England 2021/22

[BPM]

So what do you deem to be right, seeing as you're so in touch and all …

 

[Which Tyler]

Didn't it come from World Rugby, and is a welcome suggestion that puts player welfare first for once?

 

[EdBirch]

Anyone else seen the note from the RFU about limiting contact training to only 15 minutes per week!

stupid and crazy idea again from an out of touch organisation.

I thought it was World Rugby not the RFU?

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

So what do you deem to be right, seeing as you're so in touch and all …

This addressed at me? Why the attitude?

I mean I've played for years, I coach and am part of the wider coaching development forums, took part in lots of other contact sports as well. If you've played (I'm sure I remember you saying you have) then you know that to prepare for contact on game day you need to train contact. How can being limited to such short times really prepare someone for a match?

 

[Mr Burns]

Don't most teams limit contact training to 20-30 minutes already, this seems a welcome suggestion to stop some of the old school coaches still blasting players during the week.

Certainly for professional teams they don't need loads of tackle practice, more defensive shape and systems

 

[Reiser99]

This addressed at me? Why the attitude?

I mean I've played for years, I coach and am part of the wider coaching development forums, took part in lots of other contact sports as well. If you've played (I'm sure I remember you saying you have) then you know that to prepare for contact on game day you need to train contact. How can being limited to such short times really prepare someone for a match?

The issue is that many ex-players suffer from serious conditions related to constantly taking knocks to the head. They don't even have to be direct knocks, your head still gets shaken when tackling or getting tackled. WR wants to stop players from developing serious medical conditions when they retire.

Now if that means players don't get as much training time then so be it. Realistically there is a possibility rugby will cease in it's current form because the evidence shows it is too dangerous. I'm sure many people will be upset, but if their complaints essentially boil down to the fact that the quality isn't as good because players don't train as much or it's not entertaining then those people value their own personal enjoyment over players health.

Now I'm sure people might say that there are plenty of players who don't suffer, but how many is too many? Would 5 players with dementia in their 40's like Steve Thompson be too many? How about 10? Keep in mind, you won't know this until years later, so by then most people can ignore the guilt as it's happening out of sight. But WR can't especially if they have the medical evidence to show how dangerous the sport can be, as that opens them up to being sued for negligence.

 

[Which Tyler]

The issue is that many ex-players suffer from serious conditions related to constantly taking knocks to the head. They don't even have to be direct knocks, your head still gets shaken when tackling or getting tackled. WR wants to stop players from developing serious medical conditions when they retire.

Now if that means players don't get as much training time then so be it. Realistically there is a possibility rugby will cease in it's current form because the evidence shows it is too dangerous. I'm sure many people will be upset, but if their complaints essentially boil down to the fact that the quality isn't as good because players don't train as much or it's not entertaining then those people value their own personal enjoyment over players health.

Now I'm sure people might say that there are plenty of players who don't suffer, but how many is too many? Would 5 players with dementia in their 40's like Steve Thompson be too many? How about 10? Keep in mind, you won't know this until years later, so by then most people can ignore the guilt as it's happening out of sight. But WR can't especially if they have the medical evidence to show how dangerous the sport can be, as that opens them up to being sued for negligence.

Point of order - it's highly unlikely to see a reduction in training - just a difference in training - touch rugby, limited contact, skills.
All bad things for the sport, obviously.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The issue is that many ex-players suffer from serious conditions related to constantly taking knocks to the head. They don't even have to be direct knocks, your head still gets shaken when tackling or getting tackled. WR wants to stop players from developing serious medical conditions when they retire.

Now if that means players don't get as much training time then so be it. Realistically there is a possibility rugby will cease in it's current form because the evidence shows it is too dangerous. I'm sure many people will be upset, but if their complaints essentially boil down to the fact that the quality isn't as good because players don't train as much or it's not entertaining then those people value their own personal enjoyment over players health.

Now I'm sure people might say that there are plenty of players who don't suffer, but how many is too many? Would 5 players with dementia in their 40's like Steve Thompson be too many? How about 10? Keep in mind, you won't know this until years later, so by then most people can ignore the guilt as it's happening out of sight. But WR can't especially if they have the medical evidence to show how dangerous the sport can be, as that opens them up to being sued for negligence.

Surely limiting the number of games players play per year would be a good start.

Surely we want encourage players to tackle and ruck better/ safer and I don't see how cutting down on that 'in game' training would help. It won't stop the high tackles or people flying into rucks.

 

[Reiser99]

Surely limiting the number of games players play per year would be a good start.

Surely we want encourage players to tackle and ruck better/ safer and I don't see how cutting down on that 'in game' training would help. It won't stop the high tackles or people flying into rucks.

True there are other things that can and should be done. Also it's limiting full-contact, they can still play and train, just not hitting each other as they would in a game.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

True there are other things that can and should be done. Also it's limiting full-contact, they can still play and train, just not hitting each other as they would in a game.

There other things, but if I told you a fireman is only 15 minutes of training per week to put out fires how wild you feel about that?

We are asking these players to put there body on the line and I fully understand the concern of player welfare but it seems bizarre to me that reducing the about of time you can practise something would ever help.

As said above I worry about the game as a whole, is it too physical for a world of head injuries and law suits etc

 

[BPM]

This addressed at me? Why the attitude?

