Down amongst the dead men
Ian Diddams
Much debate is heard about the "new" rugby union at the top levels these
days.. how much fitter the players are, how the new laws expand the
game etc. But while these changes may (or may not) be good for the
perception of the game and the effects on top class professional players
what about those way down the ladder... like, for example, a tight head
prop in a junior club. Like, for example, Devizes RFC, Wiltshire, U.K.
Maybe not a top player there... like for example, a second team player.
How have these changes affected our second team, tight-head prop at
Devizes RFC?
Lets call our player... Ian.
Are these changes good ones... or bad ones.. for Ian?
Well... on the plus side it has possibly opened up the game for him to
become more involved, something that Ian quite enjoys. A game where he
is required to be fit and alert to undertake the tasks required of him.
No bad thing... except that in Ian's case, due to his humble position
in rugby's hierarchy, his fitness and alertness would in itself always
find a level in which to parade itself... less fit simply means playing
for the thirds instead. Fitter? Well, Ian would be the first to admit
that he is unlikely at this stage of his career to be pushing for a
place in Devizes 1st team, injuries notwithstanding. So he appears to
have found his current level regarding his fitness and alertness,
irrespective of whether it does increase.
Then there's skills. Improved skills demanded of the modern game can
only surely benefit such a player. Well, truth be told, Ian isn't a
great player, and never has been. But his basic skills have been more
than adequate - good hands, reasonable tackler, strong scrummager etc -
so the only real skill he's had to learn from new is lifting... which
lets face it doesn't take much to get right, although it looks pretty
impressive and is probably preferable to standing around just getting in
the way like the old days.
Improved pace of the game? Ian's always been a slow bugger, and at the
age of thirty-five is unlikely to change that, being a physiological
thing. C'est la vie.
The tactics then? They must have made the game better for him? "Sort
of" says Ian. His club - like many others - have finally eschewed a
rolling maul based game which was OK but a bit mindless and dead easy to
participate in for a more dynamic rucking game... which is what he was
playing at college anyway fifteen years ago. So, the tactic that suits
him best is currently in vogue, but like many vogues probably comes in
cycles. No change really.
So the positives that the changes have afforded our lowly player have
created a game in which he feels more involved, but haven't actually
offered much new and improved on what he's always done.
And the downsides?
Easy. Substitution.
Substitution, Ian feels, is taking away something for him from his game.
Because now, he only gets half a game. Wheras before once selected Ian
would get a full 80 minutes on a field, these days he gets 40 minutes.
Either the first half or the second.
In the bad old days, injury replacements were always wanted/needed, and
Ian, like us all, took his turn of sitting on the bench, often naturally
not getting a game at all. But due to the nature of bench warming,
Devizes ensured that he (and others) did it as little as possible and
shared it around. Maybe one week in eight.
However, today, with legal substitutions, not only must a team carry a
sub (for injury's sake) ... but they effectively are bound to use him.
Because if they don't, the oppo will have.. and potentially Devizes are
at a disadvantage, being a fresh man down in a crucial stamina
orientated position. So Ian either goes off at half time... or comes on
having sat out the first half. Consequently, today, Ian gets
effectively four games in eight on the bench.
Now, I can hear some saying... hold on, this is a team game. If that's
what your club requires of you, then that's what you do. That's all
well and good, says Ian, and he would agree with you... but by the same
token, who is "the club"? People like Ian, that's who. Not
professionals, who get paid whether they play or not, but blokes that
pay for the privilege of playing - 25 quid a year and 3 quid a game.
But now they are getting half the amount of rugby for their money, due
to the changes in the game.
It's not Devizes RFC's fault. It's not Ian's fault. It's not Ian's
captain's, or coach's faults. But it is there, and the situation will
not now go away.
And so due to the changes made for the cream at the top, thousands, if
not millions of ordinary blokes that play this wonderful game week in
week out for enjoyment, and pay for that privilege, will now potentially
only be playing half as much.
Which all seems a bit sad to Ian. Because all he wants to do is play
rugby. For a full eighty minutes like he always has done. That's all.
--
Didds
"At these prices you'd be mad not too". Moronic quote by
Paul Diddams to "Observer" journalist on "The London Brewers
Beer festival" held last Saturday.
Paul Waite
In article <34338DCA...@rss.rockwell.com>,
ian.d...@rss.rockwell.com says...
[ regarding the substitution laws..]
