ThinkingGame says...

30 players, making 10 tackles each, accounts for 50% of all injuries, most of which are sprains. As a minimum, two players are in each tackle. That's 600 opportunities for someone to get injured per game. 12 scrums, in which the tight 5 are the only ones exposed to injury from the tight bind, is 120 opportunities for injury per game, yet accounts for over a quarter of all neck injuries.

I'm sure if you were seeking an objective view, you could have done that for yourself, and worked out that the tackler and the tackled player are at equal risk in the tackle since the most common injury is to the lower back. I also don't see what this has to do with the statistical unlikelihood of spinal fractures in any area of the game.

Posted 10:32 09th November 2011

ThinkingGame says...

Almost 25% of neck injuries occur when there is a mismatch in experience between the two opposing front rows.

From The British Columbia Injury Research and Prevention Unit (BCIRPU).

That's 25% of all neck injuries they studied, of which most were cervical spinal lacerations. It represented 24% of all total injuries in adults, and 27% in children. Almost half of all injuries occurred during tackles, the most common being strains and contusions (40%). It's a dangerous game, but if you're looking for the cause of most serious spinal injuries, it's still poor tackle technique first, then poor scrummaging technique. The cause of most serious injuries remains serious foul play (striking an opponent, headbutting etc.) and they also provide this advice:

Injury prevention strategies to reduce the incidence, severity and cost of rugby injuries could include coaching on defensive skills, correct tackling technique, correct falling technique and methods to minimize the absorption of impact forces in tackles.

The Laws still say the ref can decide for himself. Rolland did, and got it wrong. iRB memoranda are not in the Laws. Back to square one then apparently as the next person queues up to insist referees aren't there to decide, merely to apply.

Posted 14:48 08th November 2011

Dingbat32 says...

ThinkingGame,

No I would not like my child to be on the receiving end of a dangerous tackle. That is why it must be a red card every time without fail. That is the only way to stop it.

Intent is irrelevant. Warburton made the decision to let go of Clerc to go for the ball. It is his duty to return Clerc safely to the floor and he could have done this but chose not to. Did he mean to hurt him? No. Could it have been a serious injury? Yes. Red card? Without a doubt.

Taking up some of your other points, yes rugby is dangerous, but sensibly the law makers have stamped on dangerous issues such as tackling in the air, high tackles, and lifting in the scrum.

Either you want broken necks in the game or you want to take every practical step to avoid it. Make your choice.

Posted 09:30 08th November 2011

ThinkingGame says...

Ask a friend to lift you 5 feet off the ground and then just drop you on your head/neck. Then come back and make some sensible contribution to this debate.

Would you say the same if it was your child on the receiving end of one of these tackles that had been done because the player saw the pro's do it? What if your child was the unlucky one that doesn't get up?

Before this gets out of hand, let's simplify. For both of these scenarios to work, Vincent Clerc needs to be the victim, a ragdoll, in complete innocence of what can happen on a rugby pitch. He needs to have no control over where he goes from the moment Yachvili has the ball, and no response or reaction from the moment he leaves the ground. Under this view, every stuntman, gymnast, professional wrestler and goalkeeper is certain to have a short life. That's not even mentioning combat sports where the aim is to drop the opponent on their head/neck from height with force (Judo, MMA) or extreme sports where it's a common side effect of getting it wrong.

Or, Vincent Clerc is a professional rugby player who for 10 or more years has worked on improving his physique to endure the "6 car crashes" a week of international rugby, who does tumble training on a daily basis to practice landing safely from height in case it occurs during a match for any reason, who works on his ABCs (Agility Before Contact) to ensure he is never without some control in any collision on the pitch and able to avoid the big hits.

A red card doesn't take time back to before the tackle happened. It doesn't make Clerc any safer. It won't discourage players who are prepared to ignore the Laws of the Game and criminal law in the first place. All it did is end Warburton's World Cup. That's why admonishment and a yellow were sufficient punishment.

Posted 01:32 08th November 2011

Rosbif says...

@ThinkGame and RugbyRefs. Thanks for the well thought-through posts. V interesting to read some decent debate with different points of view but no trash talked!!

