General Rugby Discussion 3

The point I'm trying to make is that he had retired before he was tested and found guilty. It would be impossible for him to retire because of a failed drugs test unless he was a time traveller.

Here is a link to the nonpaywalled piece. I think everyone should read it.

Here are some of my thoughts.

There is a podcast called Revisionist History with an episode called "burden of proof". The episode is centred around an 'all American' kid who was the football captain at UPenn and died to suicide in an extremely similar way to Siobhan.

The host malcolm Gladwell begins the episode by playing a an excerpt for a speech he gave at UPenn where he asked the students (effectively) how long they'd continue to support a team and sport that was effectively killing their peers and refusing to acknowledge it.

I've been asking myself the same question for years. I've wondered should I ask the question on here a few times. Are we complicit. Do we as fans create the glory that young men and women are willing to lay down their lives to achieve? If we can't trust unions to protect players, how do we mobilise to do it.

That is a bloody tough read.

Grim stuff.

I'm sure the SRU would dispute a lot of it but not paying respect ahead of the Calcutta Cup match, when that was the first game after her death, looks absolutely appalling.

Things have to change and they are. In kids rugby in this country you can only tackle below the waist and that'll probably make its way to the top of the game.

I'm fully behind changes to make the game safer and prevent CTE.

I'm not happy with how the game is right now with ridiculous yellow cards and sending offs over accidental head contact in most cases. It's the Union that are responsible for these things happening and not the players. Change the rules to make sure it doesn't happen.

What level kids rugby you on about? I dont see that coming in at adult level any time soon though. I dont see how your first and last paragraps add up. you cant talk about changing things to make things safer and then criticise head contact and how its dealt with calling it ridiculous.

13 and below.

I remember those times well. And yes anything to the head was considered not part of the game.

Since the game went professional people have got bigger and faster and I believe this is what's making it more dangerous. I'm not disagreeing about similar tackles to rugby league etc. because nowadays coaches are studying all sports to try find an edge.

The way see are teaching kids now, by direction of the IRFU, is cheek to cheek with the head on the side you initiate the tackle. That's tackler's cheek to the opponent's ass cheek to clarify.

Back when the game was amateur the leg tackle was far more commonplace than it is these days.

An NFL team has 17 games in its regular season and then up to 4 more in the playoffs for up to 21 total games per team per season. And its a lot more competitive, every game matters - even older/more at risk players like star quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady will play 90%+ of that game time, they're not getting entire games off or subbing mid-way regularly the way Sexton for example would for Leinster or Ireland.

So its not really an example of a much easier season - its mostly just a lot shorter in duration (September->February).

I don’t know that the tackling rules will change the game enough to solve the problem. Most concussions are accidental in one way or another - knees to the head etc. Siobhan Cattigan’s concussions weren’t high tackles.

I think the actual evidence shows the exact opposite. That’s why the emphasis is on tackle height. That head on head contributes to most of the serious conclusive injuries.

The game will always have concussions but reducing the tackle height could massively improve it.

And CTE is commonplace.

The English premiership players are flogged like horses though, thats been known for years. They're an extreme example to use - I compared to Irish players like Sexton because the discussion was on Irish rugby with Bernard Jackman's article.

Theres a whole lot to unpack here, I'd suggest reading up on the basic rules of American football. But the base point relating to my post would be the starting QB will play 95-100% of offensive snaps, they're not being subbed off at all.

There aren't dead rubbers for any team in the top 2/3rds of the NFL because even end of season games matter for qualifying for the playoffs, getting a by-week in the playoffs, or getting homefield advantage, all of which teams care hugely about.

Isn't that more to do with players just not making the grade, rather than retiring through injury.