[2024 Six Nations] Scotland vs France - 10/02/24

[dirty harry]

It's a shame more people weren't saying this to the SRU at the time not years later on an Internet forum.

Yes it was a tragedy. The lack of respect and dignity shown by your empoyers was appalling both to her and her family.

Her dignity won't be maintained if all conversation about how badly the SRU failed her, and how bloody awful there priorities are is shut down. It smacks of "Don't talk about that, it makes us look bad". The most undignified thing you can do is let someone fall from memory. Let's no forget it took the SRU 18 months to even remember her in a dignified manner. Priorities!

Former employer. I get it, I wasnt still in Scotland when it happened, the SRU arent Angel's and of course should have dealt with it better.
But I knew Siobhan for few years, coached her extensively, and it leaves a bad taste when people use her name as point scoring against the SRU.

 

[dirty harry]

Maybe and this isn't an attack on any individual but that unfortunate case is 1 of a few stories I have heard from SRU. Concussion isn't just a "pass RTP protocol and healed" process. That is where alot of failings are. Not in the proceeding days but weeks and months.
But their handling of the cases as a whole has been bad too. Like little remorse or responsibility taken and a case of "we're only wrong after we have blamed everything else"

I mean that isnt the case, I've been through the RTP protocol, what can the SRU do in reality, they cant afford to employ thousands of specialists for consistent RTP checks over months on each player.

They invest a lot at Scottish universities, they have a large number of jointly employed staff, they have researchers and a large number of specialists advising and training.

I've worked for the RFU, WRU and SRU and the SRU were far better than the other 2 NGB's in my opinion with regards to player safeguarding.

 

[munstermuffin]

I mean that isnt the case, I've been through the RTP protocol, what can the SRU do in reality, they cant afford to employ thousands of specialists for consistent RTP checks over months on each player.

They invest a lot at Scottish universities, they have a large number of jointly employed staff, they have researchers and a large number of specialists advising and training.

I've worked for the RFU, WRU and SRU and the SRU were far better than the other 2 NGB's in my opinion with regards to player safeguarding.

In IRFU we have checks after 3 months, 6 months and annually when players return each summer. Equally if a player gets a HIA we in medical teams continue to check in with them for 9 months randomly also.

We don't have 1000s in our staff too. In Munster there is 9 of us on the medical staff that cover the Mens and Academy. We have an additional few to assist with other sides and Womens game.

But from reading the reports and hearing stories SRU that you are portraying and SRU in stories are 2 different unions.
The Dave Cherry case is the next that is under review as SRU did not want to give him the proper care as it "didn't happen on the field on their time". And while that is true you always treat to the best of ability regardless of fault.

 

[dirty harry]

In IRFU we have checks after 3 months, 6 months and annually when players return each summer. Equally if a player gets a HIA we in medical teams continue to check in with them for 9 months randomly also.

We don't have 1000s in our staff too. In Munster there is 9 of us on the medical staff that cover the Mens and Academy. We have an additional few to assist with other sides and Womens game.

But from reading the reports and hearing stories SRU that you are portraying and SRU in stories are 2 different unions.
The Dave Cherry case is the next that is under review as SRU did not want to give him the proper care as it "didn't happen on the field on their time". And while that is true you always treat to the best of ability regardless of fault.

And the SRU did the same with professionals and academies, with exception of the annual check, I havnt been privy to that. however if you are working in this industry you'll know how difficult it is to regulate, I've seen pro players lie on the pitch, and off it to avoid longer absences.

I was referring to the wider scope of concussion around the game, it would take thousands of man hours to check on every concussion.

I'm not too familiar with the Cherry case, from what I know he fell in a hotel, and was written off as a precautionary measure. He would have been eligible to play after the RTP protocol but the coaching team decided not to risk anything and gave him an extended break? You'll have to update me if I've missed anything on that.

Let'nsot pretend any RU is perfect, there are Irish players in lawsuits against the IRFU now, but I would also suspect the IRFU would be incredibly cautious after the first double concussion death years ago.

Does the IRFU still implement the 6 stage return model btw?

So, my point is to not defend the SRU, or attack the IRFU, it's a very complex issue all unions are doing their best to rectify, but my experiences in the SRU were far better than the WRU and RFU.


Sadly, my only experience of the IRFU is playing lower level in Clare, and a rejection as Bernard Jackmans replacement at UCD lol

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Sadly, my only experience of the IRFU is playing lower level in Clare, and a rejection as Bernard Jackmans replacement at UCD lol

I don't think someone with your very outgoing and outspoken characteristics could safely replace the most boring **** in the world regardless of suitability. Young lads would be having aneurysms.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

With regards to the grounding, I think the main distinction is that it looked in all probability like it was done and being able to say it was definitely down. I think it was much more likely than not grounded. The main issue is, when he went over the line, his hand was under the ball. Whilst there is an image which appears to show the ball resting on the ground, I have not seen a picture in which we see his hand coming out from under the ball. I think without seeing his hand was clearly no longer under the ball, we cannot conclude that the ball was indeed grounded.

It is all moot really because arguably Scotland should have been penalised in the proceeding scrum. It reminds me of a few years back where England scored a try against Wales in the dying minutes. Many Welsh fans claimed they threw the game away but ignored that Wales only got possession there through a completely illegal turnover in the first place.

 

[Reiser99]

Was it a try. Almost certainly. Was it 100% proven. No.

To overturn a refs decision it has to be clear and obvious, which it was not.

Tbh as soon as the ref makes the decision it often decides the outcome. There have been times when the ref has awarded the try and it looks like it was held up, but without 100% you can't overturn it.

