Felix Jones forced to retire due to neck injury

Pink Fairy

I'm still in shock, just wondering will he be kept within the setup in a coaching capacity

seachto7

wp_rathead wrote:

Am I mistaken to say he was in a band aswell when younger? Maybe he has a career in music?

Yeah, Hermitage Green. He jacked it in when the rugby took over. Maybe he could go back to it. They seem to be doing well for themselves.

JGEP

By all accounts he was a leader in the group and demonstrated how a professional should conduct themselves.

Hope the injury only affects his sporting endeavors in a professional capacity and doesn't preclude him from taking part socially.

Best of luck to him in whatever direction his new career takes him.

QuinDixie

very hard for someone young, living their dream of playing pro rugby, to see it all gone. shocking news.
i know it is impossible to stop all these types of injuries, but the irb by reducing the number usable subs in a game to three, would help.

pickarooney

QuinDixie wrote: »

very hard for someone young, living their dream of playing pro rugby, to see it all gone. shocking news.
i know it is impossible to stop all these types of injuries, but the irb by reducing the number usable subs in a game to three, would help.

You'll have to explain that one

CatFromHue

less subs means the guys have to get fitter and, in theory, they'll get smaller too.

if they get smaller then, in theory, the hits won't be as hard

bmwguy

CatFromHue wrote: »

less subs means the guys have to get fitter and, in theory, they'll get smaller too.

if they get smaller then, in theory, the hits won't be as hard

No offence, but that is one of the craziest things I have ever read.

CatFromHue

well when you think about a coach can, and regularly does, subs over half his team every game.

there's usually 5 subs that come on for the big lads in the pack of 8.

that means there's guys out there who regularly never finish a game, and these guys tend to be the big guys.

the big guys tend to hit harder than the littler guys.

if the big guys have to play 80 mins 25-30 times a season they're going to change how they train to make them fitter and less big.

QuinDixie

CatFromHue wrote: »

well when you think about a coach can, and regularly does, subs over half his team every game.

there's usually 5 subs that come on for the big lads in the pack of 8.

that means there's guys out there who regularly never finish a game, and these guys tend to be the big guys.

the big guys tend to hit harder than the littler guys.

if the big guys have to play 80 mins 25-30 times a season they're going to change how they train to make them fitter and less big.

well explained, but it would also help the weaker teams, who do not have the same pick but may have 12 - 18 credible players.

rrpc

CatFromHue wrote: »

less subs means the guys have to get fitter and, in theory, they'll get smaller too.

if they get smaller then, in theory, the hits won't be as hard

May I introduce you to the following formula:

Force = Mass x Velocity squared.

A little bit lighter and a little bit faster. Except the little bit faster is squared.

QuinDixie

rrpc wrote: »

May I introduce you to the following formula:

Force = Mass x Velocity squared.

A little bit lighter and a little bit faster. Except the little bit faster is squared.

bring back rucking, reduce subs, enforce the offside rule, and get strict on proper tackling.
Its not rocket science.

CatFromHue

I don't think the guys are going to get much faster after dropping a few kgs tbh.

Podge_irl

There is a certain logic behind the limited subs reducing the size of players, but it's simply not a runner due to the specialised nature of positions on a rugby pitch. As things stand you really do need a full replacement front row for it to be safe for them to come on.

Anyway, sorry to hear about Jones. Didn't even realise he had had another injury but you don't want to mess around with neck injuries. I was not a huge fan a few years ago but he has shown himself to be a very dependable player with a bit more skills than I originally realised. Real shame.

eyeball kid

Shocked to read this. I'm sure he's devastated. Wish him all the best for the future.

Stheno

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is a certain logic behind the limited subs reducing the size of players, but it's simply not a runner due to the specialised nature of positions on a rugby pitch. As things stand you really do need a full replacement front row for it to be safe for them to come on.
.

Agree

eyeball kid wrote: »

Shocked to read this. I'm sure he's devastated. Wish him all the best for the future.

