2015 RBS Six Nations General Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

ec18 · 17-02-2015 04:19PM

total former wrote: »

Mike Brown still suffering concussion symptoms, won't train at all this week.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/17/mike-brown-england-ireland-six-nations-concussion

Would be a huge blow to England.

I'm not surprised.....he was out for the count and luck that he didn't pick up a serious injury...does that mean that the return to play protocol's will only start really next week then or will start from scratch next week? if he's not training all week

Podge_irl · 17-02-2015 04:25PM

rrpc wrote: »

I'd agree except that the outcome from Russell's challenge could well have been worse and he'll probably get a ban. Davies challenge was somewhat the same as Russell's but was not as dangerous and was barely a yellow.

Davies wasn't as dangerous but he had a much, much better idea of what he was doing.

irishbucsfan · 17-02-2015 04:31PM

England

Podge_irl wrote: »

Davies wasn't as dangerous but he had a much, much better idea of what he was doing.

But intent is not what they're worried about. They don't care if he knew what he was doing and took someone out who landed on their feet, they're more worried about someone not knowing what they're doing and causing someone to land on their head (like Payne/Johnson).

I don't think the issue is being tackled correctly. They're not preventing these things from happening. Instead of less of these tackles we're just seeing more reds/citings. It's a really dificult one to address though I guess.

Podge_irl · 17-02-2015 04:34PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But intent is not what they're worried about. They don't care if he knew what he was doing and took someone out who landed on their feet, they're more worried about someone not knowing what they're doing and causing someone to land on their head (like Payne/Johnson).

I realise that, I just don't know what the answer is short of getting everyone to fundamentally change how they go for high balls. Russel kept his eye on the ball heading towards it, saw Biggar at the last second and (to my mind) tried to stop and not touch him but was basically screwed at that point. Getting players to give more awareness to their surroundings when chasing high balls will be tricky because its going to affect their ability to actually catch them.

entangled · 17-02-2015 10:07PM

France

Biggar comes from very deep there with a lot of speed and a big jump. Finn Russell only takes a few steps forward. Does the player in the air not have any responsibility to not put themselves in a dangerous situation? It's a bit different to the Payne red card where Goode jumped and then Payne arrived while he was already in the air.

aimee1 · 17-02-2015 11:59PM

entangled wrote: »

Biggar comes from very deep there with a lot of speed and a big jump. Finn Russell only takes a few steps forward. Does the player in the air not have any responsibility to not put themselves in a dangerous situation? It's a bit different to the Payne red card where Goode jumped and then Payne arrived while he was already in the air.

The idea though is to give the guy who jumps some protection. I thought russell was unlucky because he was just caught out. Davies was intentional but because he caught the guy in his upper body he was never going to be upended.

I dont think russells incident warrants a ban, he has a right to move towards the ball and he gets beaten to it and makes no deliberate attempt to take biggar out.

18-02-2015 03:05AM

Wales

Hagz wrote: »

Call me old fashioned but I don't think either of them should be cited and I don't think either of the incidents warranted a yellow card. Certainly Davie's was a penalty, but that's it for me. Personally I think they're coming down too hard on this area.

You're old-fashioned. Just takes one broken neck and we'll be wondering why we didn't come down harder. I would agree that a red card is excessive as a yellow is enough of a deterrent.

English Lurker · 18-02-2015 09:10AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're old-fashioned. Just takes one broken neck and we'll be wondering why we didn't come down harder. I would agree that a red card is excessive as a yellow is enough of a deterrent.

I always wonder about this viewpoint.

We've seen broken necks in rugby already. We've seen people be paralysed for life as a result. A quick google reveals no shortage of recent deaths from various causes. These come from tackles, rucks, scrums, the everyday lifeblood of the game.

If I was concerned with player welfare above all other concerns, I would support the banning of rugby. I don't see any other logical argument. The basics of the game are so dangerous as they are. I am happy to risk my health and life playing, I am happy to see others risk their health and life playing, I am ok with saying player welfare and safety are not top of my agenda. Enjoying the game of rugby is. And, having watched the video, the idea of Finn Russell getting a ban for that, and the likely results on how players approach the high balll, is not something I enjoy.

