2015 RBS Six Nations General Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Podge_irl wrote: »

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.

Once again large risk has been removed from the scrum.

I envisage in 10/20 years no hit, just a pre engage and then 5 seconds of trying to win the ball with the ball put in straight down the middle.

This argument started when English Lurker said he's happy not to put player welfare and health before the game which is just wrong.

Gits_bone wrote: »

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

He didn't need to leave the ground. Girvan Dempsey very rarely had to jump to catch high balls because he was perfectly positioned under them already. I'm still curious as to what amount of jumping is necessary before you're officially competing for the ball.

English Lurker

Molloyjh is completely right when he says its about management of risk. You don't clamp down on everything dangerous; you don't let everything dangerous pass; you find the point of equilibrium.

For me, the acceptable level of risk in rugby is fairly high because if it isn't, it's not rugby. No, it doesn't extend to letting concussed players come back on, quite a way short of that, but the player in the air? So far, I don't think I've seen an unacceptably high injury toll caused by two players contesting the high ball, both in terms of severity and number, by rugby standards.

It is important to me that in rugby, where ever possible, the contest for the ball be fair. Right now, the current line in sanction is moving us away from that when the ball is in the air. The first man to get airborne and highest is receiving protection that will in time deter players from contesting with him. He jumps and is no longer responsible for his own safety; it becomes the responsibility of the man of the ground; and the man on the ground is incapable of competing for the ball in the air to the utmost of his ability and looking after the man's safety. As a point of principle, I don't think anyone on a rugby pitch should get an advantage in such a manner for disregarding their own safety and I don't think the contest for the ball should be lessened by it. By all means, heavily ban people who show intent in taking people in the air. Bans for people who run at full pelt without checking at a situation where its likely another player will be in the air, I can see sense to that. But Russell? He's taken a few steps to claim a ball, eyes on it all the time, and been unfortunate enough to be where Biggar is landing. Its not intentional and I don't accept that as unduly reckless. I don't think that should be punished further than it should and am unsure as to whether it should have been a yellow.

It may be that as the seasons progress it becomes clear that I am overly blase about the risks caused by taking the man in the air. But if that is the case, I would far rather they simply banned jumping for the ball. The fair contest is reset; the risk entirely extinguished. It's a ridiculous solution, but then so this is a ridiculous situation.

I don't want to see players injured. But I don't want to see what makes rugby diminished either. This? It may be straying too far over the injury line, but it's certainly straying too far over the diminishment line. For me at least, that is.

Gits_bone wrote: »

This argument started when English Lurker said he's happy not to put player welfare and health before the game which is just wrong.

Then ban it. Matt Hampson is paralysed for life because one scrum went wrong. Tom Croft was nearly paralysed for life because on tackle went wrong. Jordan Kemp is dead, Rowan Stringer is dead, Willie Halaifonua is dead, Yusuf Zaidi is dead, Eric Pelly is dead, Tommie Watson is dead, Halley Appleby is dead, Gareth Jones is dead - those are just the names I found after two minutes of googling (and avoiding obvious examples that would be extra emotional here).

I simply do not get how people who say player welfare and health are the most important thing can agree to the game continuing. It's important, it's really important, but if it's more important than rugby, how can there be rugby?

Gits_bone wrote: »

This argument started when English Lurker said he's happy not to put player welfare and health before the game which is just wrong.

No he said that player welfare wasn't the absolute be all and end all when it came to considerations about the laws of the game. If it was there wouldn't be scrums or rucks in the first place.

Podge_irl wrote: »

He didn't need to leave the ground. Girvan Dempsey very rarely had to jump to catch high balls because he was perfectly positioned under them already. I'm still curious as to what amount of jumping is necessary before you're officially competing for the ball.

Compete

Strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.

His positioning was superior. Hence why he didn't need to jump.

English Lurker wrote: »

Molloyjh is completely right when he says its about management of risk. You don't clamp down on everything dangerous; you don't let everything dangerous pass; you find the point of equilibrium.

For me, the acceptable level of risk in rugby is fairly high because if it isn't, it's not rugby. No, it doesn't extend to letting concussed players come back on, quite a way short of that, but the player in the air? So far, I don't think I've seen an unacceptably high injury toll caused by two players contesting the high ball, both in terms of severity and number, by rugby standards.
.

If you allow these contacts of players getting hit mid air you won't see too many wanting to challenge for them....removing them from the game.

Podge_irl wrote: »

His positioning was superior. Hence why he didn't need to jump.

He wasn't competing.

Yeah_Right

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?

And there have been no deaths in Formula 1 since then?

