Bath
CONCUSSION: WHAT TO DO?
"Fend": dangerous
By PG Tips
August 16 2021
From 1 August World Rugby’s 5 Welfare Based Law Trials aimed at reducing injury in the game will be applied in all competitions. 2 aim to create more space in the game, the other 3 address safety issues at the breakdown. These proposed measures acknowledge the incidence of injury in the modern game as a serious issue. Once they have been seen in action for a few months it should be possible to assess their effectiveness. Meanwhile, what can be done within the existing laws to reduce incidence of injury-especially concussion?
For information, the 5 Trials are:
Law Trials to create space:
- 50:22 Kicking trial
- 2 Goal-Line Dropout
Breakdown Law Amendments
- Ban on pre-binding
- Lower limb clearout sanction
- A limit on “latching”
Details can be found at: https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/welfare-focused-rugby-law-trials-to-be-implemented-globally
While we await the results of these trials and their recommendations, there is much that can be done by officials and players to reduce injury risk. As the great Nigel Owens said earlier this year: “"People say let's change the laws. No, you don't need to change the laws, the laws need to be refereed.". Let’s see that happen to provide a context to the law trials and help judge their effectiveness. It might also be worth considering the return of some laws and styles of play that were altered in recent memory.
First, let’s recognise that the tackle is not the only dangerous area of the game – almost all of them are. World Rugby clearly notes the risk at the breakdown, but I for one am surprised that their recent announcement makes no mention of players staying on their feet. The law states that players must “endeavour” to stay on their feet. Most do not. The resultant pile of bodies is hard to shift without headlong charge or dive by opponents. Peter O’Mahoney’s red card in the Wales v Ireland match is an obvious example. He was rightly carded, but had the opposition been on their feet the conditions for his offence would not have existed. Most players now dive into rucks, either to clear the ball or to “secure” it (really to make it unplayable for the opposition). The result is not just slow ball and an encouragement to the monotony of pick and drive, but an increased risk of injury to head and limb.
The basis of this constipated situation at the breakdown is the jackal- currently legal in the game and hard to shift without a violent charge from a distance. I will watch the application of the sanction on lower limb clearout with interest – this could put greater emphasis on upper body clearout increasing the risk of head on head or shoulder to head contact. Personally I favour a return to rucking on the feet, with no hands in the ruck- therefore, no jackal. This I believe would speed the game up and also make it safer by providing more space and reducing the frequency of collsions.While on the breakdown, officials should pay more attention to offside. Owens again: “"The law wants you behind the offside line while referees were happy if they (defenders) were on the offside line.”
In practice this often means the defence is well beyond it. There is minimal depth to the current breakdown anyway (which is why teams attempt to manufacture it with the “caterpillar” which so annoys many spectators). Therefore there is more need for a zero-tolerance approach to offside – not only for an open game, but for safety- lax handling of offside leads to man-and-ball collisions, most of them upright, with resulting risk of head-on-head clashes. In the era of rucking the ruck or maul breakdown would be about 5 or 6 metres deep, providing separation between backlines and making it easier for officials to spot creeping offside.
Another area of concussion risk is the aerial collision. Much has changed and improved in this area in recent seasons and of course there will always be contentious individual cases. These though do illustrate a lack of consistent application. Cheslin Kolbe apparently escaped a red card for upending Conor Murray in the air because “his view was impeded by Dan Biggar in his sightline”. Bath fans will remember Anthony Watson suffering a red for knocking into an airborne Alex Goode, after he himself had been unbalanced in the air by a shoulder charge from Watson’s teammate Chris Ashton. A comparison of the two events suggests that referee jurisdictions around the world are not fully aligned on a serious risk issue.
Now to the tackle. The tackler is as much at risk here as the ball carrier and risk at the tackle cannot be eliminated -only mitigated. Accidental collision with knee, hip or hard ground is part of the game. What can be reduced is dangerous tackling and dangerous actions by the ball carrier. There is no need for a swinging arm, especially when tackling high. These should be penalised more than they are. I suspect that one reason why some are not sanctioned is the dangerous tackle protocol, which understandably looks for an “attempt to wrap”. Perhaps some referees see a swinging arm and confuse it with an attempt to embrace the ball carrier? Here the judgement of the official should surely take precedence over “protocol”. If it looks like a swinging arm and is a movement of only one arm, then penalise it as a dangerous tackle!
The protocol itself is a positive (although the use of the word and the need for it illustrates and supports my point of last week’s article that dangerous high tackles were frequently overlooked for two decades), giving officials guidelines for determining recklessness, danger and appropriate sanctions. I would though like to see two amendments – including the swinging arm as an offence and some leeway for judgement and empathy with the tackler. Accepting that a rugby pitch is not a court of law and that officials have limited time to make a call, the protocol was inconsistently applied last season. Northmore’s tackle on Piutau in the Premiership semi-final for instance, (which was deemed acceptable) appeared much more intentional or at least reckless than several incidents in other matches which seemed more unfortunate than reckless – for example Ewels’ head clash with Radwan.