Gits_bone · 18-02-2015 09:13AM

France

Podge_irl wrote: »

I realise that, I just don't know what the answer is short of getting everyone to fundamentally change how they go for high balls. Russel kept his eye on the ball heading towards it, saw Biggar at the last second and (to my mind) tried to stop and not touch him but was basically screwed at that point. Getting players to give more awareness to their surroundings when chasing high balls will be tricky because its going to affect their ability to actually catch them.

We can't have any instances of players getting tackled in the air. Just too dangerous.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with 2 players jumping in the air to catch a ball. That will rarely end up with an injury.

Russell was on the ground though. And I don't believe he tried to get out of the way, he either contests for the ball or isn't where he is. He made a mistake and deserves to be punished.

Gits_bone · 18-02-2015 09:16AM

France

English Lurker wrote: »

I always wonder about this viewpoint.

We've seen broken necks in rugby already. We've seen people be paralysed for life as a result. A quick google reveals no shortage of recent deaths from various causes. These come from tackles, rucks, scrums, the everyday lifeblood of the game.

If I was concerned with player welfare above all other concerns, I would support the banning of rugby. I don't see any other logical argument. The basics of the game are so dangerous as they are. I am happy to risk my health and life playing, I am happy to see others risk their health and life playing, I am ok with saying player welfare and safety are not top of my agenda. Enjoying the game of rugby is. And, having watched the video, the idea of Finn Russell getting a ban for that, and the likely results on how players approach the high balll, is not something I enjoy.

Shocked by this viewpoint.

Life>Rugby.

total former · 18-02-2015 09:20AM

England

English Lurker wrote: »

I always wonder about this viewpoint.

We've seen broken necks in rugby already. We've seen people be paralysed for life as a result. A quick google reveals no shortage of recent deaths from various causes. These come from tackles, rucks, scrums, the everyday lifeblood of the game.

If I was concerned with player welfare above all other concerns, I would support the banning of rugby. I don't see any other logical argument. The basics of the game are so dangerous as they are. I am happy to risk my health and life playing, I am happy to see others risk their health and life playing, I am ok with saying player welfare and safety are not top of my agenda. Enjoying the game of rugby is. And, having watched the video, the idea of Finn Russell getting a ban for that, and the likely results on how players approach the high balll, is not something I enjoy.

Totally agree here. It's a dangerous game, always has been, it's just the nature of it.

What Russell did was a reflex action to shield his own head from a large man jumping towards it. All the bans in the world won't stop that from happening again.

It looks worse in super slow mo but then so does everything.

But Russell will get a ban so the authorities can be seen to be doing something. It's harsh and pointless.

Podge_irl · 18-02-2015 09:56AM

Gits_bone wrote: »

We can't have any instances of players getting tackled in the air. Just too dangerous.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with 2 players jumping in the air to catch a ball. That will rarely end up with an injury.

Russell was on the ground though. And I don't believe he tried to get out of the way, he either contests for the ball or isn't where he is. He made a mistake and deserves to be punished.

So Russel should have jumped into Biggar in the air instead? I'm not entirely sure how that is ultimately going to end up being safer.

They were both competing for the ball. Russel was a lot closer so was basically already under it. By the time Biggar went airborne he was essentially jumping into Russel and I have no idea what exactly people expected him to do to get out of the way.

Larbre34 · 18-02-2015 10:09AM

France

^agree completely. Russell is the defender down that channel, in the few split seconds ahead of competing for the ball you can see his eyes on the flight and he is trying to compute where it will come to him, then Biggar goes airborne and Russell changes his gaze to spot him and immediately his posture goes defensive and he turns out of it. If Russell had got a finger to the ball and been hurt by a knee to the chest we wouldnt be talking about this still.

Nothing malicious or reckless, shouldnt have been yellow, should be no further punishment

razorblunt · 18-02-2015 10:22AM

France

Larbre34 wrote: »

^agree completely. Russell is the defender down that channel, in the few split seconds ahead of competing for the ball you can see his eyes on the flight and he is trying to compute where it will come to him, then Biggar goes airborne and Russell changes his gaze to spot him and immediately his posture goes defensive and he turns out of it. If Russell had got a finger to the ball and been hurt by a knee to the chest we wouldnt be talking about this still.

