Player safety

The focus of the world cup so far seems to have been grumbles about refs not consistently applying the rules on sending offs etc. For me, overall, the rule changes are a good thing which focus on player safety and will surely eventually drop through to the players that they simply have to tackle lower else risk a red card.
What seems to have been lost in the focus on replays on how harsh sanctions should be is that initial aim: safety. We've seen in englands last 2 matches players going too high on farrell yet both times no hia. England medical staff have not been great on this point and neither have the officials.
Farrell has commented after the game to say he didn't need to go off as the impact wasn't to the top of his head: "A concussion is the worry but I didn't get hit anywhere near the top of the head," said the 28-year-old centre.

"Your jaw gets a bit sore but I was fine. There was no need for a head injury assessment."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49945747

Quite worrying.

Agreed. If the aim is player safety then as soon as a player takes a knock to the head they need to be removed for HIA. None of this waiting to see if they show symptoms nonsense, that is not properly mitigating the risk of head injuries. It’s leaving players open to second impact before medical teams have had a chance to get them out of harms way just because they weren’t showing obvious symptoms straight away.

Yes agree, if the opposition player is red carded due to a head contact, and the reason for the red card is safety, it is contradictory to the principal of player safety not to do a hia.

True, especially if one of them is rolling around in pain then gets up a minute later to kick a goal. Pretty sure you need your head working to kick them.

There are head knocks and there are head knocks. Much like with boxing, you can take blow after blow to certain places in the head, particularly if you're braced and aware about it. But one connection with certain areas, and it's wobbly knees and/or lights out time. I think Farrell has taken a lot of blows to fairly thick parts of the skull, while braced. Looked ok each time to me, but that's hardly scientific.

What irks me the most, is the fact that any player with Pacific Island heritage is almost given a free pass when using their physicality in a dangerous fashion, as "it's their way".

Also, another thing that is starting to creep into the game is people milking pens, or cards. I cannot remember the game, but a player jumped up to block a kick, brushed the kicker and the kicker went down as if he had been shot. This is a trait I have seen happen all the time during this WC. Also, players trying to milk a late hit, as if they have just been smashed by an articulated lorry.

But player safety is paramount, and cheap shots, of which we have seen a lot of, how Tonga got away with it yesterday is beggars belief, Hooper on Biggar, to name a few, need to be carded, without mitigation. The only debate about a cheap shot should be red or yellow.

Lawes in the argentina game?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lawes in the argentina game?

I must have missed that one. Do you have a clip ?

I do not. Happened towards the end of the game. Jumped for the charge down but at an angle so not particularly dangerous.brushed the guy so strictly speaking a pen but made out like he was shot! The guy tuilagi tackled in the air was.similarly overdone.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I do not. Happened towards the end of the game. Jumped for the charge down but at an angle so not particularly dangerous.brushed the guy so strictly speaking a pen but made out like he was shot! The guy tuilagi tackled in the air was.similarly overdone.

Ah yes, now that you have mentioned it, it may have been that, sorry I was thinking you were referring to cheap shots. But it has happened more than once, and pens have been given.

Yeah some charge downs are done simply to leave a mark on the kicker. We are seeing more exaggeration and pointing towards high tackles etc. Somentefs are better at snubbing out this advice than others! In a safety aspect it does have an impact as eventually refs will not believe certain players.

Taylorman wrote:True, especially if one of them is rolling around in pain then gets up a minute later to kick a goal. Pretty sure you need your head working to kick them.

Was Farrell rolling about after the Lavanini hit, or is this a more general point? After the Quill tackle he was up on his feet squaring up to the flanker, but I didn't notice what he did this week.

Farrell not having an HIA was a joke, very disappointed in the medical staff and independent Dr, clearly he suffering as his kicking was dire.

The Argentina players were trying to get someone sent off instead of focusing on playing the game, glad they are going home.

Quite happy for the Lawes 'tackle' to be a penalty but he had got himself in a bad position and was trying to rectify it before landing on the Argentinian. It wasn't dangerous.

Tuilagi was more complicated because the guy was in the air when he hit. The timing was out. But again it was not dangerous. The guy was not upended. I would have understood had it been a yellow but would still think that was harsh.

Farrell's line implying that he'd only get a concussion from a blow to the top of his head is just bizarre.