SRU making this into a public issue is pathetic considering how many games have these moments and people just have to accept the outcome.

 

[dirty harry]

I don't think someone with your very outgoing and outspoken characteristics could safely replace the most boring **** in the world regardless of suitability. Young lads would be having aneurysms.

Outspoken? My dude we are on a message board, all we have is our outspoken opinions lol

We don't interact like this with colleagues, well I hope you all dont hahaha

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Outspoken? My dude we are on a message board, all we have is our outspoken opinions lol

We don't interact like this with colleagues, well I hope you all dont hahaha

It was only an observation not a criticism. I called Bernard Jackman a boring **** in the same breath like.

 

[munstermuffin]

Was it a try. Almost certainly. Was it 100% proven. No.

To overturn a refs decision it has to be clear and obvious, which it was not.

Tbh as soon as the ref makes the decision it often decides the outcome. There have been times when the ref has awarded the try and it looks like it was held up, but without 100% you can't overturn it.

SRU making this into a public issue is pathetic considering how many games have these moments and people just have to accept the outcome.

This is it in a nut shell. And it does work both ways.

I agree with every aspect of this.

 

[munstermuffin]

And the SRU did the same with professionals and academies, with exception of the annual check, I havnt been privy to that. however if you are working in this industry you'll know how difficult it is to regulate, I've seen pro players lie on the pitch, and off it to avoid longer absences.

I was referring to the wider scope of concussion around the game, it would take thousands of man hours to check on every concussion.

I'm not too familiar with the Cherry case, from what I know he fell in a hotel, and was written off as a precautionary measure. He would have been eligible to play after the RTP protocol but the coaching team decided not to risk anything and gave him an extended break? You'll have to update me if I've missed anything on that.

Let'nsot pretend any RU is perfect, there are Irish players in lawsuits against the IRFU now, but I would also suspect the IRFU would be incredibly cautious after the first double concussion death years ago.

Does the IRFU still implement the 6 stage return model btw?

So, my point is to not defend the SRU, or attack the IRFU, it's a very complex issue all unions are doing their best to rectify, but my experiences in the SRU were far better than the WRU and RFU.


Sadly, my only experience of the IRFU is playing lower level in Clare, and a rejection as Bernard Jackmans replacement at UCD lol

Not saying any Union is perfect but SRU did have failing there. The cases from various players is a different bowl as it was in less scientific times and aim was at various sides not just medically. And I understand their cases.

Cherry was stood down and not let play yes but also SRU didn't offer him same treatment that he would get if it happened on the field.

Out of curiosity what club in Clare you play as I know those clubs very well.

 

[Jimbo]

This is it in a nut shell. And it does work both ways.

I agree with every aspect of this.

Exactly I really dislike the demand for an apology from the ref, they have applied the current guidance perfectly, there is an argument for probability having a bigger influence rather than clear cut (not sure where I stand) with that one, the criticism refs face for genuinely good application is disgusting and will only lead to a smaller and poorer pools of refs.

 

[Amiga500]

To play devils advocate - we can be 100% sure there was no arm under the ball.
But can we be 100% sure there was no hand under the ball?

 

[Jimbo]

To play devils advocate - we can be 100% sure there was no arm under the ball.
But can we be 100% sure there was no hand under the ball?

Time frames are also important here , it's all well and good with hindsight, you also need to be able to see and hear what the ref is doing concurrently if he's already called held up what happens after is irrelevant. I get the Scottish frustration however this isn't new, if the process needs reviewing and tweaking fine there could be an argument for that, there simply isn't one with how this was applied under those currently in place, very consistent, excellent officiating job.

 

[munstermuffin]

@Amiga500 and @Jimbo ye both are making fair calls but that is just on changes to overall application of laws but as was said the refs applied the current guidelines to the tee.

 

[Jimbo]

@Amiga500 and @Jimbo ye both are making fair calls but that is just on changes to overall application of laws but as was said the refs applied the current guidelines to the tee.

Spot on which is what irritates me about the unjust criticisms of officials in this instance.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I thought the ref made the wrong on field decision at the time, and my immediate reaction was the tmo won't be able to overturn that, so I turned it off. but the ref was in a different position to me and made the call he obviously thought was right based on what he saw. So, bad luck.

 

[dirty harry]

Not saying any Union is perfect but SRU did have failing there. The cases from various players is a different bowl as it was in less scientific times and aim was at various sides not just medically. And I understand their cases.

Cherry was stood down and not let play yes but also SRU didn't offer him same treatment that he would get if it happened on the field.

Out of curiosity what club in Clare you play as I know those clubs very well.

Ye I'm not up to speed with the aftermath of the Cherry incident.

So I spent 2 years working at money point, I played on and off for Kilrush for about a season. Very wishy washy, Powerstationt work isnt the most work life balance friendly lol. I mean we are talking 15 years ago now, Thomond was being built and I was purchasing a brick on the walk and having my messages rejected lol

 

[munstermuffin]

Ye I'm not up to speed with the aftermath of the Cherry incident.

So I spent 2 years working at money point, I played on and off for Kilrush for about a season. Very wishy washy, Powerstationt work isnt the most work life balance friendly lol. I mean we are talking 15 years ago now, Thomond was being built and I was purchasing a brick on the walk and having my messages rejected lol

Very good know Kilrush club well and Moneypoint wow it still going back there. You'd have played Gleeson League so would have encountered some fun refs too

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

You'd have played Gleeson League so would have encountered some fun refs too

Do they compare notes with the Connacht junior league reds because a bunch of the flat out didn't know the rules.