Nothing malicious or reckless, shouldnt have been yellow, should be no further punishment

That's exactly it, the other J Davies was trying to maintain, Russell has to try and get out of the way once he realises the ball is lost. How exactly he was supposed to put the breaks on reverse or jump out of the way, when Biggar was coming at him at a rate of knots was never fully explained.
J Davies (still playing) was a bit unlucky in that he got a nudge from Lamont on hsi way through which wasn't mentioned at all, I don't know why players do this. I remember Kirchner doing similar to Ruddock in the RDS last season and I couldn't fathom why. Ruddock was then walking off the pitch scratching his head as he couldnt stop himself going forward.

Gits_bone · 18-02-2015 10:26AM

France

English Lurker wrote: »

I always wonder about this viewpoint.

We've seen broken necks in rugby already. We've seen people be paralysed for life as a result. A quick google reveals no shortage of recent deaths from various causes. These come from tackles, rucks, scrums, the everyday lifeblood of the game.

If I was concerned with player welfare above all other concerns, I would support the banning of rugby. I don't see any other logical argument. The basics of the game are so dangerous as they are. I am happy to risk my health and life playing, I am happy to see others risk their health and life playing, I am ok with saying player welfare and safety are not top of my agenda. Enjoying the game of rugby is. And, having watched the video, the idea of Finn Russell getting a ban for that, and the likely results on how players approach the high balll, is not something I enjoy.

Also to add, I presume you have no problems with players getting concussed and coming back on?

.ak · 18-02-2015 10:33AM

Webbs wrote: »

Davies made no attempt to wrap his arm around Beattie. He just had his right arm stuck up in the air.
The slight nudge from the scottish player pushed him a step further than he intended I would say after seeing the video, whereas Finn showed a lack of duty of care in mistiming his challenge. In both cases YC should suffice and move on. There was no malice in either case

I absolutely agree, I'm just peeved if one is cited and not the other.

vienne86 · 18-02-2015 10:36AM

England

Larbre34 wrote: »

^agree completely. Russell is the defender down that channel, in the few split seconds ahead of competing for the ball you can see his eyes on the flight and he is trying to compute where it will come to him, then Biggar goes airborne and Russell changes his gaze to spot him and immediately his posture goes defensive and he turns out of it. If Russell had got a finger to the ball and been hurt by a knee to the chest we wouldnt be talking about this still.

Nothing malicious or reckless, shouldnt have been yellow, should be no further punishment

I agree. What was Russell supposed to do, with Biggar airborne and coming down in the direction of Russell's head? Should he have jumped too, and had a clash in the air or what? And it all happens in a split second.

Pudsy33 · 18-02-2015 10:39AM

England

Gits_bone wrote: »

Also to add, I presume you have no problems with players getting concussed and coming back on?

That doesn't logically follow on from what he said. Concussion is serious and at that point obviously doctors need to step in.

total former · 18-02-2015 10:39AM

England

Gits_bone wrote: »

Also to add, I presume you have no problems with players getting concussed and coming back on?

I wonder, in the history of boards.ie, has anyone ever used the "so what you're saying is..." line of argument without it being some awful strawman?

He's clearly not saying that, he's clearly not saying he wants people to die on the pitch for his own amusement.

His point is that it's a physical game, risk is inherent and if we were all genuinely worried about player safety, none of us would ever have taken up the sport and we'd all boycott watching the pro game.

The current furore over concussion, tackling in the air and whatever else is an hysterical over-reaction that Joe Duffy would be ashamed of.

Gits_bone · 18-02-2015 10:53AM

France

Pudsy33 wrote: »

That doesn't logically follow on from what he said. Concussion is serious and at that point obviously doctors need to step in.

total former wrote: »

I wonder, in the history of boards.ie, has anyone ever used the "so what you're saying is..." line of argument without it being some awful strawman?

He's clearly not saying that, he's clearly not saying he wants people to die on the pitch for his own amusement.

His point is that it's a physical game, risk is inherent and if we were all genuinely worried about player safety, none of us would ever have taken up the sport and we'd all boycott watching the pro game.

