commitment to the international game (and hence November and June tours). If this were the case a shortened 6 nations could still involved home games against England, France and Wales. Obviously the RC teams could also tour these Celtic nations in November.

The issue here is the English, French and potentially Welsh club systems seem to be incompatible with the international calendar. I think they should be given the option of shortening their international season, providing it doesn't affect other nations. True there is a loss of revenue to the national union if home games are lost, but that's the flip side of the coin. It should be up to that union and it clubs to weigh up the cost. In terms of withdrawing from international touring commitments that is also a choice unions should be able to make. I think though the IRB should be able to enforce sanctions that restrict access to decision making positions and committees on the IRB, participation in the Olympics and world cups.

England, France and Wales would still get 2 home games a year so fans would still get to see their teams play. Costs would go down as the home union wouldn't have to pay for as much player release time The added benefit would also relate to additional number of national players in the club competition (vs overseas players). So several of the issues raised by union and clubs would be somewhat ameliorated. There would presumably be an impact on world rankings and performance relating to restricted opportunities to play and the need to travel. But that's a small price to pay for seeing you club team play, twice a week, 10 months of the year in the local 10, 000 seat stadium.

I think it's a better solution in that it means host unions and clubs have to weigh the cost benefits to themselves from these decisions rather than pass the costs onto others.

The IRFU offers a shortened season for its international players (international players who finish their touring duties in 3rd week in June do not play again until about last week in September - 3 months off). Ireland has the following long termish injuries to international players.

Cian Healy, Donnacha Ryan, Dan Tuohy, Henderson, Sean O'Brien, Luke Fitzgerald, Keith Earls, Tommy Bowe recently. Paul O'Connell hardly played for 2 years.

Recent international retirees due to injury include Jerry Flannery, Denis Leamy & Stephen Ferris.

All of those don't play as many games as their English counterparts which would indicate to me that reducing the number of games is not the solution to this problem.

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:47 am

It doesn't matter who is blamed for the physicality of the game, with professional rugby it was only natural that players would get bigger and stronger and the hits become harder.

by blackcanelion Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:50 am

Sin é wrote:Interesting that the SH press blame the use of rugby league coaches for a lot of the problems now. Some of the suggestions that the impact of the collisions need to be reduced (i.e., tackling below waist level).

Good article here:

OPINION: Rugby is at breaking point as officials continue to ignore a "smashed him bro" mentality, says Mark Reason.

The phrase "plagued by injuries" is close to a cliché, so commonplace has it become, but never has it been more true. Rugby is facing a plague, a pandemic that threatens the World Cup. Players are being broken like butterflies upon a wheel, torn apart as the game rolls on towards next October's end-game.

In one possible preview of that final England will play New Zealand at Twickenham in three weeks time. Punters won't get a refund on their tickets, but they are being cheated. The All Blacks may be missing a star or two, but England will be the walking wounded. Five Lions from their pack are in the casualty ward.

Someone said the other day that rugby was in good health. Oh, the irony. Rugby has never been less healthy. In the final round of the Championship a fortnight ago, Joe Moody, Jeremy Thrush, Conrad Smith and Matt Toomua all left the pitch because of concussion.

Smith and Moody, shamefully, were allowed to play on for a while. Toomua, who had been concussed the week before for goodness sake, would have played on if the Argentine doctor and match officials had not intervened. The Aussie was off his head and yet still apparently somehow passed the pitchside concussion test. That tells you how reliable that particular tool is.

Rugby is in crisis. Leicester, for many years the powerhouse of England's Premiership, have 22 players unavailable because of injury, including nine senior players from the front five. And the season has scarcely begun. This is not a freak occurrence. This is the result of cumulative high impact collisions and of the tackle being too high.

Let's start with the tackle height, because this is particularly affecting All Blacks rugby. It may be unusual for three players from one side to be concussed in one match but it is not extraordinary. Brodie Retallick also missed the South Africa game because of concussion. Kieran Read has yet to regain last year's brilliance because of concussive shellshock. We all fear for the long-term health of these men.

