Courtney Lawes of England has been cited for striking Mario Ledesma with his knee. He has been banned for two matches. You can see the offence in slow-motion in from two different angles here and here (with thanks to Snedds on Gwlad).
Now, it might be somewhat of an understatement to say that I have my own opinions as a rugby supporter about Mr. Lawes' actions here - in the same way that it's somewhat of an understatement that the sea is slightly damp. But I want to put that aside just for the moment and deal with the aspects thrown up by this decision.
Firstly, we still don't have the full decision. Bluntly, that's not good enough. For all that I regularly criticise the ERC here, the ERC is at least developing a coherent, consistent set of decisions. Players, lawyers and judicial officers alike can all look at past decisions, and develop a proper system of precedents. The IRB singularly fails to do the same; it is, in essence, a closed system. That is not good enough at the top of the game
Secondly, the entry level minimum sentences in Regulation 17 are now, in effect, dead. The only reason that Regulation 17 permits to go below those minimum sentence (and at the entry level alone) is in exceptional circumstances. Here, there was a player who denied any wrongdoing, but whose plea of remorse in mitigation was enough to go below the minimum. If a plea of remorse in mitigation, something specifically dealt with in Regulation 17 as being a normal factor to be considered in the sentencing, it to be treated as being an exceptional circumstance, then, frankly, the term is meaningless. There are no minimum sentences, and the IRB is, yet again, ignoring its own regulations.
I'll post more on this as and when the full decision comes out - if, indeed, it ever comes out at all.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
RWC Part I - Scrum five
First match of the RWC today, between the All Blacks and the Tongans; the All Blacks won 41-10. Ma'a Nonu is making tries out of nothing with the support lines he's running, and the Tongans did a hell of a lot better than anyone expected after a first half that was all All Black.
The aim here, during the World Cup, is (apart from watching a lot of rugby), looking at games and seeing what they throw up in terms of law-related issues. Today's one was the scrum..
From about the sixtieth to seventieth minute of today's game Tonga - courtesy of some stunning tackling and a hospital pass thrown to the man NZ can least afford damaged, Dan Carter - were camped on the AB line. There was a string of scrums, with resets. My rough count was three resets with no penalty, one free kick for an early engage, and three penalties, all to the Tongans. They were scrummaging very well at that point.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, happy days. I love scrummaging. Love watching it, loved it when I was playing; it's brilliant, and I could watch scrums all day long. And the Tongans were doing a right number on the AB scrum. But it did get me thinking.
Back in the good old bad old days, scrums were set where the ball went dead. If it was within five metres of the line, it was set where the ball went dead. It was then changed to a minimum distance of five metres out from the line.
Now, the longer a scrum goes on, and the further it drives, the more unstable - and hence, dangerous to the players in the scrum - it gets. Hence the limitations in the U-19 variations; it can't go more than 1.5m forward, to prevent that happening. It means, of course, that you can't have a pushover try at underage level.
It also means that, at the top level, where injury is more prevalent, the laws are set up so that to score a pushover try, a scrum has to go further than it did before the law change when the scrums were set where the ball went dead.
But, as noted above, that's more dangerous; a scrum that has to to go five metres is longer, and more likely to collapse, than a scrum that only had to go three metres. Bizarrely, it made the scrum more dangerous, while reducing the chances of one of the greatest things in rugby - one pack pushing the other back over their line and scoring.
It also creates a perverse incentive. If I'm a prop, two metres from my line, under pressure, and I drop the scrum to prevent a probable try, chances are I'll give away a penalty try. I'm as well off to keep it up and fight it out. But if I'm five metres out, under pressure, well, five metres is a long way to drive a scrum; it's not a probably try from five metres out. So, if I'm under pressure, the sensible thing to do isn't to wait until I'm driven back to drop it; it's to drop it straight away. I'm better off to drop the scrum straight away. Yes, it's dangerous; but that's not how props think. You don't want to give away seven points; so, drop it five metres out. The law change rewards props who don't stay up and fight it out, but drop the scrum. And that's not how it's meant to work, either in terms of the game, or the law.
So, a well-meaning law change has led to more dangerous scrums, at a higher risk of collapse, more collapsed scrums and fewer pushover tries. Exactly what no-one wants.