The current furore over concussion, tackling in the air and whatever else is an hysterical over-reaction that Joe Duffy would be ashamed of.

He said he's ok with players putting their life and health at risk.

It's a valid question.

There's an element of risk in any sport. GAA, Soccer etc. but dangerous acts are dealt with serious consequences in red cards. It makes the game safer. Can you tell me what removing incidents like Russells does to reduce the quality of a game?

If anything, allowing this type of carry on will make players think twice about going up for a high ball, thus removing the art of fielding from the game.

.ak · 18-02-2015 10:55AM

Gits_bone wrote: »

He said he's ok with players putting their life and health at risk.

It's a valid question.

You put your health at risk every time you step onto the pitch. We have to be okay with that, otherwise why are we playing this game and not tag rugby?

There's a massive difference from what EL was saying to what you are suggesting. A player is aware of the dangers of the game, it's a heavy contact sport, however he's not suggesting that once they get injured they play on.

There is a balance, if it was just 100% about player welfare there wouldn't be contact.

molloyjh · 18-02-2015 11:30AM

.ak wrote: »

You put your health at risk every time you step onto the pitch. We have to be okay with that, otherwise why are we playing this game and not tag rugby?

You can easily break a finger playing tag rugby!

Look you risk your health every time you get out of bed. You could slip in the bath/shower, get hit by a car crossing the road or be struck by lightening. There has to be a certain amount of common sense with when the health and safety element steps in and when its just being ridiculous.

In rugby when you make a tackle or get tackled you could get seriously injured. However there is an element of control that both players have over the tackle situation. Combined with the laws of the game this ensures a limit to the risks involved. Players can't tip tackle guys and drive them into the ground for example. Just like the rules of the road these laws are there to minimise the risk of serious injury. Nothing can prevent injuries from happening altogether short of banning the sport (or any form of transit beyond walking in the case of the rules of the road).

However when we're talking about taking a guy out in the air the control that the players have over that situation is pretty much nil. The risks associated with the action are high, the control over the outcome is low and literally the only way to legislate for it is to ban it. Like speed in cars it's simply not good enough to say that being on the road is inherently dangerous when the driver of a speeding car has so much less control over potentially deadly outcomes. It's still dangerous when operating within the bounds of the law but there's far more control exerted and a reduced level of risk as a result. And that's the point. You can never get rid of risk, all you can do is find an acceptable point at which the level of risk is manageable and reasonable. When taking a guy out in the air it is neither.

Yeah_Right · 18-02-2015 11:46AM

Italy

Gits_bone wrote: »

He said he's ok with players putting their life and health at risk.

It's a valid question.

There's an element of risk in any sport. GAA, Soccer etc. but dangerous acts are dealt with serious consequences in red cards. It makes the game safer. Can you tell me what removing incidents like Russells does to reduce the quality of a game?

If anything, allowing this type of carry on will make players think twice about going up for a high ball, thus removing the art of fielding from the game.

You're right, there is risk in every sport. People die in motorsport so maybe they should set speed limits. Players get killed in cricket, so they should set a maximum speed for bowling. Someone has a heart attack on the pitch, so every player should have a heart monitor that is watched by doctors who can order them from the pitch.

You simply can not remove all the risk/danger from sport.

I think the yellow card for Russell was fair enough. It was accidental (unavoidable as he was intending to catch the ball) but dangerous. A ban would be wrong though. The Welsh guy should be cited even though no one was hurt as he tackled the player in the air.

Clearlier · 18-02-2015 11:56AM

England

vienne86 wrote: »

I agree. What was Russell supposed to do, with Biggar airborne and coming down in the direction of Russell's head? Should he have jumped too, and had a clash in the air or what? And it all happens in a split second.

He should have jumped or got out of the way. I think that yellow fits the way that the laws are at the moment I wouldn't object to having the penalty for this kind of play increased to a red, it's just plain reckless play. Players should be aware now that if they try to compete for a high ball without jumping that there's a significant chance that they'll upend someone. I don't for a moment think that Russell intended to do what he did but he should have been aware of the possibility and the game would be safer if all players had this in mind when competing for a high ball. It just not that hard to do. Davies' yellow card by contrast was ridiculous - two guys in the air competing for the ball. It wasn't a penalty let alone a yellow card.

