Trends

[Oldschool]

Passing wingers.

It's often been the way that wingers could get away with being selfish players who ran head down.

A lot of the time now wingers are being brought into the game in different ways when attacking rather than just holding width or being strike runners. An example is the way Lowe or Jimmy O'Brien get used as 1st receiver in positions where there's a decision to make. Hansen does it too.

Obviously it's much harder to defend if you have to defend everything more often. As more players can do it there's a diminishing return in terms of the amount of quality ball each player gets, but there's also a reduction in the number of times a team can shoot or leave a dog leg without getting breeched, at the top level that's all important.

As their fortunes have risen we've seen fortunes decline for Larmour, Stockdale, Zebo.

Yesterday Van de Merve blew a try for Scotland.
Head down until he was stopped and did it move than once. He's just a finisher, the complete opposite of Hansen.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Passing wingers.

It's often been the way that wingers could get away with being selfish players who ran head down.

A lot of the time now wingers are being brought into the game in different ways when attacking rather than just holding width or being strike runners. An example is the way Lowe or Jimmy O'Brien get used as 1st receiver in positions where there's a decision to make. Hansen does it too.

Obviously it's much harder to defend if you have to defend everything more often. As more players can do it there's a diminishing return in terms of the amount of quality ball each player gets, but there's also a reduction in the number of times a team can shoot or leave a dog leg without getting breeched, at the top level that's all important.

As their fortunes have risen we've seen fortunes decline for Larmour, Stockdale, Zebo.

Zebo actually has a great pass, you'd have to imagine his fortune have declined due to his unwillingness to get/stay in shape and this sort of "cheeky humour":
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ ... 22655.html

[ronk]

Yeah but he's good at the other thing wingers do, contestable kicks. Same as Conway, a lot of contestable kicks hit the deck when he's in the area.

It's still important for everyone but those guys will get more time.

[ronk]

Stockdale has a great pass too. Both can execute long passes with speed and accuracy. That's great for linking a backfield. I'm talking more about forcing defenders to make a decision both when you're in front of them and when they've had to turn and they're scrambling.

[riocard911]

One of the problems with Larmour, it seems to me, is, that all his jinking around makes it extremely difficult for his team mates to be in the right spot, when he goes to the deck, and prevent a turnover.

[Oldschoolsocks]

One of the problems with Larmour, it seems to me, is, that all his jinking around makes it extremely difficult for his team mates to be in the right spot, when he goes to the deck, and prevent a turnover.

in one words, it's ineffective, puts the team under pressure and at risk of turnover.

[Ruckedtobits]

Stockdale has a great pass too. Both can execute long passes with speed and accuracy. That's great for linking a backfield. I'm talking more about forcing defenders to make a decision both when you're in front of them and when they've had to turn and they're scrambling.

Stockdale's "great pass" is from one side only, left to right. Almost every pass off his right side, takes off like an Airbus and is 12 feet high if the player is more than 5m from him.

[Ruckedtobits]

One of the problems with Larmour, it seems to me, is, that all his jinking around makes it extremely difficult for his team mates to be in the right spot, when he goes to the deck, and prevent a turnover.

Larmour's best use is to produce line-breaks. His jinking and acceleration combination is unique and almost impossible to contain but he requires rigorous coaching to convince him that he should offload, almost every time he makes a line-break, unless he is certain to score. Check out the difference between himself and Hansen or Lowe, both of whom recognise that providing the linebreak is almost always the best contribution they can make, if you follow it with a pass to support.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

The pace of some games at the moment is astonishing. I’m guessing it’s a combination of laws, 4G pitches/good weather in the Southern Hemisphere, and a reaction to smaller teams trying to cope with the physicality of teams like South Africa and Saracens dominating in previous years.

These things are often cyclical but I certainly don’t see any laws being tweaked to slow it down, if anything there could be laws to speed it up even more like outlawing caterpillars or reducing scrum resets.

It’s reminding me more and more of tip. That’s not in the sense that it used to be said about Super Rugby when tackling was optional and work rate in defence questionable. It’s massively physical but the constant end to end with ball in hand is very like tip. I know some games still have a lot of kicking and our games against England and France showed the value of the scrum, but I think the game is heading away from being a slog like that.

[the spoofer]

Michael Lowry just got clocked on the jaw with a high tackle. Ref blew game up but TMO advised there was no foul play. Min penalty probable yellow. Consistency my arse.

[Dexter]

Michael Lowry just got clocked on the jaw with a high tackle. Ref blew game up but TMO advised there was no foul play. Min penalty probable yellow. Consistency my arse.

Tbf Lowry has a habit of going to ground just as he's being tackled. Was surprised it wasn't penalized though.

[the spoofer]

Oh good Jesus. Ulster robbed by TMO.