The IRB has mentioned that it would like submissions on the proposed changes to the laws. So, in that spirit, I would love to see a reversion to the old law of the scrum being set where the ball went dead being tried out, and a proper comparison done. It would be safer, and therefore a better option in terms of avoiding liability.
It would also mean more pushover tries and good scrummaging being rewarded. And that can't be encouraged enough.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Red card offence = ! Part II
Roughly a month ago, the IRB sent out a memorandum to match officials and citing commissioners about high tackles. I've mentioned it before; you can read it HERE.
In essence, it's zero tolerance; if it goes high, it's a high tackle, and intention has nothing to do with it. We saw it in action in the recent Ireland-England game (and it's interesting to note that the commentators on the game didn't appear to know about it). And, in what may seem like a rare departure, I would consider it a very good day's work by the IRB. It's clear, concise, workable, makes absolute sense and looks after players and the game.
But the most interesting thing about the memorandum from the point of view of this blog is this part:
In essence, it's zero tolerance; if it goes high, it's a high tackle, and intention has nothing to do with it. We saw it in action in the recent Ireland-England game (and it's interesting to note that the commentators on the game didn't appear to know about it). And, in what may seem like a rare departure, I would consider it a very good day's work by the IRB. It's clear, concise, workable, makes absolute sense and looks after players and the game.
But the most interesting thing about the memorandum from the point of view of this blog is this part:
An illegal high tackle involving a stiff arm or swinging arm to the head of the opponent, with no regard to the player’s safety, bears all the hallmarks of an action which should result in a red card or a yellow card being seriously considered.
Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle.
Now, this is what I touched on when I asked what constitutes a red card offence for a citing hearing. Here, for the first time, we have an answer; as far as swinging arm or stiff tackles to the head are concerned, we can say with certainty that these are red card offences.
The reason this is so interesting is that it gives certainty in a citing hearing. If a player knows that what he has been charged with is a red card offence, then it crosses the threshold for a correct citing. So, it should be cited whenever it happens. There is, for the first time, clarity and certainty in the disciplinary system; do this, and not only you will get done for it, but you'll have to plead and look for mitigation.
And that's a big departure, but a very welcome one. Because once the players know what they will definitely be cited for, they will not do it - and fewer high, swinging tackles is something everyone wants. Once the players' legal advisers know what will definitely be punished, then they can give definite advice to their clients in disciplinary hearings, and the disciplinary system becomes more certain, more consistent, less arbitrary and less open to challenge.
Certainty and clarity are hallmarks of a good disciplinary system. At least in one small area, rugby now has that. It is to be welcomed, and should be expanded.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Concussion, the Wallabies and Will Genia
I am a lawyer. That means I'm supposed to act like a lawyer. And lawyers are supposed to be reserved, cautious in their use of language, careful and courteous. In a word, judicious.
But there are times even lawyers have to be blunt.
Which is why I have to ask: what the hell is going on with the Australian Rugby Union and the IRB concussion regulations?
This Saturday, the final, winner-take-all, game of the Tri-Nations is being played in Brisbane between the Wallabies and the All Blacks. One of the key men for the Wallabies is scrum-half Will Genia.
Except Genia has been suspected of concussion not once, but twice this week in training.
Well, you'd say, that's that. The IRB Concussion Regulation is very clear on this:
A Player suspected of having concussion shall move to Stage 2, the GRTP protocol, irrespective of the subsequent diagnosis.
No if, no buts, no maybes; once suspected of concussion, you go through the GRTP protocol, end of.
Under that Protocol, you need 24 symptom-free hours between each of the six steps in that protocol; and especially so if there's been a recent concussion or suspected concussion (and that's ignoring how you can get two in a week if you're following that Protocol at all). No exceptions. That's five days from the concussion before you can play again, so Genia misses the match. Tough break, for him and the Wallabies, but those are the rules.
Except! Will Genia will be playing on Saturday.
Benson Stanley gets two concussions in a couple of months, and has to take an indefinite break.
Will Genia is suspected of concussion, twice, in one week, and yet somehow the IRB Regulations are ignored. Now, this man, who has had a brain trauma sufficient to upset normal brain function twice in one week - because that's what concussion is - is going to be facing Big Bad Brad Thorn coming around the corner at full tilt on Saturday.