OldRio · 18-02-2015 12:03PM

total former wrote: »

I wonder, in the history of boards.ie, has anyone ever used the "so what you're saying is..." line of argument without it being some awful strawman?

He's clearly not saying that, he's clearly not saying he wants people to die on the pitch for his own amusement.

His point is that it's a physical game, risk is inherent and if we were all genuinely worried about player safety, none of us would ever have taken up the sport and we'd all boycott watching the pro game.

The current furore over concussion, tackling in the air and whatever else is an hysterical over-reaction that Joe Duffy would be ashamed of.

A hysterical over reaction about concussion. ? You think?
I'm actually quite amazed at that statement.

total former · 18-02-2015 01:30PM

England

OldRio wrote: »

A hysterical over reaction about concussion. ? You think?
I'm actually quite amazed at that statement.

There's more of it now.

The current media profile of concussion is nothing to do with player welfare or the safety of the game; it's because Jonny Sexton missed a couple of months and everyone knows who Jonny Sexton is.

You're a Connacht fan, right? So you would remember John Fogarty? A couple of years ago, he had to retire due to repeated concussions. Depression, insomnia, he had it all. Anyone who was at the Leinster games during his last season was very familiar with the sight of him hitting the deck like a sack of spuds at seemingly innocuous impacts. He retired, went public with his situation and what happened? A couple of column inches for a day or two in the sports section, but since most people didn't know who John Fogarty was, no-one really gave a f**k and life went on. Bernard Jackman was the same.

But now it's Jonny Sexton and he had to miss a Six Nations match and suddenly it's a burning issue. Likewise, George North takes a bang to the head, gets up, and it's front page news, not because of what happened but because of who he is.

So yeah, it's been blown out of proportion I think. The level of protection for players is much higher than it ever has been (at least in theory) and hopefully the current round of pearl-clutching and brow-fanning will subside soon.

Podge_irl · 18-02-2015 01:34PM

Clearlier wrote: »

He should have jumped or got out of the way.

I'm sorry but that was actually impossible unless he never tried even attempting to compete for the ball.

Out of curiosity how high would Russel have had to jump before being absolved of any blame for the inevitable collision? Would a foot suffice? Cause no matter what he does Biggar is going to get higher than him as he's coming at a much greater speed.

I don't disagree that what happened is dangerous and that something needs to be done. But I have a slight issue with the concept that a better positioned player suddenly cedes all right to be anywhere near the ball if a chasing player launches himself at it.

Gits_bone · 18-02-2015 01:36PM

France

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You're right, there is risk in every sport. People die in motorsport so maybe they should set speed limits. Players get killed in cricket, so they should set a maximum speed for bowling. Someone has a heart attack on the pitch, so every player should have a heart monitor that is watched by doctors who can order them from the pitch.

You simply can not remove all the risk/danger from sport.

Ever hear of Formula 1?

I suppose you never knew about reduction in engine size and new regulations on a large number of things to improve safety?

Gits_bone · 18-02-2015 01:38PM

France

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm sorry but that was actually impossible unless he never tried even attempting to compete for the ball.

Out of curiosity how high would Russel have had to jump before being absolved of any blame for the inevitable collision? Would a foot suffice? Cause no matter what he does Biggar is going to get higher than him as he's coming at a much greater speed.

I don't disagree that what happened is dangerous and that something needs to be done. But I have a slight issue with the concept that a better positioned player suddenly cedes all right to be anywhere near the ball if a chasing player launches himself at it.

He didn't compete for the ball. He didn't leave the ground.

Podge_irl · 18-02-2015 01:40PM

Gits_bone wrote: »

Ever hear of Formula 1?

I suppose you never knew about reduction in engine size and new regulations on a large number of things to improve safety?

There is a difference between improving safety and eliminating all risk (which is impossible anyway).

This line of argument started because someone said there would be uproar if a player gets badly injured after being tackled in the air. I don't doubt there would be but players have been paralysed in scrums and yet scrums remain in the game. They are an inherently dangerous activity and some of the risk has been mitigated but ultimately they are considered central to the game and are still here despite that risk of injury.

2015 RBS Six Nations General Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments