When rugby administrator's various organisations are found to be on the wrong side of the litigious action headed their way, they will be fined enormous amounts. The degree of damages will be heavily dependent upon what they, the rugby authorities, did to mitigate the damages incurred on players, once they became aware that player's welfare was under threat.
Most of the rule changes designed to limit head contact are driven by legals scheming to provide evidence of mitigation when the day of determining damages finally arrives, as it will.
If rugby really cared about player welfare, whilst retaining the essence of the game most supporters love, they would simply bar all replacents. No bench in other words. Except for an independent doctor-approved one-off injury replacement.
This would have the effect of reducing player weight markedly. Less weight, less power, less bulk. Less collisions that do significant damage.
On the thoughts about Boult, could a T20-specific contract be a potential solution for the future?
It wouldn't affect any players who regularly play more than one format of the game, but could be used for players who are only likely to be picked regularly in the T20 team in the next 12 months or the most promising players in the Super Smash (eg. Cam Fletcher, Josh Clarkson, Ben Lister etc).
Those players would have an NZC retainer on top of their domestic contract, but they only need to be available for, say, T20I's and the Super Smash - they would be free to sign with any foreign T20 league that didn't clash. They could of course still play ODIs and Ford Trophy/Plunket Shield if they wanted.
It seems odd to 'force' them to play FT and PS if they're unlikely to ever play ODI or Test cricket (or don't want to) - this way NZC can still keep hold of them while they also get to supplement their income overseas.
It would also:
1) Create more room and money on the NZC contract list for Test only players (eg. Ajaz, Wagner, Blundell) and ODI players unlikely to get an overseas T20 contract (eg. Henry, Latham etc)
2) Keep more T20 players available for NZ
3) Perhaps create a pathway for young promising players to get more experience and develop their game
I watched most of the 7s, mainly because it was on free to air TV. It is so competitive on the men's side now that it's a good watch and easy to snack on. The joy in the women's final was great to see too.
The cricket was disappointing and I hope we show so more nous when playing England otherwise I wouldn't worry about buying a 5 day pass.
That's interesting about the tennis, that's why I enjoy doubles as lots more net play although a singles side to side base line rally can be fascinating. It seems like often when a player comes to the net that they put pressure on the opponent and win the point so does make you wonder why they don't do it more? As for Novak, he really is a player you love to hate and it's annoying he's so good.
After watching the Black Caps lose the final ODI against India last night we have a lot of question marks hanging over our team, some of which are already canvassed above.
Although I think it was clear Guptill was on the downward slope the speed with which we jettisoned him (a once in a generation type ODI player) with the unproven and rough round the edges Finn Allen is looking less wise by the day. 17 matches in he’s averaging 30 but his whole record is flattered by runs against Ireland and Scotland (at to a lesser extent West Indies). Failure against good sides is his hallmark. I’m coming back to the belief that you need at least a semblance of a proper technique (including a defensive technique) to thrive at ODI level. Perhaps the idea that a good front foot drive is an extension of the forward defence isn’t so naff after all….
Also unsure why Williamson & Southee would not play a three match ODI series in India? Certainly Sharma et al were lining up for easy runs against our undermanned attack. Overall we look to lack stability and a playing pattern, and wonder whether we have people in key positions to drive the “reset” we need - certainly we don’t have the strategic minds and chutzpah that McCullum & Hesson brought when we last needed it….
I completely agree with Michael Aylwin's take on this issue. While it is commendable that World Rugby is attempting to reduce concussions in the sport, penalising tacklers for contact above the waist of the ball carrier in the community game in England is not the solution. This approach is futile and will only lead to more frustration and confusion for players and coaches.
The problem with rugby is not the tackler, but the volume of the game itself. Professionals play too much rugby, and this leads to a high volume of training and barely perceptible sub-concussive hits. Instead of demonising tacklers and implementing new rules, the focus should be on reducing the volume of rugby played by professionals. This should be the first step in addressing the issue, followed by a thorough examination of the rules and the way the game is played.