The Regulation says, clearly, in big, bold block capitals - CONCUSSION MUST BE TAKEN EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY.
Well, someone in the ARU sure isn't. And they aren't paying much heed to the IRB Regulations, either. If the IRB let this slide, we know the Concussion Regulation is, frankly, hot air.
So, to return to the question I asked - what the hell is going on with the Australian Rugby Union and the IRB concussion regulations?
(H/T to the lads at Gwlad for spotting this one.)
But there are times even lawyers have to be blunt.
Which is why I have to ask: what the hell is going on with the Australian Rugby Union and the IRB concussion regulations?
This Saturday, the final, winner-take-all, game of the Tri-Nations is being played in Brisbane between the Wallabies and the All Blacks. One of the key men for the Wallabies is scrum-half Will Genia.
Except Genia has been suspected of concussion not once, but twice this week in training.
Well, you'd say, that's that. The IRB Concussion Regulation is very clear on this:
A Player suspected of having concussion shall move to Stage 2, the GRTP protocol, irrespective of the subsequent diagnosis.
No if, no buts, no maybes; once suspected of concussion, you go through the GRTP protocol, end of.
Under that Protocol, you need 24 symptom-free hours between each of the six steps in that protocol; and especially so if there's been a recent concussion or suspected concussion (and that's ignoring how you can get two in a week if you're following that Protocol at all). No exceptions. That's five days from the concussion before you can play again, so Genia misses the match. Tough break, for him and the Wallabies, but those are the rules.
Except! Will Genia will be playing on Saturday.
Benson Stanley gets two concussions in a couple of months, and has to take an indefinite break.
Will Genia is suspected of concussion, twice, in one week, and yet somehow the IRB Regulations are ignored. Now, this man, who has had a brain trauma sufficient to upset normal brain function twice in one week - because that's what concussion is - is going to be facing Big Bad Brad Thorn coming around the corner at full tilt on Saturday.
The Regulation says, clearly, in big, bold block capitals - CONCUSSION MUST BE TAKEN EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY.
Well, someone in the ARU sure isn't. And they aren't paying much heed to the IRB Regulations, either. If the IRB let this slide, we know the Concussion Regulation is, frankly, hot air.
So, to return to the question I asked - what the hell is going on with the Australian Rugby Union and the IRB concussion regulations?
(H/T to the lads at Gwlad for spotting this one.)
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Concussion - developments.
I'm sorry to keep returning to this; but it keeps coming up.
Benson Stanley, All Black and nephew of the great Smoking Joe Stanley, is on an indefinite break from rugby due to repeat concussions. He talked about it to the NZ Herald - here - and it's well worth a read; the perspective and awareness are notable. It strikes me, anecdotally, that the use of proper concussion management over a longer period in NZ may well be part of that.
The IRB, also, has issued updated directions dated the 4th of August that any contact above the line of the shoulders is to be regarded as serious foul play worthy of a red or yellow card (and my thanks to the lads on Gwlad for spotting this). This, by the way, is a major development in the question I asked before about "Red Card Offence = ?", which I'll deal with it separately. The IRB based this on the medical conference in Lensbury last November showing this was causing most injuries in the elite game; so it's good to see they're getting serious about head injuries.
Meanwhile, by contrast, Berrick Barnes is taking a huge risk to play in the RWC. I've posted on that before; suffice to say, I query it, no matter how much heart it shows.
Domestically, we are into the pre-season games here in Ireland, and still no training at all for the use of the Pocket SCAT 2 card for those required by the concussion regulations to be aware of and familiar with the card. And I've had it confirmed to my by referees in Wales that they have had no training made available either.
That is, bluntly, negligent; there is a duty of care that the governing bodies are failing to discharge. It's placing a duty on the referees, and arguably the coaches, and not training them in how to discharge that duty, or even making them aware of that duty of care. It really is inexcusable, given that this has been on books since June. If, God forbid, something goes wrong and someone suffers catastrophic concussion-based injuries in the next few weeks, then the cross-examination on the training given the referees would not be comfortable for the IRFU. And anyone who doubts that should take a look at how it developed in Vowles v. Evans.
