Ireland v England Grand Slam Decider 2023

For a start if it’s an equal contest for the ball and neither player has the ball, a clash of heads or an accidental arm/shoulder/elbow to head should be classified “unintentional” and not be red.

Any defending player who accidentally puts his shoulder to the head of the attacker can be determined by judging whether he pulls out or stops his momentum into the tackle. If this is the case, a direct shoulder to head should be classified “unintentional” and not be red.

Finally, the onus should be on the players not to clash heads but intent and not outcome based decisions should be made. By definition the defending player is on the defensive. Intent can be determined by the posture, shape and intent he brings into the contact situation. If he or the attacker are dropping/slipping into contact this could be judged to be unintentional and not Red if there is contact to head.

This doesn’t remove dangerous play from the game but to have a strict factual analysis or outcome based decision interpretation of the law is ruining the game.

I know there is this outcry of “you heartless bastard how would like if it was you” about players with dementia but if you play the game you know the risks and have to take that responsibility on yourself. The liability isn’t and shouldn’t be on the governing bodies. hHow can you have a workplace health and safety liability when the sport is a contact sport?

Players know the risks taking the field and can easily compensate for this by not tackling big if they’re lighter players. Like Xavier Garbajosa. That ruins the contest also but not on the same scale as the strict application of the law on head contact. It leaves the impetus on players to make the decision. In any case, players/coaches have to take their share of blame.

It also might lessen participation by young players but you know the game you’re getting into. Do bull fighters complain when they get gorged or boxers complain when they’re knocked out? It’s a contact sport, you can’t avoid head hits in a game played at high speed with players at every contact situation going in head first!!! But to go down the road of litigating it out of the game is contrary to the nature of the game being by definition a contact sport.

Perhaps criminalising coaches who coerce or bully their players into doing dangerous things on the field is the route. Leaving the liability on the governing body isn’t the answer and is done to gain money for incapacitated players. Criminal liability of coaches will lessen the impetus to get your players psyched up for games to do dangerous things on the field

Ok so using your outcome based application of the law what if every player in rugby plays full careers and tackles around the waist/knees/ankles but still get dementia. A knee to the head is just as if not more damaging than head to head contact. As is a hip to head. My point is that head impacts are unavoidable. In that case do we stop tackling in the game?

Ok so where does the physical safety aspect stop. If you’re saying “as much as possible” you must also include all tackling in your reasoning because a knee to head is just as, if not more dangerous than head to head contact. Are you saying cut out all tackling? If you’re not you’re talking through your hoop on making the game as safe as possible