I found his statement very upsetting, particularly this:

To accept I will not play with my teammates again is beyond upsetting

Let him recover, and assess his options for his future. God knows where he's at at the moment.

CatFromHue

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is a certain logic behind the limited subs reducing the size of players, but it's simply not a runner due to the specialised nature of positions on a rugby pitch. As things stand you really do need a full replacement front row for it to be safe for them to come on.

it is just a bit of a nice thought experiment to do but 20 years ago being on the bench for a rugby team meant you got to catch up on some reading as you weren't coming on.

I think Warren Gatland has some ridiculously high number of games where he sat on the bench for NZ but never got to play in a capped game, it's something like 40 or 50!

gally74

I always remember him from this game himself and McFadden were electric

http://www.irishrugby.ie/mobile/rugby/5316.php

pickarooney

Surely playing on when you're tired is the most likely way to pick up an injury? Baffling logic to me.

How and ever, awful news for Jones. Hope he'll be OK.

CatFromHue

well you'd train to have more endurance and so that would prob mean you wouldn't be as big in the first place.

pickarooney

You'd have players picking up knocks and strains and being forced to play on, aggravating injuries.
Very few modern players are unfit or unable to last 80 minutes. Young players would get much less playing time and exposure to high intensity games. Sean Cronin could hang up his boots. Mike Ross, arguably our unfittest player, hasn't missed a game in years. How is making him lose a few kilos going to help him?

Conor Murray would play 80 minutes every game. Healy would be finished as he'd have to play whole games or not even got out. Sexton is forever getting injured. Do we send the unfit slob off to the army till he hardens up?

Exactly how many of our recent injuries were caused by the player being too big?

CatFromHue

that's why I said it's just a nice thought experiment.

the use of tactical substitutions could be looked at though, obviously no one wants guys playing if they're injured.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Surely a load of 10 stone guys running into each other would have the same physical impact on their bodies as a bunch of 20 stone guys running into each other?

Pudsy33

The notion that playing more rugby will decrease injury seems silly tbh. I don't think limiting the subs would make a tangible difference to the impacts.

CatFromHue

If they were all 10 stone or all 20 stone it'd prob be the same but we've guys varying from 13 stone to 20/21 stone on the pitch at the moment.

I think it'd be something to look at.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

CatFromHue wrote: »

If they were all 10 stone or all 20 stone it'd prob be the same but we've guys varying from 13 stone to 20/21 stone on the pitch at the moment.

I think it'd be something to look at.

If your idea was implemented though would it not result in a drop in size all over the pitch and therefore the weight difference would be the same? Or would it only impact the forwards?

CatFromHue

I think it'd effect the heavy guys in the forwards more. The backs don't usually get subbed for fatigue more injury or tactical.

vienne86

Just heard this driving up country on the 11 p.m. sports bulletin. What awful news for the poor guy. Very good and committed player, and a great leader. Seems to be a very nice guy as well. I am just so so glad that he got a bit of a run from Joe and picked up some Irish caps.

postitnote

rrpc wrote: »

May I introduce you to the following formula:

Force = Mass x Velocity squared.

A little bit lighter and a little bit faster. Except the little bit faster is squared.

Nearly, but my old knowledge of physics from the past tells me:

Force = mass x acceleration (F=ma)
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared ( KE=1/2mv²)

It's a moot point and completely pedantic though, terrible news for Felix and I wish him all the best for the future.

CIARAN_BOYLE

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

If your idea was implemented though would it not result in a drop in size all over the pitch and therefore the weight difference would be the same? Or would it only impact the forwards?

Bone and Cartilage doesnt really get stronger when you go from 10 stone to 20 stone so the risk of damage would go down jf you reduced the impact in hits by reducing size.

accidentprone1

rrpc wrote: »

May I introduce you to the following formula:

Force = Mass x Velocity squared.

A little bit lighter and a little bit faster. Except the little bit faster is squared.