The ball carrier may only use the palm of the hand or a braced shoulder as defence against a tackle. We saw several examples where leading with the elbow away from the body was penalised last season -long may that continue and if contact is made with the head or throat the culprit should be carded. I would like to see this law applied with more vigour-it is still too common. While on this topic, I wish commentators like Ben Kay would stop referring to the “fend.” By all means use “sheds” for changing rooms if you want to sound cool and appeal to New Zealanders, but to be clear, the “fend”, i.e. any form of deterrent to the tackler that is not an open palm handoff, is specifically prohibited in the laws.
Blocking runners should be penalised too if they make physical contact with a prospective tackler. Not only does their action unsight, or even unbalance the tackler, which may contribute to them making a clumsy a high tackle, the action itself adds to concussion risk by using shoulder or elbow to obstruct the tackler at upper body and potentially head height.
Another defender action I would wish to clamp down on is “afters” when a try is scored. Thankfully these are reducing but there are still players sliding into prone scorers with knee or boot. Referees tend to ignore these goal line offences if a try has clearly been scored. Why? Foul play is foul play even after the whistle and the danger has not reduced after a score. If anything, it is increased as the scorer is often unaware of the oncoming threat so unable to avoid it.
These wishes may sound like increasing the burden on referees already busy with a complex game. That surely is why touch judges have been upgraded to assistant referees? They should work as a team, three sets of eyes covering more than one, to clamp down on these offences. Surely the officials have a duty of care (and if that is not specifically stated in the laws it would not prevent necessarily a judge from ruling that they do) to the welfare of the players?
So, my proposal is that only one current law needs to change. I would change the ruck: require rucking on the feet and outlaw hands in the ruck and the jackal. That one idea alone is worth much debate as I know rucking has both supporters and fierce opponents. That change apart, I believe that the game can be made considerably safer and more fun to play and watch with more stringent application of some existing laws.
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon
16/08/2021 08:43
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021:08:30:09:53:40 by P G Tips.
It seems to me that that there are plenty of laws to the game already and if they were enforced with safety in mind they would probably be sufficient. However this would require swift judgement from the officials rather than the protracted multi angle slow motion replays to still reach a decision the the audience can’t follow. I would be fairly happy with a Ref saying that’s is a penalty/card because “I believe it is dangerous”.
In my view an admirable aim to “let the game flow” has in practice brought lax referreung of some laws and resulted in increased injury risk.
If a tackle looks dangerous why not treat it as such?
PG
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
Quote:I wonder if we will see the defending team concentrating on getting under/wrapping up the ball to stop it being grounded, but conceding the ground to allow the attacker over the try line to get the drop out?? Potentially high risk, but as you say better (safer?) than 20 phases of 6 inch collisions then a scrum.BathMatt53
Goal line dropout trial should thankfully stop the repeated Bath 5m scrums followed by bish bash against the goal line for 20 phases? Definitely a good thing.
[www.bbc.co.uk]
This could be a massive issue.
PG
Quote:P G Tips
Thanks dcsh.
In my view an admirable aim to “let the game flow” has in practice brought lax referreung of some laws and resulted in increased injury risk.
If a tackle looks dangerous why not treat it as such?
PG
The game seems to flow like nobodies business when Quins are playing. Maybe it's the attitude of the players and coaches that needs to change rather than the Laws. Having said that, I'd have the TMO monitoring offside and start yellow carding players who transgress immediately.
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Quote:As a parent of a junior player about to resume rugby that is very concerning of course. I assume this has been handily timed to coincide with the new season to get maximum exposure.P G Tips
Study finds cognitive function can be impaired after one season:
[www.bbc.co.uk]
This could be a massive issue.
PG
Quote:joethefanaticQuote:P G Tips
Thanks dcsh.
In my view an admirable aim to “let the game flow” has in practice brought lax referreung of some laws and resulted in increased injury risk.
If a tackle looks dangerous why not treat it as such?
PG
The game seems to flow like nobodies business when Quins are playing. Maybe it's the attitude of the players and coaches that needs to change rather than the Laws. Having said that, I'd have the TMO monitoring offside and start yellow carding players who transgress immediately.
Left the key factor out there Joe, the referee! The Laws whatever they are need to be applied consistently, as PG states regularly the offside law has to be applied.
Surely with on and off field refereeing that basic law can be implemented even if that one adds a fraction more time to set for tackles it can make a difference in tackling safety.
Quote:B4thB4ckQuote:As a parent of a junior player about to resume rugby that is very concerning of course. I assume this has been handily timed to coincide with the new season to get maximum exposure.P G Tips
Study finds cognitive function can be impaired after one season:
[www.bbc.co.uk]
This could be a massive issue.