When rugby administrator's various organisations are found to be on the wrong side of the litigious action headed their way, they will be fined enormous amounts. The degree of damages will be heavily dependent upon what they, the rugby authorities, did to mitigate the damages incurred on players, once they became aware that player's welfare was under threat.
Most of the rule changes designed to limit head contact are driven by legals scheming to provide evidence of mitigation when the day of determining damages finally arrives, as it will.
If rugby really cared about player welfare, whilst retaining the essence of the game most supporters love, they would simply bar all replacents. No bench in other words. Except for an independent doctor-approved one-off injury replacement.
This would have the effect of reducing player weight markedly. Less weight, less power, less bulk. Less collisions that do significant damage.
The game would increase as a spectacle as well.
On the thoughts about Boult, could a T20-specific contract be a potential solution for the future?
It wouldn't affect any players who regularly play more than one format of the game, but could be used for players who are only likely to be picked regularly in the T20 team in the next 12 months or the most promising players in the Super Smash (eg. Cam Fletcher, Josh Clarkson, Ben Lister etc).
Those players would have an NZC retainer on top of their domestic contract, but they only need to be available for, say, T20I's and the Super Smash - they would be free to sign with any foreign T20 league that didn't clash. They could of course still play ODIs and Ford Trophy/Plunket Shield if they wanted.
It seems odd to 'force' them to play FT and PS if they're unlikely to ever play ODI or Test cricket (or don't want to) - this way NZC can still keep hold of them while they also get to supplement their income overseas.
It would also:
1) Create more room and money on the NZC contract list for Test only players (eg. Ajaz, Wagner, Blundell) and ODI players unlikely to get an overseas T20 contract (eg. Henry, Latham etc)
2) Keep more T20 players available for NZ
3) Perhaps create a pathway for young promising players to get more experience and develop their game
I watched most of the 7s, mainly because it was on free to air TV. It is so competitive on the men's side now that it's a good watch and easy to snack on. The joy in the women's final was great to see too.
The cricket was disappointing and I hope we show so more nous when playing England otherwise I wouldn't worry about buying a 5 day pass.
That's interesting about the tennis, that's why I enjoy doubles as lots more net play although a singles side to side base line rally can be fascinating. It seems like often when a player comes to the net that they put pressure on the opponent and win the point so does make you wonder why they don't do it more? As for Novak, he really is a player you love to hate and it's annoying he's so good.
After watching the Black Caps lose the final ODI against India last night we have a lot of question marks hanging over our team, some of which are already canvassed above.
Although I think it was clear Guptill was on the downward slope the speed with which we jettisoned him (a once in a generation type ODI player) with the unproven and rough round the edges Finn Allen is looking less wise by the day. 17 matches in he’s averaging 30 but his whole record is flattered by runs against Ireland and Scotland (at to a lesser extent West Indies). Failure against good sides is his hallmark. I’m coming back to the belief that you need at least a semblance of a proper technique (including a defensive technique) to thrive at ODI level. Perhaps the idea that a good front foot drive is an extension of the forward defence isn’t so naff after all….
Also unsure why Williamson & Southee would not play a three match ODI series in India? Certainly Sharma et al were lining up for easy runs against our undermanned attack. Overall we look to lack stability and a playing pattern, and wonder whether we have people in key positions to drive the “reset” we need - certainly we don’t have the strategic minds and chutzpah that McCullum & Hesson brought when we last needed it….
I completely agree with Michael Aylwin's take on this issue. While it is commendable that World Rugby is attempting to reduce concussions in the sport, penalising tacklers for contact above the waist of the ball carrier in the community game in England is not the solution. This approach is futile and will only lead to more frustration and confusion for players and coaches.
The problem with rugby is not the tackler, but the volume of the game itself. Professionals play too much rugby, and this leads to a high volume of training and barely perceptible sub-concussive hits. Instead of demonising tacklers and implementing new rules, the focus should be on reducing the volume of rugby played by professionals. This should be the first step in addressing the issue, followed by a thorough examination of the rules and the way the game is played.