Yeah_Right wrote: »

And there have been no deaths in Formula 1 since then?

Nope. '96 engine size was reduced.

errlloyd

Gits_bone wrote: »

Nope. '96 engine size was reduced.

I don't want to lower the tone, and I know it has little to do with engine size. But i fear Jules Bianchi will never regain consciousness from his injuries.

In general f1 effectively did impose a speed limit by limiting the cars so much. At one point I think they were lapping slower than gp2 cars. Which is pretty poor.

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.

Podge_irl wrote: »

He didn't need to leave the ground. Girvan Dempsey very rarely had to jump to catch high balls because he was perfectly positioned under them already. I'm still curious as to what amount of jumping is necessary before you're officially competing for the ball.

In the end he didn't actually compete for the ball as it happens but my point is basically that if a player can't get to a ball which is landing in an area where you can reasonably expect competition in enough time to jump for it then they should back off because there's a very good chance that they'll upend someone who does. Two players clashing in the air can make for a pretty nasty collision but it's much less likely to involve one of them being turned 180 degrees and landing on their head.

As to how high you need to jump - not very - the Davies yellow card situation was for my money a good example of how two players competing in the air can have a clash that never had a realistic chance of either landing on their head. He didn't get very high but he did get up. He could have stayed on the ground and bulldozed through which would have been a much more dangerous situation.

It's a totally different situation when someone is running in to try and jump higher than a relatively stationary group of players. It's actually an unusual scenario as often there's only multiple players around the landing site when a kick has been miscued and a player trying to jump in just hasn't got the opportunity to launch themselves into the air because of a lack of space. When it does happen though the onus is clearly on the jumper to take care. Even in that scenario though it's much less dangerous as you haven't got the momentum of someone else charging in to whip them around 180 degrees although it's obviously possible.

Dempsey did jump to compete for high balls, he stayed on the group when he was just collecting them. His excellent positional game just meant that he caught more kicks than other fullbacks of the time who would have only picked them up after a few bounces. Dempsey did it a little bit but Kearney even more so will adjust his run to ensure that he is jumping into a contestable high ball. There was a game recently where the ball was cross kicked to the other teams winger on Kearney's try line. He actually took a few steps backwards so that he could take a run in to compete for the ball. He duly took it hands above his head in a running jump and nearly scored at the other end.

Yeah_Right

Gits_bone wrote: »

Nope. '96 engine size was reduced.

What about the marshal that was killed in 2001 after being hit by debris from a crash? Or the one that was run over by a crane in 2013? Or the lady driver who died after crashing during testing?

What I am saying is that you can have all sorts of laws and rules regarding safety and protection for people involved in sports but there is still an element of danger. You simply can not make sports 100% risk-free.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What about the marshal that was killed in 2001 after being hit by debris from a crash? Or the one that was run over by a crane in 2013? Or the lady driver who died after crashing during testing?

What I am saying is that you can have all sorts of laws and rules regarding safety and protection for people involved in sports but there is still an element of danger. You simply can not make sports 100% risk-free.

Never said you could.

But removing contact in the air completely (I'm not talking about 2 players jumping for same ball) does not take away from the game...only adds to player safety.

molloyjh

English Lurker wrote: »

Molloyjh is completely right when he says its about management of risk. You don't clamp down on everything dangerous; you don't let everything dangerous pass; you find the point of equilibrium.

For me, the acceptable level of risk in rugby is fairly high because if it isn't, it's not rugby. No, it doesn't extend to letting concussed players come back on, quite a way short of that, but the player in the air? So far, I don't think I've seen an unacceptably high injury toll caused by two players contesting the high ball, both in terms of severity and number, by rugby standards.

It is important to me that in rugby, where ever possible, the contest for the ball be fair. Right now, the current line in sanction is moving us away from that when the ball is in the air. The first man to get airborne and highest is receiving protection that will in time deter players from contesting with him. He jumps and is no longer responsible for his own safety; it becomes the responsibility of the man of the ground; and the man on the ground is incapable of competing for the ball in the air to the utmost of his ability and looking after the man's safety. As a point of principle, I don't think anyone on a rugby pitch should get an advantage in such a manner for disregarding their own safety and I don't think the contest for the ball should be lessened by it. By all means, heavily ban people who show intent in taking people in the air. Bans for people who run at full pelt without checking at a situation where its likely another player will be in the air, I can see sense to that. But Russell? He's taken a few steps to claim a ball, eyes on it all the time, and been unfortunate enough to be where Biggar is landing. Its not intentional and I don't accept that as unduly reckless. I don't think that should be punished further than it should and am unsure as to whether it should have been a yellow.

