Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TRF_heineken" data-source="post: 815111" data-attributes="member: 40658"><p>What I don't get is the focus of player safety and the manner in which certain incidents are placed under more scrutiny than other incidents.</p><p></p><p>For instance, we have seen how players got on-field red cards for taking out the player in the air, even though they slipped or whatever else the reason might have been. In most of those occasions there is a general consensus that the correct procedure was followed and that the correct outcome was reached, and that this is a way to promote player safety.</p><p></p><p>Now I'm no medical expert, but according to me, the face and the spine are 2 key areas that must be the focus of player safety. But at the moment it seems like the focus is more on Concussion and Spinal injuries. But surely a player's eyes should be another priority, without sight, how can you play rugby???</p><p></p><p>Now before cooky goes off on me, let me state that my query is purely on the focus of player safety, and nothing about whether Franks, Galarza, Schalk Burger or whoever else have been found guilty or innocent of eye gouging. Surely the focus from WR should be that players should stray away from other player's faces with specific focus of the eye area?? Whether there was deliberate contact with the eyes, or not at all, shouldn't the sanction have a guideline to follow?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TRF_heineken, post: 815111, member: 40658"] What I don't get is the focus of player safety and the manner in which certain incidents are placed under more scrutiny than other incidents. For instance, we have seen how players got on-field red cards for taking out the player in the air, even though they slipped or whatever else the reason might have been. In most of those occasions there is a general consensus that the correct procedure was followed and that the correct outcome was reached, and that this is a way to promote player safety. Now I'm no medical expert, but according to me, the face and the spine are 2 key areas that must be the focus of player safety. But at the moment it seems like the focus is more on Concussion and Spinal injuries. But surely a player's eyes should be another priority, without sight, how can you play rugby??? Now before cooky goes off on me, let me state that my query is purely on the focus of player safety, and nothing about whether Franks, Galarza, Schalk Burger or whoever else have been found guilty or innocent of eye gouging. Surely the focus from WR should be that players should stray away from other player's faces with specific focus of the eye area?? Whether there was deliberate contact with the eyes, or not at all, shouldn't the sanction have a guideline to follow? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
Pichot on consistency and the Frank's incident.
Top