The rugby

[Alex321]

What do we think of the welsh sin-bin (for the "high tackle" on Sexton)?

I'm probably viewing this as a player of other sports; but it seemed to me that the welshman did nothing to threaten injury - he just stood in the way and Sexton charged at him, head-down. If anything, it looked like he was moving backwards slightly at the point of impact.
I understand why the rules are there, but what was the defender supposed to do? Leap out of the way? Offer his soft tummy area for impact??

I thought it was very unfair on Williams. But with the way the rules are now, I don't think the ref actually had a choice.

There was contact between head and shoulder, and even if it was more head-to-shoulder than the reverse, that still counts as a high tackle unless the player being tackled had really ducked into it. And AIUI, if a penalty is given for a high tackle, then it will always now be a card, with the colour dependent on the degree of danger and the deliberateness.

I personally think that is wring, but that is the current rules. I don't think anybody should be carded for foul play for something that wasn't significantly reckless or worse on their part.

I can't say I'm enthralled with it now being a drop out when the ball is held up over the line, either.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I haven't seen that particular tackle so what follows may not be entirely applicable.

The rules are very clear and the officials are bound to follow them. If there is some "collateral damage" of people getting pinged when arguably it's not fair then so be it. It's a safety issue and I don't think the officials have a great deal of latitude.

Part of the aim of the rules is to enforce fairness in the game, part of it is for safety and part of it is to encourage behaviour change. So don't get into a position where you could become a danger to yourself or others. And how do you encourage this? By penalising people for creating potentially dangerous situations even if there is no intent, just a lack of safety awareness.

RU has a big problem with head injuries - witness the accounts of Steve Thompson and Shontayne Hape (and others). World Rugby are taking this very seriously and it could well result in making significant changes to the game in the name of safety.

This season I read that players in the Prem will be using instrumented mouthguards to gather data on head impacts which should provide useful data. https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rfu-statement-the-use-of-instrumented-mouthguards-in-2022-23/

Edit: OK I've seen the tackle. I'm a clueless know-nothing but, with that caveat, my take is: ... Williams elected to go high. As Sexton approached him he went from a crouch to fully upright. It was his choice to go high, so the collision of Sexton's head was his responsibility. I heard on the radio the bit about Sexton winking afterwards being up on the big screen, and I think Sexton being a dick is what's riling people as much as the question of whether it was a high tackle or not.

 

[MrGrumpy]

not seen any of the games this weekend , but a note on safety . It’s clear players are huge units now, compared to decades ago . Solid athletes and if you get hit it’s going to hurt . At some point this was going to happen. Long term injuries to heads is only showing up now !

 

[matticus]

Edit: OK I've seen the tackle. I'm a clueless know-nothing but, with that caveat, my take is: ... Williams elected to go high. As Sexton approached him he went from a crouch to fully upright. It was his choice to go high, so the collision of Sexton's head was his responsibility. I heard on the radio the bit about Sexton winking afterwards being up on the big screen, and I think Sexton being a dick is what's riling people as much as the question of whether it was a high tackle or not.

If he hadn't "un-crouched", and without seeing the wink, what would be your judgement?

 

[AndyRM]

not seen any of the games this weekend , but a note on safety . It’s clear players are huge units now, compared to decades ago . Solid athletes and if you get hit it’s going to hurt . At some point this was going to happen. Long term injuries to heads is only showing up now !

Union going pro has totally changed the build of players and the style of play. The impacts are colossal. Players from the 90s, early 2000s, wouldn't even get a look in now, they'd be smashed to bits.

I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing, sport evolves, and it's a physical game.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Don't start my on scrum feeds...

I've been watching the 'Slammed' series about Welsh rugby in the 70s. on iPlayer.

The game was so much more entertaining then, imo, partly because of the rules, partly because the players were not as fit or as powerful as players today and what coaching there was was not focussed on defence. Substitutes were limited and just for injuries so there was no such thing as 'gun team' and 'finishers' so tiredness was more of an influence on the result.

Scrums did not go on forever and remember when hookers actually had to hook? Nowadays forwards congratulate each other as if they've won the World Cup just when they get a penalty from the scrum.

Like you I cannot understand refs allowing a crooked feed, especially when there is no such relaxation for the throw-in at line-outs.

Rant over. I shall continue to watch the Six-nations and try to concentrate on the positives rather than the frustrations.

 

[Chap sur le velo]

I saw many of those games in the 70's and there were some terrific highlights. Some wonderful players.

I say some because I also remember the penalties being worth as much as a try 3 points, it only went to 4 in 1971. Playing England was seeing a big pack of forwards grind out penalties and then up steps Dusty Hare or Bob Hiilier. Dull.
Matches often finished with less than 10 points scored in total.
I also recall freezing my nuts off watching Richmond - who were then a top team with several internationals - and it being a 50/50 if the backs could actually make 5 consecutive successful passes (the full back regularly came into the line) to get a winger in play. An ironic cheer often went up when it did.
Have a look at lineouts (my speciality), they were a joke. TMO's would spend all week figuring out who'd done what wrong with those rules.
The Welsh team stood well above their competition. The very top players were practically professionals and it was their fitness in the last quarter that allowed them to cut the others down to size.


I'm not saying todays game is perfect. But over the course of a game today you see much more skill, speed and execution from all 23 players than you got from any 15 on an international team in the 70's.

Many of the great tries back in the day featured some non existing defending. In that respect Van Der Meuwe's 1st half effort on Saturday was like a throw back.

 

[Dogtrousers]

If he hadn't "un-crouched", and without seeing the wink, what would be your judgement?