It may be that as the seasons progress it becomes clear that I am overly blase about the risks caused by taking the man in the air. But if that is the case, I would far rather they simply banned jumping for the ball. The fair contest is reset; the risk entirely extinguished. It's a ridiculous solution, but then so this is a ridiculous situation.

I don't want to see players injured. But I don't want to see what makes rugby diminished either. This? It may be straying too far over the injury line, but it's certainly straying too far over the diminishment line. For me at least, that is.

Then ban it. Matt Hampson is paralysed for life because one scrum went wrong. Tom Croft was nearly paralysed for life because on tackle went wrong. Jordan Kemp is dead, Rowan Stringer is dead, Willie Halaifonua is dead, Yusuf Zaidi is dead, Eric Pelly is dead, Tommie Watson is dead, Halley Appleby is dead, Gareth Jones is dead - those are just the names I found after two minutes of googling (and avoiding obvious examples that would be extra emotional here).

I simply do not get how people who say player welfare and health are the most important thing can agree to the game continuing. It's important, it's really important, but if it's more important than rugby, how can there be rugby?

I don't think anything needs to be done about the situation of 2 people jumping for the ball and contesting for it. If something happens in that situation then the 2 players went into it equally and knowing full well what might happen. They need to accept responsibility for that if it goes wrong.

Tacking a player in the air is different in that there's so much that can go wrong and the management of that risk is just far too difficult. If a player tackles another player in the air then it's a penalty immediately. If he manages to ensure the players safety then it goes no further, if not then a yellow card.

Taking a player out in the air, for example in the way Johnson did to Dave Kearney last month, is far worse IMO. Regardless of intention you are entrusting that players safety to absolutely nothing but blind luck. For me that's a red card all day long. I don't care whether he was trying to back out of a challenge and momentum prevented him doing so or whether he intentionally did it. The reason I don't care is because fate doesn't care either. The risk isn't increased or decreased based on intent. If a player is leaving another players welfare utterly to chance then that is not acceptable.

In the case of Russell he isn't running in to challenge for the ball, he's simply positioning himself to field it. That is quite different from the above. If anything Biggar is being reckless by jumping straight into a player he knows full well is there. What else was Russell meant to do? Step back altogether on the off chance that Biggar would jump down his throat and cede possession to Wales? No, for me that shouldn't even be a penalty. And if we're going to get all health and safety on this then we should just ban the high ball altogether because players will compete for it and be looking up rather than straight ahead so they could clash heads even if they stay rooted to the ground.

EDIT: If that is a penalty then players could buy penalties at risk to their own safety by jumping into static players regularly. Which for all intents and purposes is exactly what Biggar did. And that's a dangerous thing to encourage.

molloyjh wrote: »

I don't care whether he was trying to back out of a challenge and momentum prevented him doing so or whether he intentionally did it. The reason I don't care is because fate doesn't care either. The risk isn't increased or decreased based on intent. If a player is leaving another players welfare utterly to chance then that is not acceptable.

In the case of Russell he isn't running in to challenge for the ball, he's simply positioning himself to field it. That is quite different from the above. If anything Biggar is being reckless by jumping straight into a player he knows full well is there. What else was Russell meant to do? Step back altogether on the off chance that Biggar would jump down his throat and cede possession to Wales? No, for me that shouldn't even be a penalty. And if we're going to get all health and safety on this then we should just ban the high ball altogether because players will compete for it and be looking up rather than straight ahead so they could clash heads even if they stay rooted to the ground.

EDIT: If that is a penalty then players could buy penalties at risk to their own safety by jumping into static players regularly. Which for all intents and purposes is exactly what Biggar did. And that's a dangerous thing to encourage.

I don't understand how you reconcile the first paragraph I've quoted with the second? If Russell can't jump to compete for the ball then I don't think that he should be trying to field it on the run. If he was just standing underneath it then that's different but Biggar couldn't be expected to be aware that somebody would arrive underneath him and hit his legs as he caught the ball. Intent isn't the issue here because I suspect that we all agree that Russell had no intention of doing what he did to Biggar. As you say in your first paragraph though the risks to Biggar didn't reduce just because Russell didn't intend to take him. I think that Russell was leaving Biggar's welfare to chance by his actions. If he had got there earlier and jumped there would have been far less of a risk of a serious injury IMO, assuming that he felt he couldn't he should have positioned himself to hit Biggar the moment he landed.