Re the point about Clerc being able to continue in the SF and Final, I had a similar feeling after the Estebanez citing and 3-game ban after the Tonga pool game. Not sure if you remember the tackle? I do, just because I'm French (otherwise, it probably went under most people's radar). Poor bloke was involved in a two-on-one tackle. He had the legs. Rougerie the upper body. Estebanez lifts the player, realises he's done it, let's go of his legs, and lets Rougerie (who is holding the tackled player's entire body weight) guide him back to the ground safely. Tackled player suffers no injury, or "chance" of injury. Does not land on his neck etc. Estebanez holds up his hands as if to say "sorry, no harm done", ie no intent and no effect caused.

Estebanez gets a yellow and then misses QF, SF and final.

During the same weekend, Delon Armitage hits Chris Patterson high and late. Looks deliberate. Causes harm. Patterson is seeing stars and goes AWOL for the late Ashton try that seals the win for Eng. Armitage gets no card, then only a 1 game ban. So cld have played SF and Final if Eng had progressed...

Hmmm. Fine margins indeed......

Posted 18:07 07th November 2011

RugbyRefs says...

So you believe the severity of injury should be the key in deciding the sanction? That won't work.

Just because the player was lucky not to be more seriously injured is no reason to reduce the sanction. If you don't want to get a card, don't carry out an illegal action on the pitch. Simple.

Posted 12:12 07th November 2011

RugbyRefs says...

@Thinkinggame.

If Sam has something right 99% of the time and wrong 1% it is that action that was inconsistent with all the others, why did he not carry out a normal tackle?

As for your law ref, you need to look at the sanctions, not the offence:

10.5 SANCTIONS

(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes¿ playing time, or sent-off.

As you can see for most the referee has a choice and must use their judgement to decide the right call.

Also, it wasn't a referees meeting that instigated the memo, it was a meeting of Coaches, Referee Managers. The memo was then sent to all unions & referees, so there can be no excuse for players, referees or coaches not knowing about it.

And lastly, there has already been one death because of this type of tackle, there is no need to deliberately tip a player upside down ever, and players doing so risk more than 'just a red card'. Here is a link to an article about a player being charged with manslaughter over the death of another player that he spear tackled. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10575238

Rugby is a physically demanding and high pressure contact sport, and because of that their are things you cannot do, tipping a player upside down and driving or dropping them to the ground is as bad as stamping on someone, eye gouging, kicking or any other act that does not belong on the field.

We all love our game, I want to see the players I respect return to the game week in and out, not be the victim of a needless career ending tackle.

Would you say the same if it was your child on the receiving end of one of these tackles that had been done because the player saw the pro's do it? What if your child was the unlucky one that doesn't get up?

Think about it!

Posted 08:12 07th November 2011

ThinkingGame says...

Stop implying the Law says that a red card is the right decision.

10. 4. (j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player¿s feet are still off the ground such that the player¿s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

Sanction: Penalty kick.

It is not in the Laws, but an agreement at a referees meeting from four years ago. How can that be changed, amended or rescinded? Until it is in the Laws, each referee has a choice of what sanction to use. Maybe Rolland did consult with the touch judges, in which case it's the wrong decision made by three officials.

"Sam Warburton had played in 5 games before his red card, probably carrying out at least 20 tackles per game, out of approx 100 tackles he has carried out one tip tackle, so where is the real inconsistency, in the referees decision in which 1/4 was right (25%) or in the players actions in which 1/100 were wrong (1%). Seems Sam's tackle was a lot more inconsistent than Alain Rolland's red card." So Warburton got 99% of decisions correct, to the referees 25%, according to your own simplified calculation. Inconsistency is where there is no clear trend to help predict the outcome of a situation. In 50% of cases, referees give yellow cards, in 25% red cards, and in 25% are not able to view the incident. Warburton makes 99% of tackles correctly, 1% illegally, and gets a red card 100% of the time. Poor maths, poor statistical analysis and all to support a view (that a red card is required by the Laws) that is incorrect.

Posted 14:02 06th November 2011

louis77 says...

fair play to the lad, good player , with what seems like a sensible head on his shoulders... Gatland could learn from him

Posted 22:24 05th November 2011

banter_claus says...

This is why he's gonna be a great.....He, like most other people knows calls like that will ruin the game, but to just accept it and move on shows character. A certain Samoan centre could learn a thing or two from him

Posted 18:58 05th November 2011