No clue. I'm not an expert. All depends on point of contact. The ref is the expert (and the only one that counts) so that scenario would have to play out for me to know.

But if you find yourself complaining that high tackle decisions are harsh these days, they are ... There's a reason for it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I saw many of those games in the 70's and there were some terrific highlights. Some wonderful players.

I say some because I also remember the penalties being worth as much as a try 3 points, it only went to 4 in 1971. Playing England was seeing a big pack of forwards grind out penalties and then up steps Dusty Hare or Bob Hiilier. Dull.
Matches often finished with less than 10 points scored in total.
I also recall freezing my nuts off watching Richmond - who were then a top team with several internationals - and it being a 50/50 if the backs could actually make 5 consecutive successful passes (the full back regularly came into the line) to get a winger in play. An ironic cheer often went up when it did.
Have a look at lineouts (my speciality), they were a joke. TMO's would spend all week figuring out who'd done what wrong with those rules.
The Welsh team stood well above their competition. The very top players were practically professionals and it was their fitness in the last quarter that allowed them to cut the others down to size.


I'm not saying todays game is perfect. But over the course of a game today you see much more skill, speed and execution from all 23 players than you got from any 15 on an international team in the 70's.

Many of the great tries back in the day featured some non existing defending. In that respect Van Der Meuwe's 1st half effort on Saturday was like a throw back.

There is no doubt that defending has become much more dominant in the modern game, or that fitness/speed/size has increased dramatically. I would agree that lines of defence were almost non existent in the past but these days slow ball from rucks, mauls and scrums, plus the inevitable high-ball tennis, give defences too much time to get in position.

I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to see how much time in a game is devoted to open play these days compared to the 70s/80s.

Line-outs were indeed a world of their own, and the scoring changes, including bonus points has encouraged going for that extra try, so there have been improvements in the game.

 

[Chap sur le velo]

There is no doubt that defending has become much more dominant in the modern game, or that fitness/speed/size has increased dramatically. I would agree that lines of defence were almost non existent in the past but these days slow ball from rucks, mauls and scrums, plus the inevitable high-ball tennis, give defences too much time to get in position.

I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to see how much time in a game is devoted to open play these days compared to the 70s/80s.

Line-outs were indeed a world of their own, and the scoring changes, including bonus points has encouraged going for that extra try, so there have been improvements in the game.

I do share your suspicion that somethings been lost and will return to that.

But I think there is evidence that recycling from rucks is the fastest ever and a major reason why Ireland are the No 1- they are measurably faster than any other team (and likely the fastest there's ever been). And whilst defending is more of the game than ever before, more tries than ever are being scored. So arguably it's not working.

For my part I think the emphasis on defense has required a more systematic attack. Much less reliance on individual brilliance. Less organised defence allowed players like Andy Irving, Phil Bennet, David Duckham, Serge Blanco, Tommy Bowe to carve out huge breaks (where support did not always keep up). They created the excitement and moments we remember so fondly.

I think theres a trend here in all modern sport. Systems are introduced and if successful all teams play similarly and with less national characteristics.

40 years ago I worked for a summer in an American sports camp. On the side I was introduced to high level ,(US College) Basketball coaching and the whole game bore no relation to what similar aged students were doing in England. However so prescripted were the roles being coached, that I soon lost all interest in playing the game. Todays top basketball players are likely more skilled than ever before, in order to break down increasingly sophisticated defenses, but the action has lost much of the flow and elan of the past.

Everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done about scrums but none agrees what the answer is.

So we do agree that something has been lost; but I guess you can't have everything.

 

[Rusty Nails]

For my part I think the emphasis on defense has required a more systematic attack.

I must admit that my feelings about the game are more subjective than objective, possibly just like music was so much better when I was young .

I can see the extra strength, fitness, speed, systematic approach etc., and know that the sides of the 70s and 80s would not live with these teams today, but somehow I enjoyed seeing matches decided by individual skills and mistakes more than I do those between well-oiled automatons where the media hype is as much about the coach(es)and their tactics.

Great players will always find a way to excel no matter what the era, and there are many of them around today, but it must be so much more difficult for those players today to excel within the system.

 

[AndyRM]

Sorry @Chap sur le velo - but you're having a laugh if you think Ireland are quick at the ruck. They are the masters of slowing the ball down at the breakdown, or contact of any kind. Learned from the best, New Zealand

 

[Alex321]

Sorry @Chap sur le velo - but you're having a laugh if you think Ireland are quick at the ruck. They are the masters of slowing the ball down at the breakdown, or contact of any kind. Learned from the best, New Zealand

That is a different thing entirely.

They are undoubtedly exceptionally quick at the ruck on their own ball.

They are also masters at slowing down opponents ball.

 

[matticus]

No clue. I'm not an expert. All depends on point of contact. The ref is the expert (and the only one that counts) so that scenario would have to play out for me to know.

But if you find yourself complaining that high tackle decisions are harsh these days, they are ... There's a reason for it.

I'm quite happy that they're harsher on high tackles (and the reasons); but there are always awkward decisions to be made around the edges of any rule. We can't change the ref's decision, but we can discuss our views on it!

My view is that the ruling in that situation wasn't contributing to player safety. I'm not saying we should rewind all the changes just because of one sin-bin; just that maybe this is an unintended consequence that could be handled better.

 

[AndyRM]

That is a different thing entirely.

They are undoubtedly exceptionally quick at the ruck on their own ball.

They are also masters at slowing down opponents ball.

Did you actually read what I wrote?