Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:20 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Rugby's Global Crisis.
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
With Lambie's career tragically cut short, and players like Halfpenny and Mike Brown one head blow away from the end of theirs, what should the game be doing to change?

I do believe the tackle law is helping but only a little bit.

Headgear is a complex argument, with some medical practioners saying they can cause more damage by spreading impact and also not releasing heat.

One solution I do agree with is to limit tactical (not injury) replacements to 2 per game so players have to de-bulk a bit for stamina, but then that begs the question would players feign injury to use their bench?

Do we now need to limit games too? 20 games per player per year?

I am not sure what the solution is, but a pro is now statistically out for c. 35% of his career.

Discuss.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:15 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53611
There's a couple more issues with head gear;

1) it makes players more reckless and they perceive protection.

2) as we have learnt from American Football and the new cases in football, sub concusive blows are big issues, the potential for these increases with headgear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 30158
Agree it’s the biggest threat to the game next to the spivs.
Official concussion/traumatic head injury thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=59043


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 707
Is that 35% from the premiership or a worldwide professional figure?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
bimboman wrote:
There's a couple more issues with head gear;

1) it makes players more reckless and they perceive protection.

2) as we have learnt from American Football and the new cases in football, sub concusive blows are big issues, the potential for these increases with headgear.


Bimbo- for once I wholly agree. And also, it limits (my direct experience and why I didn't wear one) spatial awareness- ie you don't quite have the peripheral awareness. Obviously this differs for some people, but certianly my feelings....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
rialtoblue wrote:
Is that 35% from the premiership or a worldwide professional figure?


Stats were from RPA in 2017.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12286
rialtoblue wrote:
Is that 35% from the premiership or a worldwide professional figure?


Seems slightly high to me either way so would be interested in the source.

Results of the lowering of the tackle height in the Championship Cup this season to the nipple line will be interesting. Think that's something that will end up being implemented before too long.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12133
Monitor gym usage, the reason there are more injuries is due to the extreme amounts of load put into gym training. The bigger and harder the collisions, the more the body becomes susceptible to injuries and this trend will only increase.

If you are saying you can’t overly monitor or stop that to an extent, all the things on the side are just dressing up the issues.


Last edited by Wendigo7 on Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
Duff Paddy wrote:
Agree it’s the biggest threat to the game next to the spivs.
Official concussion/traumatic head injury thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=59043


Duff, thx. I'm not restricting this just to head blows though. All injuries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
Margin_Walker wrote:
rialtoblue wrote:
Is that 35% from the premiership or a worldwide professional figure?


Seems slightly high to me either way so would be interested in the source.

Results of the lowering of the tackle height in the Championship Cup this season to the nipple line will be interesting. Think that's something that will end up being implemented before too long.


RPA- the figure is actually 32.4%.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12286
Jake wrote:
Margin_Walker wrote:
rialtoblue wrote:
Is that 35% from the premiership or a worldwide professional figure?


Seems slightly high to me either way so would be interested in the source.

Results of the lowering of the tackle height in the Championship Cup this season to the nipple line will be interesting. Think that's something that will end up being implemented before too long.


RPA- the figure is actually 32.4%.


Cheers, is it in this document somewhere? Would be interested in the context and measurement etc

https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Documen ... nglish.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 15293
3 points
- limit games per player
- increase squads
- yeah, cut wages


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
Margin_Walker wrote:
Jake wrote:
Margin_Walker wrote:
rialtoblue wrote:
Is that 35% from the premiership or a worldwide professional figure?


Seems slightly high to me either way so would be interested in the source.

Results of the lowering of the tackle height in the Championship Cup this season to the nipple line will be interesting. Think that's something that will end up being implemented before too long.


RPA- the figure is actually 32.4%.


Cheers, is it in this document somewhere? Would be interested in the context and measurement etc

https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Documen ... nglish.pdf


Not sure- only Diane Abbott has the math skill to interp that...I will see if I can dig the email chain out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12286
Jake wrote:

Not sure- only Diane Abbott has the math skill to interp that...I will see if I can dig the email chain out


Don't go digging round for it.