>Which all seems a bit sad to Ian. Because all he wants to do is play
>rugby. For a full eighty minutes like he always has done. That's all.
Excellent article Ian. Gives an insight into the effects of the
changes on the vast majority of rugby players would-wide - the
so-called grass roots of the game which is more important than the
top echelon in my view.
I'm also against the substitution laws from my point of view as
a spectator. Naturally I'm fully in favour of replacement for
injury, but all the silly comings and goings that occur these days
can make the game somewhat farcical in the last quarter.
I like to watch two teams playing out a game of rugby. Tiredness
is all part of the game and should be allowed to take full effect.
If one of the packs is fitter then so be it - they get dominance
in the final quarter and maybe deservedly turn the game.
I also like to focus on two particular teams of 15, and guage how
they go against each other position by position. With impact
players trotting on and off, this kind of comparison is often
much harder to make.
I also think that it is better for players, particularly in a
test match, to go on the field knowing that they are on there to
play for 80 minutes, unless injury forces them off (an echo of
your point Didds).
So, as a spectator I would reiterate that I enjoyed it much more
when I looked on the two teams of XV facing each other at the
kickoff and could focus on these players only, and the battle
to see which team is better on the day, uncluttered by all the
silly interchanges from the bench which happen today.
Cheers,
Paul.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Waite NZ Rugby news, info, and opinion at
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~paulwa/haka.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Meredydd Smart
Great post Ian, I'd thought from the outset that the substitution rule
along with coaching at half-time had robbed rugby of something.
So often on this ng we talk about stuff in relation to the game at the
top couple of levels - this has concerned me for a while in regard to
disciplinary changes and standards. Seems to me a lot of proposals for
disciplinary changes cannot be implemented at the sort of level your
talking about (video refs, match commisioners etc) and that when players
or teams are caught the sentances can be harder. Stephen Jones article
on mini-rugby in the Sunday Times this weekend highlights this with it's
talk of teams being disciplined for things such as the attitude of
supporters and coaches - imagine if they'd applied that in Europe this
season!
Too many rules are being passed to suit current fashions at the top end
of rugby - maybe not a bad thing (for instance the return of the rucking
game) - but the danger is the creation of a sizeable split between
grassroots and first class rugby.
Good luck for the rest of the season - had you thought of knobbling the
other prop in training;-)
--
Cheers,
Meredydd.
(Please remove anti-spam. from my address)
Gary
pau...@nojunk.ihug.co.nz (Paul Waite) wrote:
>That argument is often trotted out but has never been valid of
>course (and I'm not suggesting you are supporting it by the
>way!).
>
>Proposing that a law should be changed because people are
>breaking it is of course utterly ridiculous.
>
>There was nothing wrong with the law as it was, properly
>enforced. Remember the problem only manifested itself as being
>of any great moment or importance at the very top level, and
>only then occasionally.
>
>The law was simple. A player can only be replaced when injured,
>as confirmed by a doctor. Naturally injuries can be feigned,
>however stiff penalties for doing so would act as an ample
>deterrent for the few times this might be considered.
>
>We have to remember that the game does not exist for the
>benefit of the top level. It exists because a huge number of
>people at ALL levels enjoy playing it. The new substitution
>law detracts from the game for the vast majority playing it,
>and it should therefore be revoked.
>
>Cheers,
>Paul.
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul
have you forgotten last year already, during the A.B tour to S.A- weren't you a bit
pissed off at supposedly injured Bok forwards jogging off the field when their
replacement arrived at the side line. The All Black game plan was based around a
mobile pack which would outlast a bigger S.A pack- this cann't be done if one side
is not following the laws of the game. Its something that is you are not going to
be able to police what doctor in his right mind is going to say to a player "your
faking it get back out there" (a bit of a risky move).
The problem was that the IRB went overboard, O.K allow replacements, but your still
only allowed two, and that includes injuries. The whole tactical sub thing is then
changed because you can't risk subing someone and then have an injury.
The Laird
In article <6192qb$1...@wnnews1.netlink.net.nz>, pau...@nojunk.ihug.co.nz
(Paul Waite) wrote:
> In article <34338DCA...@rss.rockwell.com>,
> ian.d...@rss.rockwell.com says...
>
> [ regarding the substitution laws..]
>
> >Which all seems a bit sad to Ian. Because all he wants to do is play
> >rugby. For a full eighty minutes like he always has done. That's
all.
