: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:49 pm  

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has very little to do with a 5m offside rule.

And whoever 'remembered' fewer injuries in the 90s... really?

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:50 pm  

chubbs1981 wrote:

instead of wasting research money on the memory of a goldfish perhaps some sporty types should do a study into the forces generated in a head on tackle. if due to the increase in size and mass of players this force is now getting towards a dangerous level then there will be no choice but to depower it somehow.

If not then leave it alone

I'm sure there was a report in Aus about this and they worked out that one particular tackle had the equivalent of 10Gs of force produced. Though this is just from memory and may be completely wrong.

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:50 pm  

oxford-pie-eater wrote:

It's not the physically demanding nature of the game that needs adjusting but the recovery time you give these blokes. Unfortunately, we live in an age when TV companies have more influence over the fixture lists of all professional sports than those in the know when it comes to measuring the risk to players.

- but TV companies pay the wages, so...

See, I don't agree with that point. Years ago, we used to have midweek games and everything, yet now we have one game per week, apart from Easter.

There are many clubs who also play on Friday nights irrespective of whether they are on TV, and therefore it can be the clubs who make the decision that they will get less recovery time.

: Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:19 pm  

TMF wrote:

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has very little to do with a 5m offside rule.

who mentioned hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? granted this is usually attributed to the sudden death of many young athletes but it is not relevant to this discussions. i was making the connection between a 5m offside rule reducing the speed of both players at the moment of impact thus reducing the forces.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:57 am  

I think the main reason we are seeing more of certain injuries is because of the interchange we now have. Large very fit young men who if had played under the older rules would not have been able to last 80 minuets even with todays training, (Paleasena for one) they would have tired quickly & become liabilitys not assets as they are in the modern game.
The 5 meter/yard rule only worked as the room appeared when the players got tired & gaps opened the close proxcimity of the defence did encourage better ball handling skills but the knowlage & conditioning was no where as scientific as it is now. One other factor to think about is that people of my age (near bus pass time) excepted risks & injury as part of our working lives (how stupid we were) we were also better looked after by the health service as there was no team of lawyers waiting to sue at the first opertunity.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:11 am  

The ultimate in modern full-time RL is the "roll" - a succession of fast play-the-balls with the pass fed to a fast, heavy and powerful forward on a well timed and well rehearsed run, each drive making 10 or more yards. A set of such drives can smash the defence apart or put the team close to the opposition line. Most fans love it, and most coaches and teams rely on it for the bulk of their progress in the match. It necessitates large fast forwards and it reduces the need for lighter players with good footwork and ball handling skills.
The referee calling "held" when a tackle nears a stalemate, and ensuring that the PTB is not allowed until the defenders clear the ruck (as it actually states in the laws) could change the emphasis of the game. A slower, more controlled PTB would reduce the effectiveness of the giant athletes and require teams to look for a greater use of ball-handling and footwork skills to break the defence (it would also cut out some of the joint damage caused by extended wrestling in the tackle).
Of course, the "roll" is what delights the crowd at the moment, and full-time clubs have an enormous vested interest in the status quo, in that they already have the big players on their books, and the systems within the clubs for making the best use of them. It takes many years to develop ball-handling and footwork skills: it is much quicker to bulk up a willing player and turn him into a battering ram. I can see no desire in the game for a slower PTB. I can see more and more high impact injuries, and an increase in the number of players who, one day, will regret some of the things they did to their one and only body.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:32 am  

would it really make much of a difference? if anything the fast PTB makes that aspect of the game safer as the its only the attacking playing carrying full momentum. surely the attacking player is past the point of PTB and gaining ground by the time the defensive line is onside. this would make the defsenive line not being able to reach full speed at the moment of impact.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:09 pm  