PG
While I'm sure the newspapers will appreciate the timings, I'm not sure it really needed releasing.
That players of ever-increasing mass, speed and power colliding leads to a cognitive impact was always obvious.
The more we import the things that impact those trends (inc. illegal substances?) to junior and club rugby the more the damage will increase there too.
As long as the bar is set at cognitive 'damage' it's hard to see where rugby turns while it continues to oversee an increase in mass, speed and power.
It can't solve the problem without addressing that and it doesn't want to address that really - just try and shift the laws so they can be bigger, faster, stronger in what looks to be a safer way. Once upon a time Lomu was a 'freak', now he'd be mundane...
Well, quite.
In fairness the World Rugby/RFU do seem to be going in that direction, but from the bottom up (which is at least apt). I guess if the source of these players (the younger ones) is brought up rewarding smaller collisions then it will eventually go that way. Will it be quick enough? Will they change their minds in the mean time?
Quote:B4thB4ck
As a parent of a junior player about to resume rugby that is very concerning of course. I assume this has been handily timed to coincide with the new season to get maximum exposure.
As an age grade coach I look back to what was asked of us in the 1980's/90s and wonder at how much it has all changed. I remember never having played rugby before secondary, throw into the middle of the front row and told to get on with it. Never taught to tackle properly before the game or anything like that. We also used to smash each other to bits at each and every session often on consecutive days.
I get that it is still a contact game but I do think that injuries can be minimised through the training in place these days, as it can be with most other sports. For example our kids do contact (as in proper match tackling, rucking) at most once a week now for a max of about 20 mins.
Of course the critical thing for us is to ensure that the schools and clubs are talking to each other about the kids, even a few years ago I was seeing kids play a match for school on a Saturday, then club on a Sunday. I wouldn't allow that with my group.
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
Adopted players: 24/25 J Bayliss; [24] O Lawrence; [23] J Cokanasiga; [22] M Green; [21] A Watson; [20] T Faletau; [19] M V Vuuren; [18] T Faletau; [17] D Denton; [16] H. Agulla; [15] L Houston; [14] W Spencer; [13] F. Louw
Family . Community . Nation - [sdp.org.uk]
My mind's been going places without me lately - Bushfire The B52's
Quote:
I don't think I have heard of a cricketer retiring from concussions before. Head injuries, yes, but that would be the ball impacting and causing an injury to the outside of the body rather than forcing the head to move and the brain being damaged against the inside of the skull.
The ball generally bounces off the helmet so it is a loud shock and some pressure spread out by the lining of the helmet. Maybe the head can be forced to move if the bowling is up to 90 mph, I never faced anything like that, but still a bit surprised.
I wonder if he spent a lot of time in the nets practising batting against bouncers or being a wicketkeeper he took a lot of blows when stood up to the stumps.
[www.theguardian.com]
Quote:shendy
There's also cricketer Will Pucovski in Australia struggling with repeated concussions, not all from cricket but recent ones are.
[www.theguardian.com]
Played a lot of Aussie Rules if I have the right player.
[www.bbc.co.uk]
The 24-year-old opener was struck in the head during the warm-up before the final day of his side's Sheffield Shield match against South Australia.
He took the field but had to come off after only three balls were bowled.
The 10th was when he took a blow to the head in training with Victoria.
Surely that's the end of the road for him - but how on earth does he keep getting struck in the head?
"The first of Pucovski's concussions came in an Australian Rules Football game as a teenager. The causes of the other eight include bouncers, a dive to complete a run, a blow in the field and a door in his home."
How do you get concussion from a door??
More Bath headlines
- LEARNINGS FOR NEXT SEASON. SEASON REVIEW CONTINUED.
- World Rugby Junior World Championship 2026 Preview
- FAILURE, FRUSTRATION OR FLATLINE? 2026 SEASON REVIEW
- "IT'S IN OUR HANDS”...BATH V EXETER.
- NOW OR NEVER: BATH V LEICESTER
- BOUNCEBACKABILITY: EXETER CHIEFS V BATH RUGBY
- LE HANDICAP? BORDEAUX v BATH ECC SEMI FINAL
- “MAY YOUR CHOICES REFLECT YOUR HOPES NOT YOUR FEARS”.
- EYES BACK ON THE OTHER PRIZE! BATH v HARLEQUINS
Bath latest threads
- O/T Postcards from the Past No 4 – Naples 2010
- Injury latest on forgotten Bath Rugby wrecking ball Jaco Coetzee
- OT / Prostate
- OT - Fox wins the Open at Birkdale
- O/T Postcards from the Past No 3 Théoule-sur-Mer – May 2017
- OT/ Site advertising
- Will Roue Signed ahead of the 2026/27 season
- Bath Rugby's confirmed 2026/27 incoming signings and outgoings
- 2026/27 PREM Rugby Cup fixtures confirmed
- O/T Postcards from the Past No2 Cordoba 2015