The principal villain in all of this is rugby league. When league's defensive coaches came into rugby union, the tackle height and the number of bodies involved in impact both went up. The inevitable result of this has been more knocks to the head.

A classic and symbolic example was the first tackle of the NRL's Grand Final. Running the kick-off out from his line, Sam Burgess was hit ferociously by two upright Bulldogs. The turning head of James Graham smashed the cheekbone and eye socket of Burgess. He has now been lost to union until at least December, harming his chances of making next year's World Cup.

The Englishman was so badly concussed that he could not remember his brother George's bullocking try until 24 hours later. Yet he was allowed to play on. Burgess said, "To be honest I couldn't feel the pain. My head was a little bit dizzy, a bit of blurred vision in the right eye." We see Burgess as a heroic figure and rightly so. He may be the most popular Pom in Australia since Ian Botham. Burgess is a hard man and a brave man. He was also badly let down. The medical people at the Rabbitohs should be prosecuted for so knowingly failing in their duty of care. Their negligence on the day is all too common in league.

It also typifies the attitude that league has brought to union. When union went professional it had to compete head-on with its younger brother, particularly in Australia. The "smash ‘em bro" culture was revered. I, too, love that about league. But after games like the grand final, the thrill, excitement and adrenalin are mixed with a sickly feeling. Was that rugby or dog fighting that we were just watching?

The impact on union has been as damaging as the blow to Burgess' face. The England lock Geoff Parling has had five concussions in 11 months. Richard Cockerill, his coach at Leicester, says, "You'd like to think that by December he'll be playing again. And there's no doubt about that, he will play again, there are no issues over that. It's just successive concussions in a short period of time."

There are plenty of issues over that. There are issues throughout the game. Damian Hopley, the head of England's Rugby Players' Association, said, "There were a record number of injury-enforced retirements last season due to injury, 26 players in total, just over two per club forced out of the game prematurely."

The last 100 England players to retire through injury have had an international career of barely three years. Every single England prop of the professional era has injury issues. Alex Corbisiero, Mako Vunipola and Dan Cole are all crocked. Some will be crippled by middle age.

The IRB is failing woefully in its administration of the game. It needs to get the tackle height down and it needs to reduce the force of impact and the frequency. Many "clean-outs" would get you arrested on the street. Yet the Argentine who endangered Richie McCaw received only a yellow card even after review.

Allyson Pollock, a mother, is so concerned at the trickle-down effect on schoolboy rugby that she has written a book, Tackling rugby - what every parent should know.

Here are three suggestions for the IRB. The first is Austin Healy's. He proposes reducing the length of dead time. Set pieces and penalties have to resume within, say, 20 seconds or it is a freekick. That would prevent anaerobic monsters blasting into each other like gridiron freaks on ozone, because they would be out of puff. My second suggestion is to require the tackle to start at waist level or below. Thirdly, allow no more than two replacements.

The alternative is a generation who will spend their later years in a wheelchair.

- Sunday Star Times

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/10634197/Reason-Tackle-impact-reaches-dizzy-heights

I take it you know Mark Reason is English and the former rugby writer for the Telegraph. His father also filled the role for the same paper and was considered a significantly more sensationalist and antagonistic version of Stephen Jones by journalists from his era. I'm not sure how many Kiwis actually read Mark's articles.

by blackcanelion Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:52 am

Sin é wrote:

The IRFU offers a shortened season for its international players (international players who finish their touring duties in 3rd week in June do not play again until about last week in September - 3 months off). Ireland has the following long termish injuries to international players.

Cian Healy, Donnacha Ryan, Dan Tuohy, Henderson, Sean O'Brien, Luke Fitzgerald, Keith Earls, Tommy Bowe recently. Paul O'Connell hardly played for 2 years.

Recent international retirees due to injury include Jerry Flannery, Denis Leamy & Stephen Ferris.

All of those don't play as many games as their English counterparts which would indicate to me that reducing the number of games is not the solution to this problem.

Agree with you.

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:54 am

Biltong wrote:It doesn't matter who is blamed for the physicality of the game, with professional rugby it was only natural that players would get bigger and stronger and the hits become harder.