I mean I've played for years, I coach and am part of the wider coaching development forums, took part in lots of other contact sports as well. If you've played (I'm sure I remember you saying you have) then you know that to prepare for contact on game day you need to train contact. How can being limited to such short times really prepare someone for a match?

Haha. I knew that would wind you up. Mission accomplished ;

I just find it amusing how anti-establishment you are by default so I had to comment.

I know where you're coming from and a part of me agrees. On the other hand, I think it's incredibly complex and there are almost as many training injuries as there are in actual games. I don't think there's an easy answer but 15mins does feel very low.

 

[Reiser99]

There other things, but if I told you a fireman is only 15 minutes of training per week to put out fires how wild you feel about that?

We are asking these players to put there body on the line and I fully understand the concern of player welfare but it seems bizarre to me that reducing the about of time you can practise something would ever help.

As said above I worry about the game as a whole, is it too physical for a world of head injuries and law suits etc

Sorry but that firefighters comparison is ridiculous. They choose that job, knowing it could risk their lives and they don't run actually train by setting fire to a building, just to practise running into one. They train as much as possible to prepare themselves and then get practical experience in the field. Younger firefighters will get support from older firefighters and will do more and more as they gain experience.

Rugby players are not choosing to play know their lives or futures are at risk (though arguably now they could be choosing that). They play a sport and no one plays a sport expecting to develop serious medical conditions in their 40s or earlier. Yes there are some freak accidents unfortunately in any walk of life, but the head injuries is different. This is a wider medical condition affecting many ex-players and so is not bad luck or chance. It's a direct result of the game. Reducing the amount of time that players heads get knocked about can only be a good thing for that.#

As to the game as I whole, I agree. I said before I can see a real possibility of rugby ending in it's current form because it isn't safe. If not, then I imagine players will have to be fully informed of the risks and sign waivers knowing they understand the risks of playing.

 

[Geordie]

So if the Lions have to miss 1 game over the AIs do you rest them all v Tonga or stagger them through the games?

 

[EdBirch]

It's risky either way, rest v Tonga and they will possibly be cold going into the Aus game, stagger them and you're never at full strength

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If we agree not to play Jonny Hill for the three games does that count as three players worth of rest?

 

[Geordie]

I wonder if the Lions tour will have improved Hills game?

 

[RedruthRFC]

Sorry but that firefighters comparison is ridiculous. They choose that job, knowing it could risk their lives and they don't run actually train by setting fire to a building, just to practise running into one. They train as much as possible to prepare themselves and then get practical experience in the field. Younger firefighters will get support from older firefighters and will do more and more as they gain experience.

Rugby players are not choosing to play know their lives or futures are at risk (though arguably now they could be choosing that). They play a sport and no one plays a sport expecting to develop serious medical conditions in their 40s or earlier. Yes there are some freak accidents unfortunately in any walk of life, but the head injuries is different. This is a wider medical condition affecting many ex-players and so is not bad luck or chance. It's a direct result of the game. Reducing the amount of time that players heads get knocked about can only be a good thing for that.

The point in both instances is that the employer has a legal duty of care so need to ensure that they take reasonable measures to ensure their employee's safety.

By doing the same and expecting different results, the RFU / World Rugby would be leaving themselves open to being found to have ignored this duty of care.

Rugby never tends to think of the law of unintended consequences when making changes, so it will be interesting to see what they are in this instance. Two diametrically opposed possibilities that occur to me are that as emphasis in training moves away from running head first into brock walls, players will focus on running around them and watching rugby will improve as a consequence. On the other hand, maybe players will have more time to spend in the gym, and injury rates will increase as a result.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Sorry but that firefighters comparison is ridiculous. They choose that job, knowing it could risk their lives and they don't run actually train by setting fire to a building, just to practise running into one. They train as much as possible to prepare themselves and then get practical experience in the field. Younger firefighters will get support from older firefighters and will do more and more as they gain experience.

Rugby players are not choosing to play know their lives or futures are at risk (though arguably now they could be choosing that). They play a sport and no one plays a sport expecting to develop serious medical conditions in their 40s or earlier. Yes there are some freak accidents unfortunately in any walk of life, but the head injuries is different. This is a wider medical condition affecting many ex-players and so is not bad luck or chance. It's a direct result of the game. Reducing the amount of time that players heads get knocked about can only be a good thing for that.#

As to the game as I whole, I agree. I said before I can see a real possibility of rugby ending in it's current form because it isn't safe. If not, then I imagine players will have to be fully informed of the risks and sign waivers knowing they understand the risks of playing.

Firefighters do train by setting controlled fire in buildings though. I agree with a lot of what you've said but the comparison is both jobs are dangerous, but it's about how much time you allow to prepare for that.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Haha. I knew that would wind you up. Mission accomplished ;

I just find it amusing how anti-establishment you are by default so I had to comment.

I know where you're coming from and a part of me agrees. On the other hand, I think it's incredibly complex and there are almost as many training injuries as there are in actual games. I don't think there's an easy answer but 15mins does feel very low.

Lol I am really anti establishment, always have been very rebellious since I was a kid. Not sure why and sometimes I wish I wasn't but such is life.

All in all I'm trying to find a way to make this all Eddie's fault

 

[Nudger]

No earls ‍