Tuilagi paused to try and let the player return to the ground, but his timing was still slightly off, he hit him early and it was a tackle in the air. However, this pause meant that the player was much closer to the ground and the tackle was otherwise "fair", e.g. a wrapped arm and no tip to or beyond the horizontal so the player landed arse and legs first.

Penalty was the right call for that tackle in my opinion.

It is also player dependent, I don't have an issue with Farrell not going off for a HIA as he's a tough little sod who seems to relish the physical stuff, giving it and taking it but were it George North then alarm bells would be ringing.

The Tuilagi tackle is on the borderline for a yellow card and would personally have given him ten for the timing, that he was only marginally off the floor isn't all too relevant.

Both penalties. Both examples imo of players then over egging their injuries.

robbo277 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:True, especially if one of them is rolling around in pain then gets up a minute later to kick a goal. Pretty sure you need your head working to kick them.

Was Farrell rolling about after the Lavanini hit, or is this a more general point? After the Quill tackle he was up on his feet squaring up to the flanker, but I didn't notice what he did this week.

Up straight away (after playing teh ball) and resumed his place in the line.

Soul Requiem wrote:It is also player dependent, I don't have an issue with Farrell not going off for a HIA as he's a tough little sod who seems to relish the physical stuff, giving it and taking it but were it George North then alarm bells would be ringing.

The Tuilagi tackle is on the borderline for a yellow card and would personally have given him ten for the timing, that he was only marginally off the floor isn't all too relevant.

Who the player is, is irrelevant to me. I want to believe the medics have followed the correct processes no matter the player. Farrell certainly looked perfectly OK, the devices they have between teh shoulders allow the medics to check certain indicators to see if there is an issue. Finally the independent doctor can call for an HIA as happened to Samoa v Japan.

Soul Requiem wrote:It is also player dependent, I don't have an issue with Farrell not going off for a HIA as he's a tough little sod who seems to relish the physical stuff, giving it and taking it but were it George North then alarm bells would be ringing.

The Tuilagi tackle is on the borderline for a yellow card and would personally have given him ten for the timing, that he was only marginally off the floor isn't all too relevant.

It is relevant though. The issue with tackles in the air are a loss of control over the tackle and therefore safety of the player in the air.

If a player is at the top of his jump and you clatter into his ankles the turning force is more likely to tip him onto his head or neck and therefore has a higher potential of serious injury. If he's an inch off the floor, it's much harder to tip him onto his head (although if you managed it from there you should see a card).

Similarly, if you knock a player at the top of his jump and he falls flat, he's falling from a much greater height, hitting the ground at a much higher speed and therefore taking a much greater impact. If the player is an inch from the floor, there's not that much difference to the conventional tackle.



Look at the still. When Tuilagi hits the guy his left foot is in line with Manu's right knee, which is lower than usual because Manu's knee is bent. The catcher's right foot is higher because the right leg is bent, but what's important is how high the waist (centre of gravity) is, so we need to compare that to an outstretched leg.

So he's about 30cm higher than normal? 40cm? The arms wrap, the tackle brings him to ground at the correct angle, it's a penalty because he's got him in the air and the player is coming down from a slightly greater height but no more in my opinion. Had he clattered him or tipped him, he'd be looking at a card no doubt.

To be honest that still makes the tackle look even worse and is a definite yellow card.

But the law doesn't state that a tackle in the air is yellow. Given that tuilagi ensured the guy came down on his feet would suggest he was in control.
In terms of 'tackles' the ruck incident with curry was far more dangerous.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But the law doesn't state that a tackle in the air is yellow. Given that tuilagi ensured the guy came down on his feet would suggest he was in control.
In terms of 'tackles' the ruck incident with curry was far more dangerous.

Cannot remember that one.

In looking back at the game the sheer number of late hits by Argentina (especially Matera) was more obvious. Youngs, Ford and Farrell were all targeted with a couple sparking brawls.

Okay, well I obviously disagree. Would be interested to know why you think it's a yellow card? Would you give a yellow card for any tackle in the air? Because as tackles in the air go this is pretty low-end.

I didn't mean ruck. I meant maul. Long day. Matera picked him up and dropped him on his back from a drive.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I didn't mean ruck. I meant maul. Long day. Matera picked him up and dropped him on his back from a drive.

Ah OK. Thought you were suggesting Curry had done summat. As I said Matera did seem to be looking to hurt people rather than play the game. I think it is about 11 minutes that I grew 100% confident of a decent win. That is when England have just shoved Argentina of a scrum and Youngs tries to take a quick one when Matera flattens him after the ball has long gone. Lavanini getting sent of 6 minutes later just re-inforced that opinion.

robbo277 wrote:Okay, well I obviously disagree. Would be interested to know why you think it's a yellow card? Would you give a yellow card for any tackle in the air? Because as tackles in the air go this is pretty low-end.

It's low end hence the yellow not red, a lot is made of consequence which I don't really buy into. The timing of the tackle was poor and COULD have caused serious injury, that it didn't doesn't mitigate the fact he was just a foot off the air, point of initial contact was actually higher.

Low end is surely a penalty, medium YC and high RC?

Think the tackle in the air issue is an odd one. The general attitude has become far less lenient to 'mistimed' tackles like Tuilagi's - a product of the red card sagas 6 years or so ago when first introduced and aerial challenges became more and more contestable.

That still doesn't look great to be honest. I think there could, arguably, be a case for a yellow card. Sadly, with this particular penalty/foul play, it seems the ref takes how injured the player is in to account as well. It's not just the height when he's hit, it's everything - how he lands, how hurt he is, the force used. There are so many variable the defender cannot control once contact in the air is made that the risks outweigh the rewards these days, particularly in incidents like that, where the man claiming it is surrounded and everyone is static.

I can see the benefit for smashing a high clearing kick/pressured 'bomb' as, if you do get the timing right, you potentially take the defending team out of the game as suddenly the 'line' of defence is now 5m+ further back than they were anticipating. So they have to get round this extra distance while your attacking players come on at pace, driving them off, forcing the turnover. Other than that, there are marginal gains to be made for a borderline 'dominant' tackle like this. From a cocahing perspective, I don't really get it, and you take the risk of a card.

Thought the player milked it and a penalty was fair though.

Lawes and Curry both pinged for late follow throughs from challenging box kicks. Curry yellowed v Ireland. Something to watch out for. Don't forget de Allende's (joke) red card against Sopoaga a few years ago. Seems a ref might look harshly on this - again, the ref (Garces?) said the defender is responsible for any contact during a chargedown, so could see minimal contact result in a card.

LondonTiger wrote:Low end is surely a penalty, medium YC and high RC?

I should have said low medium end, it's very borderline but I'd rather have seen Tuilagi get a yellow then rein himself in for the rest of the tournament than risk it in a more important game.

World Rugby are losing hearts and minds with their clear as mud directives to the officials. Outlawing accidents in normal play is making the game more dangerous rather than safer. Rewarding the player in the air too much means teams get more players in the air. This is even being extended to players jumping to catch what used to be known as hospital passes - but now the pass is sometimes thrown high on purpose. Rushing defenders have to check their tackle or risk being penalised.

"Rushing defenders have to check their tackle or risk being penalised."

This has always, and will always, be true.

Soul Requiem wrote:

robbo277 wrote:Okay, well I obviously disagree. Would be interested to know why you think it's a yellow card? Would you give a yellow card for any tackle in the air? Because as tackles in the air go this is pretty low-end.

It's low end hence the yellow not red, a lot is made of consequence which I don't really buy into. The timing of the tackle was poor and COULD have caused serious injury, that it didn't doesn't mitigate the fact he was just a foot off the air, point of initial contact was actually higher.

The fact that the impact was higher is a good thing. If you were a foot in the air and someone ran very quickly and pushed your ankles and feet back, you would tip forward and end up either flat on your face or even going above the perpendicular if your ankles got lifted.

If you're a foot in the air and someone drives your waist back (i.e. your centre of gravity) you are going to be shunted backwards but you will not tip. Therefore there is more control in the tackle, especially if the arms are wrapped (which they were) and the tackler brings you to ground.

Well, this is what Law 10.4 actually says on tackles in the air. Apologies if it's been posted before, but I haven't seen it in the thread:

Law 10.4 wrote:Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position

World Rugby Lawbook

That is:
a) very clear
b) exactly echoes what Nige said in his description of the incident (i.e. indicates that he knew and was following the relevant Law)
c) very good evidence that the intersection between Sir Clive Woodward and anything approaching an accurate understanding of the game has long since vanished.

Penalty was the right call.