I coach young kids and we have to fill out a form through the irfu online after a suspected concussion. Can’t remember the exact protocols but certainly we had to follow up with the parents after.
Yeah, shocking. Ive never come across it before but have no experience of uni rugby in the UK.
Not at all.
Here certainly coaches and referees have to fill out a "serious injury report" in the event of someone going off injured and there should be protocols in place that a player suspected of concussion is not left alone and is at the very least handed off to medical professionals successfully.
College teams can sometimes be a bit hit and miss though as some smaller schools are largely player/student led so they canbe a bit lacking on the admin fron , but that's still pretty bad form from the team though.
I have a nephew playing for his uni team in London. Recently he got a bad concussion during a game, couldn't remember anything, pale in the face, disoriented, etc. Bad one. Anyhow, afterwards no-one got in touch w any family and coaches didn't organise for him to get to hospital or even get home. Luckily one of his team mates texted his mum and got him a taxi to his brothers house, they took him to A&E. I was surprised the coaches/team didn't make sure he was looked after, is that common?
Just continued cowardice from WR, talking out both sides of their mouth, as ever. You cannot encourage players to tackle upright and then pretend to be shocked when they inevitably clash heads.
None of their pissing about has had the slightest impact on players and coaches who continue to take the risk of tackling upright as the rewards still far outweigh the penalty.
Yeah that's my understanding too. A ref can give a straight red and that means the team is down a man for the rest of the match. If the ref seems it meets YC threshold, then it goes to bunker for review and can be upgraded to a 20 minute red. I like it.
What if a player gets a second yellow? Is it a 20 minute red or the full match?
100% agree on this, its an absolute cop out. either tackle lower or hit higher and take risk of getting a red. when head injuries are as serious as they are, the game should be doing absolutely everything it can to mitigate risk as much as possible but this is going backwards
Replaced by a sub.
Am I right in saying that under the 20-minute red card , the player sent off cannot come back on the field but is replaced by a sub?
Or do they get to come back?
But if it's a red card, it's a red card. If something is not quite a red card, that's what the yellow card is for. And if it's in-between, empower the bunker system to make a decision.
How can anyone tell 100% of the time what's deliberate and what's not? And what's to stop players playing on the edge knowing that once it doesn't look deliberate, the risk isn't as high as it was. The law lowers the punishment for being reckless.
"SANZAAR explain that the rationale behind this variation is that the individual, not the game, is punished for red card offences." - Which is an absolute load of BS.
20 minute red cards pander to those who choose not to tackle properly. Let's reward foul play. Madness.
I just can't get behind the 20-Minute red card at all.
I don't see a material difference between reckless and deliberate for high tackles , tackles in the air etc.
Last second change of height/direction etc. is already covered with the mitigation rules so "accidental" is covered
"I didn't bother to make an effort to tackle properly" isn't really different to "I went high deliberately" in my book.
I couldn't give a toss about impacting the "spectacle" or the "contest" , reducing the sanction for foul play to protect either of those things is utterly wrong.
fair point, but to me its there to cover those fouls which were clear red cards "back in the day" ie gouging, punching, stamping etc, general scumbag behaviour. We saw two red cards for the fijian drua in a game against the rebels this season, and id imagine its those kind of actions which will be viewed as full red cards under this variation.
Those more "technical" ones, like say Tom Curry on the Argentina in the RWC which is down to a mixture of timing, technique and dynamism, then im all for the 20 min red card.
Lets not forget, red cards almost didnt exist in the game up until the late 2010s. There has only ever been 20 red cards in the six nations, and only 6 of those occured pre-2020. The game sanctions are changing all the time to becoming more and more strict (something we all should agree on, and in the main, think we do) but the actual sanctions available to the referees are still as they were when introduced in 1995 (sin bin came in in 1999). The range of fouls, and how they are refereed, has increased exponentially since then, so i see this as a method to also increase the range of sanction available to refereeing team.
"Accidental" head contact isn't a red card though.
If you start in too high a tackle position then it isn't accidental, it's reckless.
Anything truly accidental is already mitigated to a yellow.
Guaranteed it'll be used as a cop out in big games by some referees.
If something is red card worthy, then it's a red card and they're gone from the pitch. Use the bunker system if required to analyse it and keep it at a yellow if it's not red card worthy, but having three sets of cards is frankly stupid.
If I'm not mistaken, this all stems from a desire to "retain the spectacle" of the game which tells you everything you need to know - don't punish players if possible because the game might then be boring.
Yeah, but adjudicating on "deliberate" acts is very very difficult in the pressure cooker situation of a ongoing game.
it will be interesting to see how it will be policed and how they decide something is deliberate or not. Will wait and see it in action I think.
Deliberate and dangerous acts are still full red cards.
The 20 minute red card is a great concept and removes the only inequitable sanction in the game.
On the flip side, your star player could go to tackle someone and accidentally make head contact, earning him a red card by the letter of the law, after the first minute, then your own player is sent off for 79 minutes and the game is over as a contest.
Other team's player is fine and continues on.
Needs a balance.
"20 minute red cards" is one of, if not the worst, rule changes in recent memory.
Being reduced to 14 men for 20 minutes is not a reasonable punishment for potentially taking out another teams key player. You could play 79 minutes without your star player due to injury whilst the opposition only suffers for 20 minutes. It's farcical.
Oh yeah I'm fine with the crooked throw in unopposed line outs. Just play on.
The 20 minute red card is the big one. I'll have to see it in action before making a decision. I suspect it will be fine overall.
I wonder if the number of red cards will increase since the overall penalty to the team has been reduced. I doubt it woukd be a dramatic increase but I suspect there will be an increase.
I hate the 20 min red card, just disagree with it and think it sends a bad message.
On the others:
Very much in favour of the set piece clock - just seems logical.
Get the logic of not allowing the sacking of SHs too.
There was another change you omitted I think: the refs are not going to whistle line out throws that aren't straight if uncontested by the opposition - I'm very much in favour of this rule too.
City AM is a strange publication. I had reason to keep an eye on it for work and it's actually pretty good. Does good summaries on some niche topics in legal, business and finance. Usually pretty good.
Thoughts on the new rules in the rugby championship?
20 minute red card,
Clock for scrums, line outs and penalties
No sacking the scrum half.
I imagine the clocks will be good and red card and scrum half rules will take an adjustment but will be fine before long.
Yet another prime example of a highly touted Springbok moving overseas and then just mailing it in and giving what looked like virtually zero effort.
Yeah was thinking why they couldn't just name it 'Allianz Twickenham Stadium' like Cork GAA do here for PUC
Will always be 'Twickenham' to the fans
Never thought I’d see the day, next to Croke Park I thought it was probably the most untouchable stadium name in the world.
I mean not even “Allianz Twickenham”. The trouble is, Allianz title sponsor eight other stadiums, including two that are also named “Allianz Stadium”. (Though Saracens ground is no longer among them, which is probably just as well).
...
Mike Catt heading to the Waratahs (this might have been known previously but I think it's news to me)
Looks like the Sharks are interested in him returning.
Kolisi looking to leave R92 early