[hugonaut]

Should clubs be fined for their players' high tackles/red cards?

I've read this in a couple of opinion pieces recently, and I think it has some merit. That round of European games drove home for me that the current sanctions are *not* working well enough, because there were five red cards in eight games, and multiple other yellow cards for head-high tackles/collisions.

Red Cards in second fixture of the Round of 16
Racing vs Stade - Sefa Naivalu [Stade]
Ulster vs Toulouse - Tom O'Toole [Ulster]
Leicester vs Clermont - Ollie Chessum [Leicester]
La Rochelle vs Bordeaux - Maama Vaipulu [Bordeaux]
Bristol vs Sale - Aaron Reed [Sale]

My feeling on this matter [and on a lot of other issues] is that there is no single solution, no silver bullet – you have to think about how you can take a bite out of the problem from different angles at the same time.

I think the red card element of it is almost maxed out, so the next angle to attack from is post-match sanctioning of the player. There is a framework, but [in my opinion] the habit of reducing sanctions in practically every case has proved ineffective. The recent case of Brive's Axel Muller stands out for me
[Axel Muller Red Card: https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/sta ... 9472996355 ] – awarded a ten week suspension, which to me is legitimate ... and then halved to five weeks?

Every high tackle is different, so it's obvious that there has to be different sanctions for different tackles. But this constant easing of sanctions, in practically every single case, does not provide enough deterrent. The 'coaching intervention programme' should be mandatory – it shouldn't get you a week off. 'Good conduct in the hearing' should be mandatory, it shouldn't get you a week off. You shouldn't get time off for there being 'no aggravating factors', you should get additional time if there are aggravating factors.

Accepting blame when there is multiple camera angle footage of the incident – I can see some merit in rewarding a player for self-reflection, but it's not as though they are coming before the sanctioning body due to their own conscience, for an act of foul play of which no-one was aware.

That element of sanctioning needs to hold more closely to its guidelines and stop being so wishy-washy.

The idea of a financial sanction is another arrow in the quiver. It's another angle from which to attack the problem. Not every red card would deserve a financial sanction, but I think that an additional sanction should certainly be considered. How it is calculated is certainly worth discussion – a flat figure? A percentage or per mille figure on the gate for the match?

EDIT: *missed a pretty important word there*!

[Peg Leg]

Should clubs be fined for their players' high tackles/red cards?

I've read this in a couple of opinion pieces recently, and I think it has some merit. That round of European games drove home for me that the current sanctions are *not* working well enough, because there were five red cards in eight games, and multiple other yellow cards for head-high tackles/collisions.

Red Cards in second fixture of the Round of 16
Racing vs Stade - Sefa Naivalu [Stade]
Ulster vs Toulouse - Tom O'Toole [Ulster]
Leicester vs Clermont - Ollie Chessum [Leicester]
La Rochelle vs Bordeaux - Maama Vaipulu [Bordeaux]
Bristol vs Sale - Aaron Reed [Sale]

My feeling on this matter [and on a lot of other issues] is that there is no single solution, no silver bullet – you have to think about how you can take a bite out of the problem from different angles at the same time.

I think the red card element of it is almost maxed out, so the next angle to attack from is post-match sanctioning of the player. There is a framework, but [in my opinion] the habit of reducing sanctions in practically every case has proved ineffective. The recent case of Brive's Axel Muller stands out for me
[Axel Muller Red Card: https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/sta ... 9472996355 ] – awarded a ten week suspension, which to me is legitimate ... and then halved to five weeks?

Every high tackle is different, so it's obvious that there has to be different sanctions for different tackles. But this constant easing of sanctions, in practically every single case, does not provide enough deterrent. The 'coaching intervention programme' should be mandatory – it shouldn't get you a week off. 'Good conduct in the hearing' should be mandatory, it shouldn't get you a week off. You shouldn't get time off for there being 'no aggravating factors', you should get additional time if there are aggravating factors.

Accepting blame when there is multiple camera angle footage of the incident – I can see some merit in rewarding a player for self-reflection, but it's not as though they are coming before the sanctioning body due to their own conscience, for an act of foul play of which no-one was aware.

That element of sanctioning needs to hold more closely to its guidelines and stop being so wishy-washy.

The idea of a financial sanction is another arrow in the quiver. It's another angle from which to attack the problem. Not every red card would deserve a financial sanction, but I think that an additional sanction should certainly be considered. How it is calculated is certainly worth discussion – a flat figure? A percentage or per mille figure on the gate for the match?

EDIT: *missed a pretty important word there*!

Percentage of the gate? It would be unfair to offer such leniency for a team like Sarries!!

[IanD]

I don't think fining the Clubs will make any difference. With bans the Club is being punished financially as they have to pay the players wages while they are unavailable.