Injures inc. concussion are obviously a huge issue for the game either way. Seems from the outside like a punishing way to earn a living


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
Margin_Walker wrote:
Jake wrote:

Not sure- only Diane Abbott has the math skill to interp that...I will see if I can dig the email chain out


Don't go digging round for it.

Injures inc. concussion are obviously a huge issue for the game either way. Seems from the outside like a punishing way to earn a living


I did a piece on it about 2 yrs back with French commentator Thomas Lombard for his Canal Sport blog. I have it somewhere. He is hyper critical of the TOP14 in dealing with this. Very informed guy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31853
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 1317
Location: W.A
CrazyIslander wrote:
3 points
- limit games per player
- increase squads
- yeah, cut wages


:thumbup:

Seems to be the logical conclusion. No doubt they'll fluff about with nipples instead.


Last edited by Kahu on Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.


Fresher? In what way?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12084
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.


That just leads to more explosive play and bigger impacts. While I agree that tired players make poorer choices in contact, as said above, reduce the number of substitutes or back to injury replacement only and then players will have to slim down and have greater stamina.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31853
Jake wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.


Fresher? In what way?


Less game time. Less injuries. Edit : means larger squads. too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4342
Location: 'ertfordshire
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.

Will lead to harder collisions?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:52 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 747
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31853
mr bungle wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.


That just leads to more explosive play and bigger impacts. While I agree that tired players make poorer choices in contact, as said above, reduce the number of substitutes or back to injury replacement only and then players will have to slim down and have greater stamina.



Smaller players? Do we see that in the development of any sport ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31853
SaintK wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.

Will lead to harder collisions?



I've been tackled mercilessly . Mainly during the middle to three quarters of the game. Maybe if I was fresher I could have avoided it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Choc;

Removing TMO would surely result in more neck rolls and so on?

Pitch- agree, but if you take TIgers and Bath as examples, they couldn't find room for a postage stamp in the stadia- they're tiny, Bath's ingoal area is about 2m !!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
SaintK wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.

Will lead to harder collisions?



I've been tackled mercilessly . Mainly during the middle to three quarters of the game. Maybe if I was fresher I could have avoided it.


Me too. Mostly on account of being a fat unfit fuck...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31853
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Smaller team. Remove the loosies. Maybe one centre too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9790
Jake wrote:
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Choc;

Removing TMO would surely result in more neck rolls and so on?

Pitch- agree, but if you take TIgers and Bath as examples, they couldn't find room for a postage stamp in the stadia- they're tiny, Bath's ingoal area is about 2m !!



The alternative to increasing the size of the pitch is (takes deep breath) reducing the number of players.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31853
Jake wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
SaintK wrote:
Wilson's Toffee wrote:
Limit games and adjust the tackle law even more. . Get a faster game with fresher players, more players employed, fewer head injuries.

Will lead to harder collisions?



I've been tackled mercilessly . Mainly during the middle to three quarters of the game. Maybe if I was fresher I could have avoided it.


Me too. Mostly on account of being a fat unfit fuck...



:lol:

I was a very fast winger, later scrum half. Always very fit. But targeted ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8494
Location: hovering over the red button
choc wrote:
What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


I'd love to see that try to be enforced at many of the European grounds - There just isn't the space to do so.

The obvious way to decrease injuries is fewer contact situations at lower momentum. How you do that without fundamentally changing the game or by destroying it as a professional sport is the million dollar question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
blindcider wrote:
choc wrote:
What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


I'd love to see that try to be enforced at many of the European grounds - There just isn't the space to do so.

The obvious way to decrease injuries is fewer contact situations at lower momentum. How you do that without fundamentally changing the game or by destroying it as a professional sport is the million dollar question.


Also it's further complicated by TV Dolly tracks and also stated rules on emergency services.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:04 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 747
Jake wrote:
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Choc;

Removing TMO would surely result in more neck rolls and so on?

Pitch- agree, but if you take TIgers and Bath as examples, they couldn't find room for a postage stamp in the stadia- they're tiny, Bath's ingoal area is about 2m !!


Re. Neck rolls; you have a point, but players aren’t necessarily neck rolling deliberately to injure because they might be able to get away with it, rather it’s a technique issue. Cite more, punish longer and dealing with it after the game might mean decisions are more consistent rather than the beat of the moment.