I don't think there is a problem with the physicality, but the hits could be looked at. I also must say that I really enjoyed watching the Women's World Cup because skill and fitness were very evident and there were no big hits.

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:58 am

blackcanelion wrote:

I take it you know Mark Reason is English and the former rugby writer for the Telegraph. His father also filled the role for the same paper and was considered a significantly more sensationalist and antagonistic version of Stephen Jones by journalists from his era. I'm not sure how many Kiwis actually read Mark's articles.

I do know that Mark Reason is English. Whether he is read or not in the SH (and the fact that he gets published suggests he is), he has a point.

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:04 am

Sin é wrote:
Biltong wrote:It doesn't matter who is blamed for the physicality of the game, with professional rugby it was only natural that players would get bigger and stronger and the hits become harder.

I don't think there is a problem with the physicality, but the hits could be looked at. I also must say that I really enjoyed watching the Women's World Cup because skill and fitness were very evident and there were no big hits.

Of course you can look at the hits, but I hardly believe League is to blame for that, it is a physical sport and coaches regardless of where they come from s going to look for every advantage possible.

You of course have players who never played league, was never coached by a League coach who always had technical issues, think of Butch James.

by whocares Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:06 am

the higher concussion rate is a worrying trend in NH club rugby. it's almost normal now to have one player sent to the concussion "bin" during any club game. but the players are not that bigger than they were 2 years ago so maybe those incidents are just looked at more seriouslsy by referees, coaches and medics.

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:20 am

Biltong wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Biltong wrote:It doesn't matter who is blamed for the physicality of the game, with professional rugby it was only natural that players would get bigger and stronger and the hits become harder.

I don't think there is a problem with the physicality, but the hits could be looked at. I also must say that I really enjoyed watching the Women's World Cup because skill and fitness were very evident and there were no big hits.

Of course you can look at the hits, but I hardly believe League is to blame for that, it is a physical sport and coaches regardless of where they come from s going to look for every advantage possible.

You of course have players who never played league, was never coached by a League coach who always had technical issues, think of Butch James.

The IRB has to look at everything to reduce the injuries. This perfectly legal (highish) tackle ended David Wallace's career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9V1yMIjxQc

by blackcanelion Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:31 am

Sin é wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:

I do know that Mark Reason is English. Whether he is read or not in the SH (and the fact that he gets published suggests he is), he has a point.

My advice is take him with a grain of salt. He's a shock jock. Paul Lewis, A NZ rugby journalist from a few years back", once said he thought Mark thought of the All Blacks as " clearly the Pol Pot of rugby". On the basis he may have a point. I'll force myself to have a sedative, 1/2 bottle whiskey and try and read his article. I'll get back to once I've had therapy.

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:34 am

Sin é wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Biltong wrote:It doesn't matter who is blamed for the physicality of the game, with professional rugby it was only natural that players would get bigger and stronger and the hits become harder.

I don't think there is a problem with the physicality, but the hits could be looked at. I also must say that I really enjoyed watching the Women's World Cup because skill and fitness were very evident and there were no big hits.

Of course you can look at the hits, but I hardly believe League is to blame for that, it is a physical sport and coaches regardless of where they come from s going to look for every advantage possible.

You of course have players who never played league, was never coached by a League coach who always had technical issues, think of Butch James.

The IRB has to look at everything to reduce the injuries. This perfectly legal (highish) tackle ended David Wallace's career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9V1yMIjxQc

The fact is it is a contact game, and I just don't know how you can stop injuries from happening.

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:41 am

Biltong wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Biltong wrote:It doesn't matter who is blamed for the physicality of the game, with professional rugby it was only natural that players would get bigger and stronger and the hits become harder.

I don't think there is a problem with the physicality, but the hits could be looked at. I also must say that I really enjoyed watching the Women's World Cup because skill and fitness were very evident and there were no big hits.

Of course you can look at the hits, but I hardly believe League is to blame for that, it is a physical sport and coaches regardless of where they come from s going to look for every advantage possible.

