•

i thibk we can al agreee that tmos ruined big parts of the WC

Mark Reason: Why rugby's new $700 microchipped mouthguards are scary

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/301003971/mark-reason-why-rugbys-new-700-microchipped-mouthguards-are-scary

OPINION: The mouthguards will be mandated into all pro rugby competitions from January 1. Where does it end, World Rugby?

Very interesting article about how world rugby is forcing full tracking on all players, increasing the potential of completely killing the game (privacy issues aside).

9 comments

Olap

•

Meh, players having to start playing legally instead of playing the ref? How dare they!

Cricket have a literal phrase about this and I'll be happier to see speedier rucks, safer collisions and more attractive rugby. I think Rassie has proven the bench needs looked at if we're interested in rules

And I'd love to see what union looks like without a number 8

FerNZA

•

Well, with players suing their unions WR and the other unions will do things that make it “safer”.

WRT to the TMOs, if the fans pick up an error the referee doesn’t it also brings unhappiness. I am pretty sure the TMO didn’t go all the way back, he probably saw it in real time and then decided to look at it.

What is the privacy issues with wearing a chipped mouth guard? They are already wearing a chipped jersey. With the mouth guard the will be able to see the direct effect of the hits on the player and can pull a player for a HIA directly when he goes over certain limits. The injuries from the chip is a concern though.

WR is in a tight spot, they need to show they are doing something about player welfare. These things will show how they progress as well.

Olap

•

Totally agreed, parents won't send their children to play if it doesn't get safer either

TagMeInSkipIGotThis

•

The problem is that what they've done to address concussions is shown to not work. Even folks up north chipping the SH for being too lenient and not causing players to change behaviour must admit that as many NH players get carded as SH. Their focus has been on penalising when things go wrong (ambulance at the bottom of the cliff) rather than making changes to try to ensure things don't got wrong as often.

Setting aside the privacy issues for now, the mouth guards should help measure how many concussive impacts are nothing to do being tackled high. I think this is good because there's all sorts of other problems around whiplash, hitting the ground, being the tackler, etc etc which just aren't really measured at the moment.

But I suspect the bigger and more impactful changes are coming around changing laws to define a legal tackle height. Too much of the carding at the moment comes under the foul play rules, and mostly around dangerous/recklessness. These rules don't really define what a good tackle is, more just some vague thoughts about what a bad tackle is and the interpretation puts all the onus on the tackler and very little on the ball carrier.

What we are seeing moves towards now is a much clearer definition on what WR thinks a good legal tackle is, and penalising when players go outside of those bounds. That's great but it still doesn't really account for situations like Sam Cane's where its a microsecond adjustment and he had neither time to make a good tackle, nor time to get out of the way.

In terms of player safety there's lots of other things I'd like to see WR take a serious look at:

Competing in the air is inherently dangerous, particularly when the kicking team's chases are taught to hare after the ball and deliberately disrupt in the air to try to cause messy ball. The safety answer is to only allow the defending team to jump, and penalise any interference within a couple of metres of them. If things don't change, its only a matter of time before an incident like Arendse-Barrett last year kills a player.
Jackalling has to be looked at. Its the main cause of players throwing themselves into rucks at speed and rolling defenders out of the way etc. You could go the other way and penalise the attacking team even more but that is a net negative for rugby as it will make it even more likely teams won't want the ball. Remove the jackal and the ruck should become a lot safer for everyone.
The bench, particularly as used by Rassie, has gotten stupid and means bigger players hitting each other harder for a greater proportion of the 80 minute game. We need to de-power the bench in order to shift the balance back to fitness rather than size & power.

Wanderer

•

I'm really thinking ultimately the game is dead. Its just a matter of time. There is no safe way to play.

Jacking is madness especially at amateur. You're just waiting on some angry roider who's been having a bad game to run full speed into someone's neck. Surprised there has been more talk about it.

Blocking jumpers so that they get disoriented in the air and both jumpers get fucked over is a stupid system.

In terms of weight and strength that's a difficult one. I think in a perfect world the pitch should be wider, obviously if you implemented this you would have to grandfather stadiums in. Losing 8 would be interesting. Bench is too Big or there are too many subs.

It's going to be a while until we fully understand the damage regular play head knocks give you but I doubt the results will be promising.

TagMeInSkipIGotThis

•

So the thing about the jackal is that under the current laws it can already be interpreted as illegal as soon as a defender makes contact with them.

15.2 A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground. 15.3 Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.

In the past when i've raised this while participating in the old sub-reddit, people would argue that at that point while the jackal could be illegal that there was a prior offence of the tackled player holding on anyway so its fine to keep allowing the jackal, because of

*15.11 Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet. *

I think they're ignoring that the principle of law 14 Tackle is: The actions of players involved in the tackle must ensure a fair contest and allow the ball to be available for play immediately. at least in terms of the responsibilities of the tacklers, particularly

*Tacklers must: * 14.5a Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground. 14.5b Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up. 14.5d Allow the tackled player to release or play the ball. 14.5e Allow the tackled player to move away from the ball. Sanction: Penalty.

A & d get policed fairly well now, but b is an absolute lottery and e is completely ignored by both attack & defence. B is especially bad when there are more than two tacklers. The way its interpreted is that so long as the tackler is on the defenders side of the ruck they don't have to move. But the law suggests that is irrelevant, they still need to move away form the tackled player and ball. Imagine if they did how in the way they would be for a lot of jackals!

But I would argue that it is better for Rugby to interpret 15.3 first and penalise the jackal on body height anyway; both because it would nerf the jackal a lot, plus make the game safer for everyone. I also think that would encourage teams to play with the ball more, which would mean the ball is in play longer and aerobically test defence more. Which in turn would hopefully encourage teams to select lighter, fitter players and hopefully with less mass impacting in tackles that would help with safety.

There is certainly a question about how teams contest and get the ball back from the jackal; but I'm not as worried about that. I think what we've seen through the tighter games in the World Cup is that the threat of the jackal wins the ball through the attacking team kicking the ball away as much as an actual turnover anyway. And if attacking teams aren't able to breach the gainline it will still be very rare for them to play > 15 phases without wanting to kick or without a knock-on or forward pass.

I have thoughts on the bench etc as well; but this is already long enough! :)

Wanderer

•

Yes the shoulders below the hips thing is so ignored.

People do very much like the jackal so I see it staying as is. But I would like to see more threat on attack and more of a struggle on defense. Like you say, nerf the jackal and you get that and you get a more open game of rugby.

You looked into this way more than me. I just have my views without disecting the rules. But you seem to have found a workable solution.

TagMeInSkipIGotThis

•

The jackal can stay, it just needs to be de-favoured; first responsibility should be on defenders getting out of the way so that the ball carrier can then do their responsibilities (place the ball & move out of the way. Then the jackal has a window until a ruck forms to pick the ball up.

Wanderer

•

Refs will be wrong tmos will be wrong. Its part of the game.

Yes it can be improved but looking at stuff in hindsight and pointing out all the mistakes as a reason why it's useless is not helpful.

I thought the refs and tmos were good this world cup but I bet their will inevitably be some standout mistakes.

The mistakes I have an issue with are the reviews after the game what take a week and then are still wrong.