Re. Bath and Leicester - my answer’s the same as any regarding Bath and Leicester. fudge ‘em. Take the first two rows of seats out. It doesn’t necessarily have to be longer, just wider, so the dead ball isn’t an issue.


Last edited by choc on Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:06 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 747
A5D5E5 wrote:
Jake wrote:
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Choc;

Removing TMO would surely result in more neck rolls and so on?

Pitch- agree, but if you take TIgers and Bath as examples, they couldn't find room for a postage stamp in the stadia- they're tiny, Bath's ingoal area is about 2m !!



The alternative to increasing the size of the pitch is (takes deep breath) reducing the number of players.


I deliberately stopped short of that one. Thought about it. Not comfortable with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4701
choc wrote:
Re. Neck rolls; you have a point, but players aren’t necessarily neck rolling deliberately to injure because they might be able to get away with it, rather it’s a technique issue. Cite more, punish longer and dealing with it after the game might mean decisions are more consistent rather than the beat of the moment.

Re. Bath and Leicester - my answer’s the same as any regarding Bath and Leicester. fudge ‘em.


Ha! But the issue is the cameras and emergency services too. And also, every prem club needs every seat in the house these days- Bath esp- they've a 94% attendance record and they reckon if they had another 8k seats they'd still fill it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:11 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 747
Jake wrote:
choc wrote:
Re. Neck rolls; you have a point, but players aren’t necessarily neck rolling deliberately to injure because they might be able to get away with it, rather it’s a technique issue. Cite more, punish longer and dealing with it after the game might mean decisions are more consistent rather than the beat of the moment.

Re. Bath and Leicester - my answer’s the same as any regarding Bath and Leicester. fudge ‘em.


Ha! But the issue is the cameras and emergency services too. And also, every prem club needs every seat in the house these days- Bath esp- they've a 94% attendance record and they reckon if they had another 8k seats they'd still fill it.


So their current stadium isn’t fit for purpose. Seems like i’d be doing them a favour and as I edited up-thread - dead ball isn’t an issue, just needs to be wider.

And do away with those stupid f**king plastic pitches. They don’t help.

I have nothing more than anecdotal evidence but my club, which is only level 9, so really shouldn’t be suffering the same problems as pro rugby but we have a fudge side more injuries than we used to and a number of them seem to be training related since we started training on 3G rather than mud.


Last edited by choc on Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9790
choc wrote:
Jake wrote:
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Choc;

Removing TMO would surely result in more neck rolls and so on?

Pitch- agree, but if you take TIgers and Bath as examples, they couldn't find room for a postage stamp in the stadia- they're tiny, Bath's ingoal area is about 2m !!


Re. Neck rolls; you have a point, but players aren’t necessarily neck rolling deliberately to injure because they might be able to get away with it, rather it’s a technique issue. Cite more, punish longer and dealing with it after the game might mean decisions are more consistent rather than the beat of the moment.

Re. Bath and Leicester - my answer’s the same as any regarding Bath and Leicester. fudge ‘em. Take the first two rows of seats out. It doesn’t necessarily have to be longer, just wider, so the dead ball isn’t an issue.


I suspect (thought I don't know) that it isn't quite as easy as "just take out the first two rows of seats" - doing so would probably not be trivial for access / security / emergency evacuation etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18724
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


For RWC games, ball in play time from 1995-2011 increased 33%, between individual years there are ups and downs, but the trend is an increase. In 6N and Tri/quad nations, it's actually gone down since 2008 to 2014, with the 6N consistently having more ball in play time, though in 2014 it was apparently equal. Though I can't find later figures, if the rbs stats pack is accurate, 2015 would have seen a good increase again for the 6N. All are still well above what it was for the figures 20 years ago or so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9790
choc wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Jake wrote:
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Choc;

Removing TMO would surely result in more neck rolls and so on?

Pitch- agree, but if you take TIgers and Bath as examples, they couldn't find room for a postage stamp in the stadia- they're tiny, Bath's ingoal area is about 2m !!



The alternative to increasing the size of the pitch is (takes deep breath) reducing the number of players.


I deliberately stopped short of that one. Thought about it. Not comfortable with it.