I was talking about this before with a friend and I think you need to fine players during their suspension. No wages for a few weeks will sharpen some players thinking.

Also fine the coaches for failing to coach correct tackle technique. If they lose 20 - 25% of their weekly/monthly pay packet I think it will change attitudes almost instantly.

Obviously bans need to be longer and reductions reduced too.

[Peg Leg]

Should clubs be fined for their players' high tackles/red cards?

I've read this in a couple of opinion pieces recently, and I think it has some merit. That round of European games drove home for me that the current sanctions are *not* working well enough, because there were five red cards in eight games, and multiple other yellow cards for head-high tackles/collisions.

Red Cards in second fixture of the Round of 16
Racing vs Stade - Sefa Naivalu [Stade]
Ulster vs Toulouse - Tom O'Toole [Ulster]
Leicester vs Clermont - Ollie Chessum [Leicester]
La Rochelle vs Bordeaux - Maama Vaipulu [Bordeaux]
Bristol vs Sale - Aaron Reed [Sale]

My feeling on this matter [and on a lot of other issues] is that there is no single solution, no silver bullet – you have to think about how you can take a bite out of the problem from different angles at the same time.

I think the red card element of it is almost maxed out, so the next angle to attack from is post-match sanctioning of the player. There is a framework, but [in my opinion] the habit of reducing sanctions in practically every case has proved ineffective. The recent case of Brive's Axel Muller stands out for me
[Axel Muller Red Card: https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/sta ... 9472996355 ] – awarded a ten week suspension, which to me is legitimate ... and then halved to five weeks?

Every high tackle is different, so it's obvious that there has to be different sanctions for different tackles. But this constant easing of sanctions, in practically every single case, does not provide enough deterrent. The 'coaching intervention programme' should be mandatory – it shouldn't get you a week off. 'Good conduct in the hearing' should be mandatory, it shouldn't get you a week off. You shouldn't get time off for there being 'no aggravating factors', you should get additional time if there are aggravating factors.

Accepting blame when there is multiple camera angle footage of the incident – I can see some merit in rewarding a player for self-reflection, but it's not as though they are coming before the sanctioning body due to their own conscience, for an act of foul play of which no-one was aware.

That element of sanctioning needs to hold more closely to its guidelines and stop being so wishy-washy.

The idea of a financial sanction is another arrow in the quiver. It's another angle from which to attack the problem. Not every red card would deserve a financial sanction, but I think that an additional sanction should certainly be considered. How it is calculated is certainly worth discussion – a flat figure? A percentage or per mille figure on the gate for the match?

EDIT: *missed a pretty important word there*!

In all seriousness though, I am not sure how they would be able to apply something other than a fixed fine system. In F1 there are very strict controls around wind tunnel time and development of future updates. Perhaps if the ban removed the player from being permitted to train with the team for the duration of the ban it would be a much greater impact to the organisation as a whole?
Edit:
Actually, maybe the good coaching and tackle technique training programmes should be applied to the whole coaching and playing staff after each incident resulting in a ban?

[ronk]

Fine the players. Fining clubs won't stop the ones that want to play at the limits. Ref the ones that don't play fair off the park.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I think I’ve said this already but that tackle tech course is a stupid idea. Players know how to tackle, and if the idea is that it’s a nuisance they’d rather avoid then there’s better ways to do it. I’d replace it with a course on the effects of damage to the head.

I don’t know the ins and outs of how James Ryan was feeling after his latest incident, but Charlie Ewels having to sit through a presentation on real experiences relating to the short, medium, and long term damage caused by those types of reckless hits would be much more impactful IMO.

[IanD]

Just had a new idea about fines etc.

I think Clubs\Unions should cover the cost of any injury enforced absences of opposition players due to foul play.

As an example following Euells tackle on James Ryan the RFU should pay the IRFU and Leinster to cover his wages while sidelined.

It might focus some minds if in England and France some of your Salary Cap is paying opposition players wages.

[Oldschoolsocks]

Just had a new idea about fines etc.

I think Clubs\Unions should cover the cost of any injury enforced absences of opposition players due to foul play.

As an example following Euells tackle on James Ryan the RFU should pay the IRFU and Leinster to cover his wages while sidelined.

It might focus some minds if in England and France some of your Salary Cap is paying opposition players wages.

It’s an idea alright, but it could be a slippery slope. What to stop that being used as financial doping?

Say England or France or even Ireland are playing maybe a poorer union like Western Samoa and the decision is made to take out their left winger because he’s amazing and it’s a WC final (in our case QF obviously), the union can pay for his wages in his absence and we won the match YAY.

I just think financial penalties are, in general, intrinsically regressive tbh…