>
> Excellent article Ian. Gives an insight into the effects of the
> changes on the vast majority of rugby players would-wide - the
> so-called grass roots of the game which is more important than the
> top echelon in my view.
>
> I'm also against the substitution laws from my point of view as
> a spectator. Naturally I'm fully in favour of replacement for
> injury, but all the silly comings and goings that occur these days
> can make the game somewhat farcical in the last quarter.
Yes, Ian and Paul.
This is just turning rugby into another form of chess or
baseball, where the coach rules supreme and the players
are but pitiful putty-like pawns, pushed pitilessly from
pillar to post....
Rugby used to be different from soccer and those other
fairy sports where people needed a rest half way through.
Are we heading for some perfectly ghastly amalgam of
all the worst professional sports customs ?
I sincerely hope not, but I fear we may be...
Regards
The rueful Laird
"Lang may yer lum reek." (May your chimney smoke for a long time).
A Japanese Rugby Union Site (in English)
http://www.dhs.kyutech.ac.jp/~ruxton/jprugby.html
Aidan
Ian Diddams <ian.d...@rss.rockwell.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>so the only real skill he's had to learn from new is lifting... which
>lets face it doesn't take much to get right, although it looks pretty
>impressive and is probably preferable to standing around just getting in
>the way like the old days.
Do you think lifting has allowed the 'lower' standard teams win more
quality ball? I was talking to a mate of mine who reckoned they were
lucky to get one two-handed take all season, now they get a couple a
game. He felt this allowed his team to actually have backline moves,
which was a bit of a rarity previously, as sloppy ball meant their
backs were under pressure as soon as they received the ball.
>And the downsides?
>
>Easy. Substitution.
>
>Substitution, Ian feels, is taking away something for him from his game.
>Because now, he only gets half a game. Wheras before once selected Ian
>would get a full 80 minutes on a field, these days he gets 40 minutes.
>Either the first half or the second.
Are you saying that your team has a whole front row on the bench and
subs them *all* at half-time? If not .. then why is it that you are
the one always getting replaced?
I see your point though, with regards to a front-rower being more
likely to be sub'ed than, say, a fullback. Perhaps you should be
examining your tactics though. If you sub your fresh man at half time,
there is still plenty of game time left for your fresh man to get
injured, them your rooted. Plus the bloke who started is still likely
to have something left in the tank at half time. I'd have thought a
tactical sub in the last 10 or 15 minutes would have been the go ...
Cheers
Aidan
--
My email address has been 'anti-spammed' - remove the **nospam**
jk
Actually, I believe the new substitution rules allows a substituted (as
opposed to injured) front row player to come back on, if a front rower
gets injured and no other replacement is available.
JimJon
Justin Mansfield wrote:
> Our coach is very reluctant to use the free sub rule on the front row.
>
> This makes some sense with injuries, plus the requirement that there
> always be a front row forward available for substitution, to stop
> golden oldies scrums.
Justin Mansfield
The Laird
In article <61btdb$e...@wnnews1.netlink.net.nz>, pau...@nojunk.ihug.co.nz
(Paul Waite) wrote:
> There was nothing wrong with the law as it was, properly
> enforced. Remember the problem only manifested itself as being
> of any great moment or importance at the very top level, and
> only then occasionally.
>
> The law was simple. A player can only be replaced when injured,
> as confirmed by a doctor. Naturally injuries can be feigned,
> however stiff penalties for doing so would act as an ample
> deterrent for the few times this might be considered.
Yes, I quite agree.
> We have to remember that the game does not exist for the
> benefit of the top level. It exists because a huge number of
> people at ALL levels enjoy playing it. The new substitution
> law detracts from the game for the vast majority playing it,
> and it should therefore be revoked.
Hear bl**dy hear !!
And at my humble level I am not interested in 10 minute
breaks between halves either, thanks very much...
OTOH the way things are going, it might be better to let the
IRFB get on and develop what they think, in their wisdom,
is the perfect professional game.
I could live with that, provided they don't ask *me* to
play by their silly new rules. An amateur break-away
at the grass roots might wake them up, and serve them
right....! How about it, boys and girls ?
;-)
Cheers
The contentious (and defiant) Laird of Kitakyushu
Paul Waite
In article <61c2t3$9t...@hkusud.hku.hk>,
ga...@hkusua.hku.hk says...
>have you forgotten last year already, during the A.B tour to S.A
Nope.
>weren't you a bit
>pissed off at supposedly injured Bok forwards jogging off the field when their
>replacement arrived at the side line.
