Bloodgate - what have we learned?
+5
red_stag
wales606
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler
AsLongAsBut100ofUs
thebandwagonsociety
9 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Rugby Union
Page 1 of 1
Bloodgate - what have we learned?
I see that Dean Richards is getting into the discussion threads again as we continue towards the end of his bloodgate ban.
But what has rugby learned from the Bloodgate scandal? What is the legacy of this whole incident?
From what I can see, those involved in this incident have been punished comprehensively. But the fallout was kept within this incident. A stern warning to teams not to visit the jokeshop before games anymore.
But should the powers that be have done more? Was the incident not an opportunity to look at;
- how injuries are treated/reported by the medical teams and the potential influence of coaches/players over what should be medical decisions? (eg. where a player is visibly concussed or knocked out during a game, yet this isn't put on the official report so as to allow the player to play the following week)
- injuries in other games in various competitions, where the medical decision could be in doubt as there was a competitive advantage (eg. prop injuries leading to uncontested scrums, etc.)
I think the Unions had an opportunity to get a remit from players/teams/fans to do a proper review of a part of this rugby where people don't ask a lot of questions, but doesn't always give the appearance of being above board. Is this view consistent with 606v2 at large.
But what has rugby learned from the Bloodgate scandal? What is the legacy of this whole incident?
From what I can see, those involved in this incident have been punished comprehensively. But the fallout was kept within this incident. A stern warning to teams not to visit the jokeshop before games anymore.
But should the powers that be have done more? Was the incident not an opportunity to look at;
- how injuries are treated/reported by the medical teams and the potential influence of coaches/players over what should be medical decisions? (eg. where a player is visibly concussed or knocked out during a game, yet this isn't put on the official report so as to allow the player to play the following week)
- injuries in other games in various competitions, where the medical decision could be in doubt as there was a competitive advantage (eg. prop injuries leading to uncontested scrums, etc.)
I think the Unions had an opportunity to get a remit from players/teams/fans to do a proper review of a part of this rugby where people don't ask a lot of questions, but doesn't always give the appearance of being above board. Is this view consistent with 606v2 at large.
thebandwagonsociety- Posts : 2899
Join date : 2011-06-02
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
thebandwagonsociety wrote:But what has rugby learned from the Bloodgate scandal? What is the legacy of this whole incident?
Vampires can't play rugby
AsLongAsBut100ofUs- Posts : 14129
Join date : 2011-03-26
Age : 111
Location : Devon/London
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
The move toward 23 man sqauds was a clear reaction to bloodgate finaly forcing people to face up to the uncontested scrums problem.
Its noticable that blood subs havve dropped across the game as well since this incident.
I dont know about a full public enquiry and peoples courts followed by floggings and hangings but there certainly has been some embaressed shuffleing and a general agreement that the divideing line between taking advantage of ill thought out rules and unnaceptable behaviour needed to be shifted.
The real thing we have learnt from bloodgate is that theres nothing like a good scape goat.
Its noticable that blood subs havve dropped across the game as well since this incident.
I dont know about a full public enquiry and peoples courts followed by floggings and hangings but there certainly has been some embaressed shuffleing and a general agreement that the divideing line between taking advantage of ill thought out rules and unnaceptable behaviour needed to be shifted.
The real thing we have learnt from bloodgate is that theres nothing like a good scape goat.
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler- Posts : 10344
Join date : 2011-06-02
Location : Englandshire
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
Its is not to the benefit of the coaches, medical staff and indeed the player to play if they are injured or at risk - anything that endangers a players health will be put on the medical form.
As for faking an injury, im sure a lot of players (and coaches) will think twice now, knowing that their career is over if they get found out.
As for faking an injury, im sure a lot of players (and coaches) will think twice now, knowing that their career is over if they get found out.
wales606- Posts : 10728
Join date : 2011-03-04
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
Bloodgate had nothing to do with uncontested scrums. It was taking advantage of the use of substitutions.