Dave T wrote: See, I don't agree with that point. Years ago, we used to have midweek games and everything, yet now we have one game per week, apart from Easter. There are many clubs who also play on Friday nights irrespective of whether they are on TV, and therefore it can be the clubs who make the decision that they will get less recovery time. Take on board your arguement and I'm not one of these folk who think players are in any way hard done to. If you don't like it, go and work in a factory or office somewhere, like the rest of us. I'll trade places with Jon Wilkin any day of the week. But its not the day of the week or the kick off time I'm talking about, it's the scheduling to suit TV, and even the TV companies make no bones over the fact this happens. Anyone who thinks clubs can decide exactly when and - crucially - how many matches they play is deluded - why do you think they're all bloody moaning about it? In cases where a club can decide whether they play on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday and they choose to give their players a longer rest, it clearly gives em a shorter break before the following game. That works vice versa too and therefore has little bearing on this arguement. I'm talking about too many games in a season (and not a long enough closed season) for sportsmen now testing their bodies well beyond the rigours of what Kel Skerrett and Kevin Ward put themselves through. Sure, the game's always been 'tough' - perhaps even more so in the old days than now - but the impact of collisions and the speed around the ruck are light years from where they were even 10 years ago. It's a different game with different physical attributes required. Mal Meninga was the Man Mountain, a fine physical specimen at his pomp, but he wasn't the athlete Israel Folou is (IMO), and yet he was probably the best of his generation. Like everyone else, I'd watch a game every night of the week if I could, but if it's at the expense of players' medium to long term health and the quality of what I'm watching, that doesn't make any sense at all. My only suggestion was that we err more toward doing what's best for the game and its players, and not what's best for the pockets of the big telly bosses. Unfortunately, TV money rules the world so you either live with it, or find a compromise. What I'm saying is that it's up to the main power-brokers in our sport to take a lead, do some research, put this on the agenda and find a compromise - but I wouldn't hold your breath as they seem to understand it about as much as you. - This is a just summary of conclusions from just one study. It's a few years old and it's also a study of risks for 'subelite' rugby league players: http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/428.abstract It's interesting all the same, and perhaps suggests we need a thorough study at the highest level.

Dave T wrote: See, I don't agree with that point. Years ago, we used to have midweek games and everything, yet now we have one game per week, apart from Easter. There are many clubs who also play on Friday nights irrespective of whether they are on TV, and therefore it can be the clubs who make the decision that they will get less recovery time. Take on board your arguement and I'm not one of these folk who think players are in any way hard done to. If you don't like it, go and work in a factory or office somewhere, like the rest of us. I'll trade places with Jon Wilkin any day of the week. But its not the day of the week or the kick off time I'm talking about, it's the scheduling to suit TV, and even the TV companies make no bones over the fact this happens. Anyone who thinks clubs can decide exactly when and - crucially - how many matches they play is deluded - why do you think they're all bloody moaning about it? In cases where a club can decide whether they play on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday and they choose to give their players a longer rest, it clearly gives em a shorter break before the following game. That works vice versa too and therefore has little bearing on this arguement. I'm talking about too many games in a season (and not a long enough closed season) for sportsmen now testing their bodies well beyond the rigours of what Kel Skerrett and Kevin Ward put themselves through. Sure, the game's always been 'tough' - perhaps even more so in the old days than now - but the impact of collisions and the speed around the ruck are light years from where they were even 10 years ago. It's a different game with different physical attributes required. Mal Meninga was the Man Mountain, a fine physical specimen at his pomp, but he wasn't the athlete Israel Folou is (IMO), and yet he was probably the best of his generation. Like everyone else, I'd watch a game every night of the week if I could, but if it's at the expense of players' medium to long term health and the quality of what I'm watching, that doesn't make any sense at all. My only suggestion was that we err more toward doing what's best for the game and its players, and not what's best for the pockets of the big telly bosses. Unfortunately, TV money rules the world so you either live with it, or find a compromise. What I'm saying is that it's up to the main power-brokers in our sport to take a lead, do some research, put this on the agenda and find a compromise - but I wouldn't hold your breath as they seem to understand it about as much as you. - This is a just summary of conclusions from just one study. It's a few years old and it's also a study of risks for 'subelite' rugby league players: http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/33/3/428.abstract It's interesting all the same, and perhaps suggests we need a thorough study at the highest level.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:48 pm  

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote:

Very true, but there was the report in The Sun (I know) in the week after Walker's death which made the same point. Didn't we have 5m before?

Yes we did have a 5M rule, but players still got injured. For example I've just finished reading Kevin Ashcrofts biography and he's had knee replacements, Phil Lowe has had hip replacements. Bill Ashursts knees wre jiggered when joined Wakefield in 1979, however recouperation and treatment techniques were'nt as good when those guys played as they are now.

I'm on the fence a bit with this one. A 5M rule did encourage more skilful players, but a 10M rule I believe gives us more open play. Pro's and con's for both IMO.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:06 pm  

For a radical idea, the game could consider putting a weight limit on the team, in a similar to how boxering is regulated. If each team were limited to an average of say 14 stone, then we would proabably start to see less injuries and a marked differential between forwards and backs - leading to a more open game.