You of course have players who never played league, was never coached by a League coach who always had technical issues, think of Butch James.

The IRB has to look at everything to reduce the injuries. This perfectly legal (highish) tackle ended David Wallace's career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9V1yMIjxQc

The fact is it is a contact game, and I just don't know how you can stop injuries from happening.

The contact isn't the problem. Its the big hits (which have only come in with professionalism). The IRB could make laws about scrum engagement and tip tackles, how about removing the big hits from the game?

by Guest Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:53 am

Stop it, outlaw big tackles. Now I've heard it all.

by **Biltong** Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:57 am

Me too, how are you going to get players to make "soft" tackles?

by fa0019 Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:57 am

So the obvious thing to do is the curb test rugby which draws in millions and 80,000 min per game and maintain club rugby which is watched by a few hundred thousand on TV at best and draws <20,000?

If anything you reduce club rugby.

the European cup, the LV cup, the premiership.... how many games to English clubs play per year with the same squads.... 40?

Club rugby is a minnow compared. They pay the wages yes but they wouldn't be anything without test rugby... they'd be amateurs like pre 96.

If you want higher revenue from sponsorship, higher gate receipts and TV money you boost the national game to make them as successful as possible. That's what draws fans to clubs. Certainly not the other way around.

If you want AUS to tour England, you need England to tour AUS. The tour may not be of upmost importance to them but they want warm up games, they want gate receipts and a morale boost to boot!

by lostinwales Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:04 am

ebop wrote:Stop it, outlaw big tackles. Now I've heard it all.

by Sin é Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:06 am

ebop wrote:Stop it, outlaw big tackles. Now I've heard it all.

I'm not saying to outlaw big tackles. I'm saying to look at tackles like this and see how you can perhaps reduce the impact if you want to reduce your injuries. Using arms for example might be handy.

Scott Williams was out for a couple of months from this tackle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69zRGsI0Yzg

Both players survived this one, but I doubt if Dom Ryan will have a long career if he continues making those kind of tackles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SO7x7NuF6o

by fa0019 Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:11 am

Biltong wrote:Me too, how are you going to get players to make "soft" tackles?

You could make the game more cardio intensive meaning players can't be too heavy for their own good.

Even 10 years ago it was unlikely to have more than 1 back weighing over 100kg (bar the boks). Now its close to the average. I reckon most backs today in test rugby weigh in around 95kg and each side has a 110-115kg chap.

Not sure how you would do it but making the breakdown less combative would be one idea. If you're more likely to retain possession you're more likely to rack up the phases and run more.

These days the defence has the upper hand as the attacker once tackled has to released the ball whilst the defender as long as he gets up on his feet can instantly nick possession. For attackers to retain possession they need 2 players min, for defenders to steal they require only one.

It has its problems true but players are getting a lot bigger. We were all told the rule change would make packs smaller. In essence they have got bigger... a lot bigger. I think the England pack in 2003 were seen as monsters, the biggest pack of all time.... I think they weighed in about 141st... or about 895kg. That's below average these days.

When I moved to SA the Stormers were packing down around 860kg. Now they regularly hit 930kg and a few times have hit 940kg.

Its not the tackling.... packs are now 30-40kg heavier than they were even 5 years ago. Then there are the backs... if they arm, we must arm as only the very best backs can be <90kg and not end up in a hospital bed every game.

by offload Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:14 am

I'd suggest two immediate changes :

Cut the Autumn Internationals to 2 games and get rid of the stupid playoffs. It's a league - if you win it you should be champions!

by fa0019 Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:40 am

offload wrote:I'd suggest two immediate changes :

Cut the Autumn Internationals to 2 games and get rid of the stupid playoffs. It's a league - if you win it you should be champions!

If you want the RFU to maintain revenue, the last thing you want to do is cut 2 test matches from their 8 odd a year. It would mean grassroots suffer.

In the SH they have far bigger squads and they play less games.

WP play SR (with a name change to the Stormers), Currie Cup, Vodacom Cup, and the U21 and U19 leagues. I would say they have over 80 individual contracted players.

