DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113564--------------------------------------------------
Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: Bolly-Quin
Date: September 25, 2023, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I saw this the other day on LinkedIn by Simon Shaw (yes, that
one) - haven't seen it here - apologies if it has already done
the rounds...
"I have thought very long and hard on how I address the attached
imagery just released by the RFU, on new tackle measures
designed to reduce the incidence of brain and head trauma in the
game. outcome: I have decided to say very little.
The image tells me everything I need to know about how poor the
thinking is around this subject matter. I implore you, the rugby
following public to say your piece.
To those in the know, there is something glaringly obvious and
dangerous about the use of this particular image, regardless of
the height of the tackle, it is designed to address!
[attachimg=1]
Please, let your voice be heard. What's the problem with the
image! The devil is in the detail!"
#Post#: 113565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: Bolly-Quin
Date: September 25, 2023, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it its her green legs, per se...
#Post#: 113569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: poorfour
Date: September 25, 2023, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The image is a bad choice. I suspect it was chosen by someone
who was tasked with looking for an image that demonstrated all
the aspects of the new tackle laws from the perspective of the
ball carrier, and forgot to check whether the tackle was safe
for the tackler. It is, nevertheless, a legal if inadvisable
tackle.
But Shaw’s decision to encourage the rugby following public to
object to the new tackle laws is a worse decision.
The facts are simple:
1. Rugby is facing an existential crisis as the impact of
concussion becomes clearer, whether from former players bringing
lawsuits against the game or from parents not allowing their
kids to play.
2. World Rugby and its constituent unions have spent the past 8
years gathering data and analysing what the options are to
increase safety without reducing the game to touch rugby
3. The need is to ensure a clear separation between the heads of
the ball carrier and the tackler
4. Previous attempts at this have not worked - look at the
number of cards issued for head collisions in the RWC so far.
5. Lowering the tackle height has been effective in trials, and
in the community game in France.
6. From memory, all the major unions have now announced this
change at all levels below pro and semi-pro. (My prediction is
that the pro game is likely to follow suit pretty rapidly
post-RWC - probably from next season).
The communications around this have been poor, with two major
issues:
- The announcement of the changes wasn’t co-ordinated globally.
In part this is because of different local laws (France moved
early because the government told them to or face closure), but
it would have helped a lot to make it clear that this is part of
something that is happening worldwide
- WR and the RFU completely failed to understand how little
attention people in the community game have given to concussion
as an issue. The level of understanding I saw in the
consultation process was worryingly low.
But a bad communication process does not mean that the science
behind it is flawed, or that rugby can afford not to act.
Players like Shaw reacting to this - especially at this glib and
superficial level - are a risk to the game itself.
If he had set out an evidenced case for why lowering the tackle
height won’t protect players, or at least linked to a reputable
source for such a case, it would be a different matter. But he
hasn’t.
#Post#: 113570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: Quinky
Date: September 25, 2023, 8:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Saw it on LinkedIn and commented on there.
I don't think he's being glib. The RFU put something out
purporting to be about making the game safer, but use an image
that shows a dangerous technique. Rather gives the impression
that those claiming to be trying to make the game safer are
either I'll qualified or sloppy on details.
#Post#: 113571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: poorfour
Date: September 26, 2023, 12:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There’s no denying that it was a bad choice of image.
But to say that one bad image invalidates the whole strategy
without further evidence to back it up is both glib and
dangerous.
#Post#: 113572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: J Scott
Date: September 26, 2023, 2:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The image is terrible!
The campaign is about player safety and there should be no
difference whether it’s the ball carrier or tackler especially
as it is being done the lower head injuries, the tackle depicted
often leads to the tackler receiving unnecessary head contact,
injuries and long spells out of the game.
A similar graphic with the head on the correct side would be far
better suited.
#Post#: 113575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: September 26, 2023, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To me it could be that the tackler is coming in from our left
rather than straight on?
#Post#: 113576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: Fearless Fred
Date: September 26, 2023, 4:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: deadlyfrom5yardsout link ---
>
> To me it could be that the tackler is coming in from our left
rather than straight on?
>
--- End Quote ---
That's how I saw it too.
#Post#: 113578--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: Yareet
Date: September 26, 2023, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: deadlyfrom5yardsout link ---
>
> To me it could be that the tackler is coming in from our left
rather than straight on?
>
--- End Quote ---
Still terrible tackle tech, then. Cheek to cheek
#Post#: 113581--------------------------------------------------
Re: Simon Shaw Says...
DIR By: T-Bone
Date: September 26, 2023, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> There’s no denying that it was a bad choice of image.
>
> But to say that one bad image invalidates the whole strategy
without further evidence to back it up is both glib and
dangerous.
>
--- End Quote ---
he doesn't say that image invalidates the whole strategy. He is
pointing out what a poor job the RFU have been doing and are
still doing about getting the messaging across. The RFU have
made a real mess of it and continue to do so. Plenty of
less-experiences players and coaches could see that image and
think that's a good way to tackle.
Progressive Rigby reacted in a similar way when the image was
put out. There's not really any excuse for putting that image
out there
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page