I'm not surprised (not by you personally, but by the general sentiment). I find that odd. The game has changed to be almost unrecognisable from the one it was 20 years ago. Which itself was unrecognisable from 20 years before that.

What is sacrosanct about the number of players (other than of course being similar to the code-that-should-not-be-named)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:26 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 747
A5D5E5 wrote:
choc wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Jake wrote:
choc wrote:
I’d be interested in seeing some stats on the time the balls in play vs stoppages compared to 20+ years ago. The amount of scrum stoppages, TMO stoppages and subs and the significantly more recovery time has allowed the game to become an anaerobic one rather than an aerobic one which means more power and more impact.

Get rid of the TMO - that must allow for about 10 minutes of recovery time a game alone. Stop the clock after the first scrum reset it and start it after the ballnis at the back foot - that would increase the ball in play time - again scrum resets must kill between 5-10 minutes a game. The subs is the obvious issue but how do you police it? Reduce the number? Possible but each position so specialist now that having anon specialist in it is potentially increasing the risk of injury and obviously it’s counter intuitive to make someone injured carry on playing if you want to reduce injuries.

What about increasing the size of the pitch? More gaps, less collisions. Players are so much bigger than 100 years ago but they are still playing on the same size pitch.


Choc;

Removing TMO would surely result in more neck rolls and so on?

Pitch- agree, but if you take TIgers and Bath as examples, they couldn't find room for a postage stamp in the stadia- they're tiny, Bath's ingoal area is about 2m !!



The alternative to increasing the size of the pitch is (takes deep breath) reducing the number of players.


I deliberately stopped short of that one. Thought about it. Not comfortable with it.


I'm not surprised (not by you personally, but by the general sentiment). I find that odd. The game has changed to be almost unrecognisable from the one it was 20 years ago. Which itself was unrecognisable from 20 years before that.

What is sacrosanct about the number of players (other than of course being similar to the code-that-should-not-be-named)?


Which do you get rid of? Positions are specialist. For the forwards the only answer is back row because you have to keep the front 5 otherwise you have to completely remodel the scum. I’m not comfortable with telling someone that has trained for a specific position that he’s not needed any more and he has to now be something else. I like differentiation between openside and blindside and they they different skills and different physical attributes.

The only position I can see it being possible with is probably the blindside winger but then then forwqrd vs backs ratio ends up out of whack and I don’t see that solving the collision issue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 9790
choc wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
choc wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Jake wrote:
Choc;

Removing TMO would surely result in more neck rolls and so on?

Pitch- agree, but if you take TIgers and Bath as examples, they couldn't find room for a postage stamp in the stadia- they're tiny, Bath's ingoal area is about 2m !!



The alternative to increasing the size of the pitch is (takes deep breath) reducing the number of players.


I deliberately stopped short of that one. Thought about it. Not comfortable with it.


I'm not surprised (not by you personally, but by the general sentiment). I find that odd. The game has changed to be almost unrecognisable from the one it was 20 years ago. Which itself was unrecognisable from 20 years before that.

What is sacrosanct about the number of players (other than of course being similar to the code-that-should-not-be-named)?


Which do you get rid of? Positions are specialist. For the forwards the only answer is back row because you have to keep the front 5 otherwise you have to completely remodel the scum. I’m not comfortable with telling someone that has trained for a specific position that he’s not needed any more and he has to now be something else. I like differentiation between openside and blindside and they they different skills and different physical attributes.

The only position I can see it being possible with is probably the blindside winger but then then forwqrd vs backs ratio ends up out of whack and I don’t see that solving the collision issue


I don't know. A couple of back rows would be obvious, but that is leaping far to far ahead. If the game is serious about addressing the attrition rate (and it should be), it will have to confront some very difficult (even existential) questions. Much as you (and I) might like the differentiation between openside and blindside, that is poor grounds for justifying the current risk of long term injury to players.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bagheera, beachboy, bimboman, camroc1, CarrotGawks, charltom, choc, Cookie Monster, Dark, Fat Old Git, Flockwitt, Ghost-Of-Nepia, Google Adsense [Bot], irishrugbyua, jambanja, Joost, Leffe, Mullet 2, Plato'sCave, Saint, SamShark, Theflier, Toulon's Not Toulouse, Turbogoat, Varsity Way and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group