How many in England? 50 max?

by whocares Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:44 am

fa0019 wrote:So the obvious thing to do is the curb test rugby which draws in millions and 80,000 min per game and maintain club rugby which is watched by a few hundred thousand on TV at best and draws <20,000?

If anything you reduce club rugby.

the European cup, the LV cup, the premiership.... how many games to English clubs play per year with the same squads.... 40?

Club rugby is a minnow compared. They pay the wages yes but they wouldn't be anything without test rugby... they'd be amateurs like pre 96.

If you want higher revenue from sponsorship, higher gate receipts and TV money you boost the national game to make them as successful as possible. That's what draws fans to clubs. Certainly not the other way around.

explain me how you could have a strong test rugby without a strong club rugby scene? both need each others. both need to compromise.

some figures for you :
T14 average number of viewers : 750 thousand (and its on pay tv) with some games over 1 million. last final (on free to air) : 4.6 milions despite the poor entertainment value. I expect France AIs and 6Ns to attract more viewers simply because they are on prime time on a free to air channel and usually on saturday night. am not sure the june tour games attract more than 400k viewers as its on pay tv and in the morning.
overall sponsorship and ticket revenues will always be higher for club than the france games (6 per year at home) considering than the tv money for the 6N and AIs is not huge as well since they are on free to air tv. if you increase the number of international games people will also quickky lose interest because let's face it, it is the casual and fickle supporter who barely knows the rules that make up for those big viewing numbers for international games whereas people who watch club rugby will always be around.

by fa0019 Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:00 pm

whocares wrote:
fa0019 wrote:So the obvious thing to do is the curb test rugby which draws in millions and 80,000 min per game and maintain club rugby which is watched by a few hundred thousand on TV at best and draws <20,000?

If anything you reduce club rugby.

the European cup, the LV cup, the premiership.... how many games to English clubs play per year with the same squads.... 40?

Club rugby is a minnow compared. They pay the wages yes but they wouldn't be anything without test rugby... they'd be amateurs like pre 96.

If you want higher revenue from sponsorship, higher gate receipts and TV money you boost the national game to make them as successful as possible. That's what draws fans to clubs. Certainly not the other way around.

explain me how you could have a strong test rugby without a strong club rugby scene? both need each others. both need to compromise.

some figures for you :
T14 average number of viewers : 750 thousand (and its on pay tv) with some games over 1 million. last final (on free to air) : 4.6 milions despite the poor entertainment value. I expect France AIs and 6Ns to attract more viewers simply because they are on prime time on a free to air channel and usually on saturday night. am not sure the june tour games attract more than 400k viewers as its on pay tv and in the morning.
overall sponsorship and ticket revenues will always be higher for club than the france games (6 per year at home) considering than the tv money for the 6N and AIs is not huge as well since they are on free to air tv. if you increase the number of international games people will also quickky lose interest because let's face it, it is the casual and fickle supporter who barely knows the rules that make up for those big viewing numbers for international games whereas people who watch club rugby will always be around.

I don't think its a case of requiring to increase test matches.... but it would be difficult to cut them. Do clubs like Leicester feed the grassroots clubs? Cut the RFU and you cut funding for everyone including the top clubs (most of which rely on the money to survive).

What is true is that in England... the clubs play too many games.

Premiership 24 games (if you get to final, 23 with SF, 22 standard)
LV Cup 6 games (if you get to final, 5 with SF, 4 standard)
European Cup 9 games (if you get to final, 8 with SF, 7 with QF, 6 standard)

So without friendlies, warm ups, tour matches we are talking 39 games if you go to the very top. Club players not tied to central contracts will play in as many as they are fit for.

That is huge.

Then you think of the international players.

4 AIs
5 6Ns
3 ST's
1 pre ST warm up

That's 12-13 test matches.

So we're talking over 50 games a season that club and country are playing.

In the SA the top players now play a max 19 games a season if they are centrally contracted. They are barred from Currie Cup. In England its 30 games a season.

The club season is far too big in England.

In England they have the AP as a alternative to the CC. Well the top players don't play in it at all and then there are only a max 16 matches compared to 24 in England.

by Sponsored content