Not really. You see blatant cheating like that can be policed quite
easily. Basically the guy isn't injured. At test level the IRFB and
unions could come up with a scheme which would work. An example would
be to have a designated impartial doctor on the sideline. Injuries
which are 'hidden' will be required to be documented along with
subsequent treatment by designated medical staff after the fact.
The question then arises as to whether a country would go so far as
to co-opt a fully qualified doctor into explicitly lying in terms
of reports on injuries suffered, along with the coach, the players
and the management.
Naturally this might occur, however you have to weigh the effects
of this against the effect of the cheating. It is very rare in
my experience to see a replacement come on in an International
and turn the game (please don't bother trotting out individual
examples - I'm talking generally here).
For those instances where a replacement due to injury in an
important test match is seen to change the course of events, of
course the 'injury' and subsequent medical reports can be
scrutinised very hard indeed. A right of independant assessment
could be allowed on the part of the opposing team for example,
with very heavy penalties, including bans from the Rugby World
Cup for instance, an option if cheating has occurred.
I think with this kind of system, plus the heavy penalties,
teams would soon come to the conclusion it is not worth it.
I come back to the very idea that you should scrap a rule
because people are breaking it. If the will is there to keep
the law intact then it can be.
In the end the substitute law at international level is not
really a problem I feel. True it was abused by blatant cheating
as mentioned, but this could be addressed. But even if it
went on, I think that there is still no justification on that
basis for changing it. The arguments that the game's rules
should not be tailored for the top tiny percentage (the
international players) and instead should be tailored to the
vast majority of people who play rugby at all levels world
wide is totally valid.
We have heard that this law is bad from the viewpoint of this
majority, therefore it should be changed back - simple.
I think that the current substitution law is in truth simply
driven by TV requirements, as indeed all the law changes
since 1995 have been. This nonsense about it 'being impossible
to police' is simply a smokescreen to cover the real agenda.
I expect it to be relaxed still further in the near future,
with all restrictions regarding injury being dropped, and
the number allowed on the bench extended.
Cheeers,
Rob Wallace
Paul Waite wrote:
>
>
> Not really. You see blatant cheating like that can be policed quite
> easily. Basically the guy isn't injured. At test level the IRFB and
> unions could come up with a scheme which would work. An example would
> be to have a designated impartial doctor on the sideline. Injuries
> which are 'hidden' will be required to be documented along with
> subsequent treatment by designated medical staff after the fact.
>
> The question then arises as to whether a country would go so far as
> to co-opt a fully qualified doctor into explicitly lying in terms
> of reports on injuries suffered, along with the coach, the players
> and the management.
>
> important test match is seen to change the course of events, of
> course the 'injury' and subsequent medical reports can be
> scrutinised very hard indeed. A right of independant assessment
> could be allowed on the part of the opposing team for example,
> with very heavy penalties, including bans from the Rugby World
> Cup for instance, an option if cheating has occurred.
>
it's flawed due to the lack of accuracy in the medical aspects of
diagnosis. While major injuries are easily assessed and documented,
minor but potentially serious ones are not. There is no easy way to
prove a minor hamstring tear aside from the players reactions, and these
can be quite easily faked. Hence no matter how stringent the independent
assessment is, players will always be to cheat. [hey doc, it cleared up
with just one massage session...] This is the real reason why over the
last 20 years we have seen the disappearence of the sideline medical
examination done formally prior to replacement.
Thats why substitution without examination is a good idea. It levels the
playing field so that the honest team can substitute players as well as
the cheating teams with their [fake] injuries.
> I think that the current substitution law is in truth simply
> driven by TV requirements, as indeed all the law changes
> since 1995 have been. This nonsense about it 'being impossible
> to police' is simply a smokescreen to cover the real agenda.
The medical law changes re replacements have been evolving since the
70's at least, and the injury laws are in fact impossible to police, its
just happening faster now for the reasons you state. No smokescreen.
Rob
Paul Waite
In article <6226gm$ots$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
robw@*nospam*ihug.co.nz says...
>Paul, while your argument is correct and I agree with the principles,
>it's flawed due to the lack of accuracy in the medical aspects of
>diagnosis. While major injuries are easily assessed and documented,
>minor but potentially serious ones are not.
Sorry Rob, but your argument is the flawed one. It's quite simple.