I disagree with your analysis in your edit. Russell wasn't standing there statically waiting for Biggar to hit him. He moved in towards the landing area and the movement continued (along with attempted evasive actions) right up to the point where he hit Biggar. I agree that it's a totally different story if he had already been there but he wasn't.

rrpc

Clearlier wrote: »

I disagree with your analysis in your edit. Russell wasn't standing there statically waiting for Biggar to hit him. He moved in towards the landing area and the movement continued (along with attempted evasive actions) right up to the point where he hit Biggar. I agree that it's a totally different story if he had already been there but he wasn't.

Russell was clearly unaware of Biggar until the last second. This is probably the biggest issue. We see the alternative approach being adopted by Ireland players where they wait for the player to land before tackling them, but there's an awareness of whether they will get to the ball first or not and an adaptation of their play depending on the outcome.

rrpc wrote: »

Russell was clearly unaware of Biggar until the last second. This is probably the biggest issue. We see the alternative approach being adopted by Ireland players where they wait for the player to land before tackling them, but there's an awareness of whether they will get to the ball first or not and an adaptation of their play depending on the outcome.

and that's what I'm saying should be required. Nobody thinks that Russell did it on purpose. I think he was reckless though. I don't think that everyone agrees with that analysis.

rrpc

Clearlier wrote: »

and that's what I'm saying should be required. Nobody thinks that Russell did it on purpose. I think he was reckless though. I don't think that everyone agrees with that analysis.

I think people are looking at the actual incident without thinking about the process that got it started. You can't have eyes only for the ball, you have to be aware of other people competing for it; even at the basic level of wanting to get the possession it makes all kinds of sense to be aware of opposition players who might be competing for it.

The purpose is to come away with the ball or at least make sure it's not go-forward for the opposition.

molloyjh

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't understand how you reconcile the first paragraph I've quoted with the second? If Russell can't jump to compete for the ball then I don't think that he should be trying to field it on the run. If he was just standing underneath it then that's different but Biggar couldn't be expected to be aware that somebody would arrive underneath him and hit his legs as he caught the ball. Intent isn't the issue here because I suspect that we all agree that Russell had no intention of doing what he did to Biggar. As you say in your first paragraph though the risks to Biggar didn't reduce just because Russell didn't intend to take him. I think that Russell was leaving Biggar's welfare to chance by his actions. If he had got there earlier and jumped there would have been far less of a risk of a serious injury IMO, assuming that he felt he couldn't he should have positioned himself to hit Biggar the moment he landed.

I disagree with your analysis in your edit. Russell wasn't standing there statically waiting for Biggar to hit him. He moved in towards the landing area and the movement continued (along with attempted evasive actions) right up to the point where he hit Biggar. I agree that it's a totally different story if he had already been there but he wasn't.

Ah look there's a world of difference between taking a step or two to position yourself under the ball to field it and what you're talking about. How often does the ball land exactly where the full back was standing when it was kicked? Answer: almost never.

What were Russells options? Literally the only way he could have avoided this was by standing back and leaving the ball to Biggar. And what kind of option is that!?

Let's look at what actually happened here:

Biggar kicks and gives chase
Russell tries to position himself under the ball to field it
Biggar jumps in the air to try and beat Russell to the ball
Russell tries to avoid Biggar the moment he realises the Welshman is in the air
Biggar collides with Russell

If anything Biggar was the reckless party in that. Russell stayed on the ground, kept his eye on the ball and tried to get out of Biggars way when he realised that Biggar was in the air.

Biggar knew full well that Russell was going to try and field that ball. He jumped specifically to beat Russell to it and retain possession and went foot first into Russells head and upper body.

The only real options open to Russell here were to compete in the air from a near standing start or just leave the ball be completely. Neither of those make any sense. He'd have come off worse in the air because of Biggars momentum and both players would have been at greater risk. And just leaving the opposition to have the ball would mean that a kicking game like that would guarantee possession every time if the defence can't go anywhere near the chaser like that.

Common sense must prevail here. A guy tried to catch a ball while another guy jumped into him. You can't blame the guy who was standing on the ground for that.

rrpc wrote: »

I think people are looking at the actual incident without thinking about the process that got it started. You can't have eyes only for the ball, you have to be aware of other people competing for it; even at the basic level of wanting to get the possession it makes all kinds of sense to be aware of opposition players who might be competing for it.

The purpose is to come away with the ball or at least make sure it's not go-forward for the opposition.

Not many are going to take their eyes off the ball if they're running in to jump and catch it. The trick is to have anticipated what's going to happen and make an decision early enough to not create a dangerous situation.

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah look there's a world of difference between taking a step or two to position yourself under the ball to field it and what you're talking about. How often does the ball land exactly where the full back was standing when it was kicked? Answer: almost never.