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
...however, I am still annoyed about that Leicester player in the Blues vs Leicester HC SF who, having had blood on his face for most of the second half decided he needed to go get cleaned up with 2 minutes before a penalty shootout...the coach decided to replace him with a goal kicker who had already been subbed....., just sayin....Poor Martyn Williams
wales606- Posts : 10728
Join date : 2011-03-04
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
red_stag wrote:Bloodgate had nothing to do with uncontested scrums. It was taking advantage of the use of substitutions.
Agreed stag, but Bloodgate arose from a medical report noting a cut, and the uncontested scrums generally arose where props were noted as being injured and not fit to play, both of which had a competitive advantage to the team involved and both of which required medical findings in a specific description in order to trigger that advantage taking place. Though I could be wrong in this regard.
thebandwagonsociety- Posts : 2899
Join date : 2011-06-02
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
what I really want to know is why whenrever there is a Scandal do we have to add "gate" at the end of it?
I know it's connected to the "Watergate Scandal" that chucked Nixon out of the white house but jeez can't we come up with a better titles?
I know it's connected to the "Watergate Scandal" that chucked Nixon out of the white house but jeez can't we come up with a better titles?
RuggerRadge2611- Posts : 7194
Join date : 2011-03-04
Age : 39
Location : The North, The REAL North (Beyond the Wall)
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
red_stag wrote:Bloodgate had nothing to do with uncontested scrums. It was taking advantage of the use of substitutions.
Yes but it opened up the whole issue of faking injuries and forced a surge of opinion that it had to stop. Everyone knew that both blood subs and prop injuries were reguallry being used to "play" the rules, it just took bloodgate to force a groundswell of opinion into doing something about the issue, or even to recognise it as genuine cheating rather than just something people did.
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler- Posts : 10344
Join date : 2011-06-02
Location : Englandshire
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
Some interesting responses here. I get the feeling that while there hasn't been any official moves since the Bloodgate incident, there is a feeling that the punishments and quiet words coming from upon high has effectively forced teams to clean up their act.
thebandwagonsociety- Posts : 2899
Join date : 2011-06-02
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
wales606 wrote:...however, I am still annoyed about that Leicester player in the Blues vs Leicester HC SF who, having had blood on his face for most of the second half decided he needed to go get cleaned up with 2 minutes before a penalty shootout...the coach decided to replace him with a goal kicker who had already been subbed....., just sayin....Poor Martyn Williams
To be afir though its the refs fault. he shouldve sent the player form the field the minute he had an open blood would ( which he did have). In that case Tigers clealry played the rules, they wanted Hipkiss on the pitch up untill they maybe needed another kicker...so bought it to the refs attention when they suddenly realised that Dupuys kicking was more valuable. Its not cheating as such, or faking injury, just taking advantage of poorly thought out rules.
I have vague memories from a couple of a player (Nick Evans?) going into a game with a knee injury and coming off for a blood injury, getting treatment for his knee at the same time, then coming back on when the game was heading for a tight and his goal kicking was required.
The problem with all of this is it really comes down to self policing. The rules have to take player safety as the first consideration, and then game integrity second. They cant have a full medical team with MRI snanners and legal represnetatives to argue what constitutes a genuine injury pitchside. At some level there has to be a degree of honour involved form teh individuals, and an understanding across the game of hwat is OK and what isnt.
Bloodgate was by no means an isolated incident, or unique in its character. Nor did it come out of a vacumn due to some evil mastermind as some liked to beleive at the time. There was a gradual creep and acceptance of those sort of practises.
What I argue is that the furore and media inflated public rage created by bloodgate has bought about a distincyt shift in teh midset of everyone involved in rugby toward what is and isnt acceptable in this regard. It also forced peopel to face up to the issue regarding uncontested scrums. Theres no question that theres less playing of the injury rules than there used to be, and the change came about because the people involved were forced to rethink what was OK and what wasnt.
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler- Posts : 10344
Join date : 2011-06-02
Location : Englandshire
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
I don't think it's changed things that much. Teams will still try to get away with as much as possible, they're just having to be a little more savvy and make sure not to wink.
johnpartle- Posts : 318
Join date : 2011-06-08
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
I was going to say don't wink.
Lets be honest if you want a blood replacement it wouldn't be too hard to get a real blood injury in rugby.
Lets be honest if you want a blood replacement it wouldn't be too hard to get a real blood injury in rugby.
BATH_BTGOG- Posts : 875
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : Somerset
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
I would have changed blood subs completely. If you are bleeding, run off, get treatment and run back on. No sub, you play down to 14.
The only blood sub I would allow is that if a front row is in the blood bin it is akin to a front row being in the sin bin, and you can make a temporary replacement to get your full compliment of front row on by subbing a flanker or another less important player (sorry non-front rowers, but it's true!) off for a front row while the bleeding front row player is getting treatment. Then, when he's patched up, he and the flanker come back on the pitch.
Then you're left with a choice. Can he play through the injury until half-time/full-time? If yes, wait. If no, can you patch him up in a couple of minutes? If yes, do it. If not then you're going to have to substitute him off. Why should it be any different to any other injury?
The only blood sub I would allow is that if a front row is in the blood bin it is akin to a front row being in the sin bin, and you can make a temporary replacement to get your full compliment of front row on by subbing a flanker or another less important player (sorry non-front rowers, but it's true!) off for a front row while the bleeding front row player is getting treatment. Then, when he's patched up, he and the flanker come back on the pitch.
Then you're left with a choice. Can he play through the injury until half-time/full-time? If yes, wait. If no, can you patch him up in a couple of minutes? If yes, do it. If not then you're going to have to substitute him off. Why should it be any different to any other injury?
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
robbo277 wrote:I would have changed blood subs completely. If you are bleeding, run off, get treatment and run back on. No sub, you play down to 14.
The only blood sub I would allow is that if a front row is in the blood bin it is akin to a front row being in the sin bin, and you can make a temporary replacement to get your full compliment of front row on by subbing a flanker or another less important player (sorry non-front rowers, but it's true!) off for a front row while the bleeding front row player is getting treatment. Then, when he's patched up, he and the flanker come back on the pitch.
Then you're left with a choice. Can he play through the injury until half-time/full-time? If yes, wait. If no, can you patch him up in a couple of minutes? If yes, do it. If not then you're going to have to substitute him off. Why should it be any different to any other injury?
Thats essentialy how all injuries used to be treated. Trouble is it punishes teams for getting players hurt.
The whole point of teh blood subs rule is to ensure that anyone with an open blood wound isnt on the pitch, and jubblies the refs responsibility to ensure they arent. Saying to teams you go one man down to get that patched up may stop them "taking advantage" of the rule for tactical replacements but doesnt meet the basic healtha ndsaftey issue of having people with open blood wounds rubbing up against each other.
As well as being a bit gross theres an infection risk from open wounds , and the albeit remote chance of passing some nasty stuff from person to pwerson. You wouldnt want to be playing against Freddy Mercury if he was gushing blood from a broken nose.
Surely it would be much easier to just allow rolling subs benches, with a minimum 10 minutes play for each player coming on. That way there would be no reason to bother bending the rules whilst avoiding a situation where place kickers and props become entirely specialist set piece players.
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler- Posts : 10344
Join date : 2011-06-02
Location : Englandshire
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
You know Freddy's been dead for some time!
BATH_BTGOG- Posts : 875
Join date : 2011-01-27
Location : Somerset
Re: Bloodgate - what have we learned?
Even more reason why you wouldnt want him on the pitch bleeding all over you :P
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler- Posts : 10344
Join date : 2011-06-02
Location : Englandshire
Similar topics
» Bloodgate 10 years on
» What have Ireland learned
» What have we learned from the World Cup
» What Can Be Learned From SuperRugby?
» What I learned at the range today
» What have Ireland learned
» What have we learned from the World Cup
» What Can Be Learned From SuperRugby?
» What I learned at the range today
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Rugby Union
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|