A player can be replaced if *injured*. A little feeling or
twinge felt by the player, and a subsequent precautionary
replacement are not in the scheme of things. Basically they stay
on in that case, until such time as they become injured. At
that point it *can* be diagnosed - via scans if necessary.
But I'll make it quite clear - actually I don't *care* what
happens at test level. In my view going back to the idea of
replacment for injury is good. With some policing, and heavy
penalty for *blatant* flaunting teams will have to go to
some lengths of dishonesty and cheating to circumvent it.
If they do - hey who cares? Replacement is not all it's
cracked up to be. Despite the current drive towards making
rugby a less varied, more repetetive and "efficiency" oriented
game, it still benefits hugely from having a well-oiled and
settled combination of players on the park, so replacment
is not a clear advantage in most cases. I'm not particularly
worried about teams cheating in this respect.
What *does* concern me is the clear disregard for the vast
majority playing the game in terms of law-making. For this
reason alone the law should quite definitely be reversed.
Cheers,
Lois K
Rob Wallace wrote:
>
>
> > >Paul, while your argument is correct and I agree with the principles,
> > >it's flawed due to the lack of accuracy in the medical aspects of
> > >diagnosis. While major injuries are easily assessed and documented,
> > >minor but potentially serious ones are not.
> >
> > Sorry Rob, but your argument is the flawed one. It's quite simple.
> > A player can be replaced if *injured*. A little feeling or
> > twinge felt by the player, and a subsequent precautionary
> > replacement are not in the scheme of things. Basically they stay
> > on in that case, until such time as they become injured. At
> > that point it *can* be diagnosed - via scans if necessary.
> >
> torn [or healed] hamstring. Hence players often don't know when they're
> fit and re-injure themselves again.
Sorry Rob, there are scans available to diagnose soft-tissue damage,
such as hamstring tears. They aren't often routinely done, and
impossible at a field site, but they ARE available. Now, whether the
player is fit after an injury, that is much more subjective. The
original injury may have healed, but the player hasn't exercised the
muscle enough for it not to be easily re-injured.
If you require an "injured" player to sit out at least the next match
(note, not a certain period of time, since we know how that can be
abused) if a post-game diagnosis (at a medical facility, not on-field)
shows the bloke was faking, players will be much less likely to drop &
grab to get the fresh guy in.
If you also allow one or two (but NOT 6) arbitrary substitutions, you
could alieve the possibility of a player with a minor injury forced to
"play on" and further injure himself.
I really fear the free substitutions since it has really screwed up
other sports. Sometimes you just must "dance with them what brung you"
as they say in the US south. Substituting becomes another strategic
option, rather than on-field play.
Ok, thats my 2 cents.
Lois K
Rob Wallace
Lois K wrote:
>
> Sorry Rob, there are scans available to diagnose soft-tissue damage,
> such as hamstring tears. They aren't often routinely done, and
> impossible at a field site, but they ARE available. Now, whether the
> player is fit after an injury, that is much more subjective. The
> original injury may have healed, but the player hasn't exercised the
> muscle enough for it not to be easily re-injured.
>
damage , particularly when there is a lot of tissue oedema or haematoma
formation but they are commonly normal and their accuracy even in the
best hands leaves something to be desired. There are however portable
ultrasound scans that could easily be taken to any game or place one
wished.
MRI scans are much more accurate, require a huge machine and are
expensive [NZD 500-100]. The problem with these scans is the correlation
between abnormalities noted on a scan and the function or dysfunction of
a joint or muscle can be poor : it's common to see scan abnormalities in
normal people and it is difficult to relate minor scan changes with the
injury which may be mild or severe. In the end you rely on the degree of
discomfort of the player along with scan findings, and players are often
fully fit to resume playing despite the scan remaining abnormal.
The bottom line for all this is that despite all the technology, fitness
or lack of it [injury] is determined by the player. The scans can be
used an an aid to chart progress but are useless on their own, without
taking the players symptoms into account. This is why you can't make
blanket rules for injury and expect the doctor or technology to sort it
out for you : it isn't accurate enough. The cost of this would also be
horrendous - serial scans etc, and sadly I'm such a cynic that I think
teams would have no problems cheating and circumventing this also.
> I really fear the free substitutions since it has really screwed up
> other sports. Sometimes you just must "dance with them what brung you"
> as they say in the US south. Substituting becomes another strategic
> option, rather than on-field play.
>
I agree with this, and with Paul's whole argument about substitution, I
just know that rigid medical intervention won't help it.
Cheers
Rob