What were Russells options? Literally the only way he could have avoided this was by standing back and leaving the ball to Biggar. And what kind of option is that!?

Let's look at what actually happened here:
Biggar kicks and gives chase

Russell tries to position himself under the ball to field it

Biggar jumps in the air to try and beat Russell to the ball

Russell tries to avoid Biggar the moment he realises the Welshman is in the air

Biggar collides with Russell

If anything Biggar was the reckless party in that. Russell stayed on the ground, kept his eye on the ball and tried to get out of Biggars way when he realised that Biggar was in the air.

Biggar knew full well that Russell was going to try and field that ball. He jumped specifically to beat Russell to it and retain possession and went foot first into Russells head and upper body.

The only real options open to Russell here was to compete in the air from a near standing start or just leave the ball be completely. Neither of those make any sense. He'd have come off worse in the air because of Biggars momentum and both players would have been at greater risk. And just leaving the opposition to have the ball would mean that a kicking game like that would guarantee possession everytime if the defence can't go anywhere near the chaser like that.

Common sense must prevail here. A guy tried to catch a ball while another guy jumped into him. You can't blame the guy who was standing on the ground for that.

I think that we differ slightly in our facts. I've highlighted the one that I disagree with. In my view Russell wasn't just standing there waiting for the ball to land. He ran in towards the landing area but was slightly slower at getting there than Biggarand couldn't get into the air. Russell should have made a decision before he did to either hit Biggar when he landed or compete with him in the air for it. In that scenario I think he absolutely has got a duty to ensure that he's not going to clash with an opponent jumping for the ball. I see this incident as being very similar to the ROG on in the 2nd lions test in South Africa. Funnily enough at the time I argued his innocence because there wasn't any intention but I've since come around to thinking that regardless of intention it was reckless and dangerous.

rrpc

molloyjh wrote: »

Let's look at what actually happened here:
Biggar kicks and gives chase

Russell tries to position himself under the ball to field it

Biggar jumps in the air to try and beat Russell to the ball

Russell tries to avoid Biggar the moment he realises the Welshman is in the air

Biggar collides with Russell

Let's look at this a different way.:

Biggar kicks and gives chase
Russell tries to position himself under the ball to field it, closing his eyes and his mind to there being any other scenario than him actually being able to do that.
Biggar jumps in the air to try and beat Russell to the ball.
Russell wakes up and realises that (a) he's not actually going to get the ball and (b) there's a flying Welshman coming at him.
Epic fail for Russell. Dan Biggar gets the ball, a penalty and 10 minutes with a bit more space around the pitch.

Who says Russel wanted to get into the air. From his point of view he is much better off catching it while on the ground because he can immediately make his next move. That ball was landing in the bread basket for Russell.

I'm with Molloy. Biggar did nothing wrong by the laws of the game but flying in like that is reckless. If Russell has jumped up as some seem to demand he would have been destroyed by biggar in the air.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

Who says Russel wanted to get into the air. From his point of view he is much better off catching it while on the ground because he can immediately make his next move. That ball was landing in the bread basket for Russell.

Well if he doesn't want to compete in the air he needs to accept that those who do are going to be protected in the laws. That's part of the game, it's an intentional mechanic within the sport as well, not just a quirk of the rules.

molloyjh

Clearlier wrote: »

I think that we differ slightly in our facts. I've highlighted the one that I disagree with. In my view Russell wasn't just standing there waiting for the ball to land. He ran in towards the landing area but was slightly slower at getting there than Biggarand couldn't get into the air. Russell should have made a decision before he did to either hit Biggar when he landed or compete with him in the air for it. In that scenario I think he absolutely has got a duty to ensure that he's not going to clash with an opponent jumping for the ball. I see this incident as being very similar to the ROG on in the 2nd lions test in South Africa. Funnily enough at the time I argued his innocence because there wasn't any intention but I've since come around to thinking that regardless of intention it was reckless and dangerous.

He only took a couple of steps to position himself though. He could never have broken into a run given the distance involved. And if he has a duty to make sure he doesn't collide with anyone why doesn't Biggar have the same responsibility? It seems very one sided to me. What if Biggar had caught Russell in the head with his knee and given him a concussion?

Russell didn't do anything we haven't seen players do multiple times in a game. A high ball went up in his vacinity and so he took a couple of steps to get under it. He didn't force Biggar to jump and he didn't target Biggar in any way shape or form. In fact Biggar jumped after it was apparent that Russell wasn't going to and so if anyone acted recklessly it was Biggar.