The training is simple; the Pocket SCAT 2 Card, is, after all, designed to be simple. A phone call to SARU or the NZRU, asking them for use of their training documents from the Boksmart or RugbySmart programs pro tem, and the training could be rolled out tomorrow. That it's easy to arrange makes it all the worse that it's not being done, as it's not unduly onerous.
And, as always, the principle applies; better to sort it out yourself, now, than have the Courts sort it out, later.
Benson Stanley, All Black and nephew of the great Smoking Joe Stanley, is on an indefinite break from rugby due to repeat concussions. He talked about it to the NZ Herald - here - and it's well worth a read; the perspective and awareness are notable. It strikes me, anecdotally, that the use of proper concussion management over a longer period in NZ may well be part of that.
The IRB, also, has issued updated directions dated the 4th of August that any contact above the line of the shoulders is to be regarded as serious foul play worthy of a red or yellow card (and my thanks to the lads on Gwlad for spotting this). This, by the way, is a major development in the question I asked before about "Red Card Offence = ?", which I'll deal with it separately. The IRB based this on the medical conference in Lensbury last November showing this was causing most injuries in the elite game; so it's good to see they're getting serious about head injuries.
Meanwhile, by contrast, Berrick Barnes is taking a huge risk to play in the RWC. I've posted on that before; suffice to say, I query it, no matter how much heart it shows.
Domestically, we are into the pre-season games here in Ireland, and still no training at all for the use of the Pocket SCAT 2 card for those required by the concussion regulations to be aware of and familiar with the card. And I've had it confirmed to my by referees in Wales that they have had no training made available either.
That is, bluntly, negligent; there is a duty of care that the governing bodies are failing to discharge. It's placing a duty on the referees, and arguably the coaches, and not training them in how to discharge that duty, or even making them aware of that duty of care. It really is inexcusable, given that this has been on books since June. If, God forbid, something goes wrong and someone suffers catastrophic concussion-based injuries in the next few weeks, then the cross-examination on the training given the referees would not be comfortable for the IRFU. And anyone who doubts that should take a look at how it developed in Vowles v. Evans.
The training is simple; the Pocket SCAT 2 Card, is, after all, designed to be simple. A phone call to SARU or the NZRU, asking them for use of their training documents from the Boksmart or RugbySmart programs pro tem, and the training could be rolled out tomorrow. That it's easy to arrange makes it all the worse that it's not being done, as it's not unduly onerous.
And, as always, the principle applies; better to sort it out yourself, now, than have the Courts sort it out, later.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Berrick Barnes and Concussion
To my genuine amazement, Berrick Barnes has been selected for the Australian RWC squad.
Not that he's not good enough as a player; he is.
But because back in May, he was forced to take an indefinite break from rugby because of repeated concussions and symptomatic head injuries. I wrote about it at the time.
Frankly, I think he's insane. I have no doubt he has medical clearance; were the Australian coaches to pick him for their RWC squad without a full all-clear would be negligent, even if it's over three weeks since his last concussion injury. However, as Chris Ashton's case back in November of last year - when he was given the all-clear to stay on the pitch, despite the referee's request, and subsequently admitted he had no memory whatsoever of the game after being concussed - shows, players can slip through that net.
Now, you could very reasonably say that that's his own call, and he voluntarily assumes that risk; which would be fair enough. In all the cases dealing with rugby, such as Agar v. Hyde, the point has been made about players accepting risks of playing; and, in a collision sport, accidents will happen and players will get concussed. You accept that risk when you play.
But, there is now a regulation for player safety which deals with this situation. That changes matters; not only do those regulations accept a duty of care to a player, but the referee now has to enforce those regulation on the pitch.
Berrick Barnes is a perfect example of a player who has had repeated concussion injuries, and who is as a result more vulnerable to other such injuries. The concussion regulations specifically mention this sort of player. And they make it clear that the referees have a duty, if in doubt, to order players like that to leave the field. Barnes is a centre, a position where high-impact collisions are unavoidable. So, almost certainly, there is going to be a stage where he is going to be examined for taking a knock to the head (hopefully, he won't take such a knock; but it's as well to be realistic).
And when he is, we will learn an awful lot about whether the IRB is going to enforce the concussion regulations properly and protect players from themselves.
Not that he's not good enough as a player; he is.
