The rugby

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

T4tomo

Legendary Member
I hop it gets approved. its not in itself a full solution to rugbies issues, but it must help
 

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
This might be a stupid question. But come no one is suing the British Boxing Board of Control.
Do boxers sign some form of waiver?
 

SpokeyDokey

68, & my GP says I will officially be old at 70!
Moderator
Mod note:

Thread temporarily closed until we get time to deal with the recent argument.

Edit:

A bit of a complicated 'spat' to sort out so, with no judgement on any party involved, the decisions made are as follows:

Delete all posts from and including the original informational post by @Dogtrousers

There may be the odd innocent post deleted as part of this process, apologies.

Reopen this thread to allow it to continue in its usual friendly fashion.

Insist, that if you wish to discuss the cap issue further, that a new thread is started and participants post with regard to how the narrative developed in this thread.

And please, no moderation comments in-thread, use the usual channel if you feel the need.

Thanks to all in advance for your co-operation.
 
Last edited:

Drago

Legendary Member
When I played any tackle above the waist wasn't banned per se, but was regarded as ungentlemanly and unseemly, and it largely didn't happen. Now they're like the footballists, grabbing any anything they can lay their hands on.

Had this discussion with my SiL, who is an ex pro and now semi pro union player (ie, he still gets paid to play but not enough to live on.) I played at inter club level in the 6th form and very briefly at town league level as a young man, and we both agree its a contact sport and we willingly took our chances. If you fancy a sport but don't want to be worrying about the physical consequences in later life then there are plenty of alternatives to choose from.
 

T4tomo

Legendary Member
When I played any tackle above the waist wasn't banned per se, but was regarded as ungentlemanly and unseemly, and it largely didn't happen. Now they're like the footballists, grabbing any anything they can lay their hands on.

Had this discussion with my SiL, who is an ex pro and now semi pro union player (ie, he still gets paid to play but not enough to live on.) I played at inter club level in the 6th form and very briefly at town league level as a young man, and we both agree its a contact sport and we willingly took our chances. If you fancy a sport but don't want to be worrying about the physical consequences in later life then there are plenty of alternatives to choose from.

Yes when i played a school / uni I had to tackle low as was a lightweight winger and, until 6th form, pretty small for my age. If I tackled above the waist I just got bumped off, whereas a couple of my team mates could run into someone and bump them 10 yards into touch.

The ruck and maul law changes made it more popular to tackle high and try to tie up the player into a maul to get the turnover, along with popularity of going to the gym and bulking up, so everyone is much bigger.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
its a contact sport and we willingly took our chances. If you fancy a sport but don't want to be worrying about the physical consequences in later life then there are plenty of alternatives to choose from.

That's a reasonable point of view, particularly at an amateur level. It gets codified into law as a thing called violenti non fit injuria. Willing participants do so knowing the risks. That's why Graham Rowntree can't have any complaints about his cauliflower ears, or my late father about his multiply broken nose or "frozen shoulder" injury. They are par for the course when choosing to play rugby.

But there are limits to this, and the authorities do have a duty of care, especially where there is employment involved.

This blog has some interesting comments on the Steve Thompson case and the legal ins and outs of it.
https://www.sportlawmusings.com/general-3

And this is worth reading, just because it is.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/shontayne-hape-my-battle-with-concussion/CGBEXHZROCMNKPAD5BYKPBAL5Y/
 
Last edited:

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
That's a reasonable point of view, particularly at an amateur level. It gets codified into law as a thing called violenti non fit injuria. Willing participants do so knowing the risks. That's why Graham Rowntree can't have any complaints about his cauliflower ears, or my late father about his multiply broken nose or "frozen shoulder" injury. They are par for the course when choosing to play rugby.

But there are limits to this, and the authorities do have a duty of care, especially where there is employment involved.

This blog has some interesting comments on the Steve Thompson case and the legal ins and outs of it.
https://www.sportlawmusings.com/general-3

And this is worth reading, just because it is.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/shontayne-hape-my-battle-with-concussion/CGBEXHZROCMNKPAD5BYKPBAL5Y/

Without reading that blog post, AIUI, the general legal position is that consent of the "victim" is a defence against charges of assault up until the point where the assault causes Actual Bodily Harm. Anything which causes Actual Bodily Harm or above cannot be consented to.

But there are, of course exceptions for recognised sporting activities, reasonable surgery, and a few others.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
Without reading that blog post, AIUI, the general legal position is that consent of the "victim" is a defence against charges of assault up until the point where the assault causes Actual Bodily Harm. Anything which causes Actual Bodily Harm or above cannot be consented to.

But there are, of course exceptions for recognised sporting activities, reasonable surgery, and a few others.

The blog post is about the potential for claiming negligence on the part of the organisers of the game, and it mentions the potential use by them of a violenti non fit injuria defence. Nothing about assault.

There may have been cases where it has been used as a defence against an assault charge, I don't know (I'm not a lawyer). But they would be individual cases and probably not of any great relevance to the wellbeing of the game as a whole - just relevant to the individuals concerned.
 
Last edited:

DRM

Guru
Location
West Yorks
Rugby League have followed Union in lowering tackle height, one of 44 measures to be introduced to make the game safer incl. reducing head to head contact.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/67658523
no doubt will be a few teething issues as it rolls out but a good thing going forwards.

The reason RL Players tackle above the waist is to prevent the player being tackled from passing the ball before the ball carrying arm hits the floor, thefore being deemed as tackle complete, which from the few RU games I've seen doesn't seem to be the case as they don't have the 6 tackles & a hand over rule.
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
The reason RL Players tackle above the waist is to prevent the player being tackled from passing the ball before the ball carrying arm hits the floor, thefore being deemed as tackle complete, which from the few RU games I've seen doesn't seem to be the case as they don't have the 6 tackles & a hand over rule.

Well they still do it to prevent the ball being passed out of the tackle. Much better chance of a turnover by getting the ball carrier to the ground, or wrapping him up in a maul.
 
Really shocked tonight to hear that JPR has died. He always seemed to be indestructible, especially in those days when rugby had less worries about safety of the players than it does now. Hard as nails but skilful as well, going on to forge a successful career in medicine.

He was one of a group of players that included Gareth Edwards, Barry John and Gerald Davies that made watching Wales and the Lions so memorable in the 70s.

RIP.
 
Top Bottom