But because back in May, he was forced to take an indefinite break from rugby because of repeated concussions and symptomatic head injuries. I wrote about it at the time.
Frankly, I think he's insane. I have no doubt he has medical clearance; were the Australian coaches to pick him for their RWC squad without a full all-clear would be negligent, even if it's over three weeks since his last concussion injury. However, as Chris Ashton's case back in November of last year - when he was given the all-clear to stay on the pitch, despite the referee's request, and subsequently admitted he had no memory whatsoever of the game after being concussed - shows, players can slip through that net.
Now, you could very reasonably say that that's his own call, and he voluntarily assumes that risk; which would be fair enough. In all the cases dealing with rugby, such as Agar v. Hyde, the point has been made about players accepting risks of playing; and, in a collision sport, accidents will happen and players will get concussed. You accept that risk when you play.
But, there is now a regulation for player safety which deals with this situation. That changes matters; not only do those regulations accept a duty of care to a player, but the referee now has to enforce those regulation on the pitch.
Berrick Barnes is a perfect example of a player who has had repeated concussion injuries, and who is as a result more vulnerable to other such injuries. The concussion regulations specifically mention this sort of player. And they make it clear that the referees have a duty, if in doubt, to order players like that to leave the field. Barnes is a centre, a position where high-impact collisions are unavoidable. So, almost certainly, there is going to be a stage where he is going to be examined for taking a knock to the head (hopefully, he won't take such a knock; but it's as well to be realistic).
And when he is, we will learn an awful lot about whether the IRB is going to enforce the concussion regulations properly and protect players from themselves.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Concussion Guidelines - Training
It's the start of August.
In the Northern Hemisphere, that means that the pre-season training is now moving back into full-contact. The first NH warm-up games for the Rugby World Cup are being played this weekend; in the next two to three weeks, clubs at all levels will be playing their pre-season friendlies. The first competitions will be starting up. The season is starting back up.
So, what I'm hearing talking to people in rugby around the place is all the more astonishing.
The IRB concussion guidelines came in at the start of June - two months ago. They are in force, right now. Everyone will be using them from this season onwards.
Yet most coaches I've spoken to have never even heard of them, still less been trained in them. Referees are aware of them, but haven't been trained in them.
If this is the case, it's quite amazing. Here you have guidelines brought in specifically for player safety, specifically to be easy to use by anyone so that concussion is effectively dealt with - and nothing is being done about it!
It's been a dry enough year in Ireland. The ground is hard. You wouldn't want to hit it hard. But if someone does, and gets a bad concussion injury that's not properly dealt with because the coaches and referees haven't been shown how to use the tools they're expected to use, then the fall-out could be ugly.
Failure to apply laws of the game directed at player safety has opened up legal liability before; but in this case, opening that door by just not bothering to take the time to show referees and coaches how to use something as simple as the SCAT II Card would be mind-boggling.
I hope, fervently hope, that this isn't the case; but if it is, it's going to have to be addressed, fast.
In the Northern Hemisphere, that means that the pre-season training is now moving back into full-contact. The first NH warm-up games for the Rugby World Cup are being played this weekend; in the next two to three weeks, clubs at all levels will be playing their pre-season friendlies. The first competitions will be starting up. The season is starting back up.
So, what I'm hearing talking to people in rugby around the place is all the more astonishing.
The IRB concussion guidelines came in at the start of June - two months ago. They are in force, right now. Everyone will be using them from this season onwards.
Yet most coaches I've spoken to have never even heard of them, still less been trained in them. Referees are aware of them, but haven't been trained in them.
If this is the case, it's quite amazing. Here you have guidelines brought in specifically for player safety, specifically to be easy to use by anyone so that concussion is effectively dealt with - and nothing is being done about it!
It's been a dry enough year in Ireland. The ground is hard. You wouldn't want to hit it hard. But if someone does, and gets a bad concussion injury that's not properly dealt with because the coaches and referees haven't been shown how to use the tools they're expected to use, then the fall-out could be ugly.
Failure to apply laws of the game directed at player safety has opened up legal liability before; but in this case, opening that door by just not bothering to take the time to show referees and coaches how to use something as simple as the SCAT II Card would be mind-boggling.
I hope, fervently hope, that this isn't the case; but if it is, it's going to have to be addressed, fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)