Think you will find (all Qld Time) 1:30 Highlanders v Brumbies; 3:30 Brothers v Randwick; 6:35 NSW v Blues. The game is going head to head with Chiefs vs Drua. There might have actually been some thought in the scheduling so it benefits all and nothing to do with club oneupmanship. And Brumbies play Waratahs on April 6.

Its interesting how this concussion stuff is reported.
The University of Auckland Study was published as a preliminary not-yet-peer reviewed article in Nov 23.
Some of the facts and findings include:
The subjects played their rugby between 1950 and 2000 so we can assume they were starting to age at the time of being surveyed for the study.
General population chance of neurodegenerative disease 3.9%; rugby population chance of neurodegenerative disease 4.7%. Which we could read as rugby players have a 0.8% increased chance of a neurodegenerative disease. Or could that be reported that they are 20% more likely.
Alzheimers disease is 42% more likely if you’ve played rugby. At what age? For the average person the risk of developing Alzheimers doubles every five years from the age of 65.
It has been proven that rugby players live longer than the general population; get less cardiac disease and cancer than the general population (not in the study mentioned). Does the positive cardiac/cancer evidence outweigh the statistical anomaly of the potential head injury? Rugby players also drink more heavily – where does that fit the picture for any of the possible disease outcomes.
Its OK to try things to decrease the incidence of concussion. I’m all for it. But the reporting on this matter needs to change its tone until all the evidence is accumulated and a true risk profile is established. Lets not have reporters ( and I am not suggesting the author has done that but it happens all the time in mainstream media) reprinting the juicy parts of media releases of studies that have many more layers of variables involved. The numbers are often different to what they seem.
And by the way backs are more prone to being affected than forwards according to the University of Auckland study. Who’d have thunk it.

“Judge Jeremy Cook also said there was currently a “gaping hole” in the evidence provided by the claimants.”
And here is the issue. The actual science. And it won’t be accurately known for some time.

So this week-end the Hospital Cup Grand Final sees Wests play Brothers. Had there been a little more foresight by Queensland rugby with respect to the timing (ie they had held it a week earlier) the teams would have included names like this (injuries allowing):

Wests: Seru Uru, Moses Sorovi, Carter Gordon, Hunter Paisami, Jordan Petaia, Jacobus Eloff, Filipo Dauguno, Suli Vunivalu, Connor Anderson, Lopeti Faifua, Daniel Maiava, David Vaihu, Glen Vaihu.

Brothers: Josh Flook, Hamish Stewart, Lawson Creighton, Harry Wilson, Harry Lloyd, Jaiden Christian, Taniela Tupou, James O’Connor, Fraser Mc Reight, Matt Faessler, Harry Hoopert, Ryan Smith, Tim Ryan
Not a bad third tier really and with rusted on supporters and backing.
The problem with using the current super teams as the structure, is the same gatekeepers get the same power to select/veto the same players. Using the real clubs provides a lot more players a chance to be seen in the shop window. And a lot more players are developed. The base of the pyramid widens.

I think it is now 7 weeks since a fully fit Wallaby Squad member Matt Faessler took any part in a game of rugby. Isn’t that just a shining example of how rugby operates these days in Aus.

And that is the crux of it. The Reds need to repair the Piccone relationship and that may not happen while Cordingley and Thorn are in the house. That fractured relationship has now cost the Reds: Hocking, Lucas, Carter Gordon, Mafi, Thor, (Kerevi), Rodda and I would think a few others. Imagine the Reds with those in the house.

Lets talk about things that have actually killed people in rugby: tackles, scrums, accidental knees, rucks, mauls, head clashes.
And the things that never ever have: gestures.
If something like that happens in the heat of the moment use the streaker rule. Don’t show it again.
Give Ardie a reprimand and move on. Punish him if he repeats.

What if we reverted to the old pyramidal pathway system that has served Australian sport so well.
Throw in a few more opportunities for player remuneration and a few more sweeteners to the breeding grounds of Brisbane and Sydney clubs providing a natural development pathway and capturing club supporters which are essential to tie the grass roots to the professional.
Tier 1: Wallabies (1 team) : picked from anywhere and paid well for participation. Requires World Rugby to get on board and ensure sanctity of test matches and therefore player availability as soccer does. Hopefully self-funded with profit.
Tier 2: Super Rugby (2 strong teams): Only 2 professional squads playing in 8 team super comp with NZ/Pacific. Strict budget to enable a sustainable self funding financial model. If individuals want more they can head overseas but remain eligible for Wallabies.
Tier 3: National Comp: (12 teams) Professionals from Tier 2 and the rest semi-professional. Strict budget around salary cap and individual player payments. Funded by TV, ARU, the clubs and state unions. The 12 teams might be Perth Force, Melbourne Rebels, Canberra Brumbies, 5 Sydney teams, 4 Brisbane teams.
Tier 4: Amateur city based club competition as it currently stands.

The key here is Tier 3 to ensure the SS and HC clubs get on board. Specific SS or HC clubs (2 or 3) would be the basis for each national club team (NCT). Engage club supporters. Each NCT has first rights to its constituent club’s players or in the case of the individual cities, the comp’s players. Incorporate a draft for outsiders (overseas, rural, league) and for the unselected to even the competition.
Unlike the old development NRC there must be carrots for the original clubs and greater incentives for the players to prioritise NCT over club. Club incentives could involve gate receipts, percentages of TV rights, development fees if players are drafted to another club. Clubs who don’t embrace the system need to be isolated.
Tier 3 to me is the key. It directly represents the grassroots.It is where growth will occur. Its ultimate long term aim should be to make Tier 2 unnecessary. It will require some collaboration and fraternisation between previously competitive club entities however with good governance, a deal of optimism and rose-coloured glasses it might be possible.

Haha apologies working class rugger – almost the same.

I like this idea as well, with some modifications. What about having the NRC as a “champions” league. For example The top 4 (or 3) clubs in the Brisbane comp in a year get the naming rights to the NRC teams for that year. The top 6 (or 4/5) in Sydney, 2 in Canberra, 1 Melbourne, 1 in Perth. Teams play in those club colours and players signed to those clubs for the duration of the competition and contractual arrangements ensure they return to their club of origin following. Can still be held after club comps finish and creates condensed talent for development purposes. Players from non-qualified clubs get auctioned/drafted to those clubs for that year. In the case of Queensland teams there have been seven clubs who have had top 4 finishes in the past 5 years and in Sydney 9 who have finished top 6. So a variety of clubs would be provided national exposure. Obviously numbers may change depending on comp set-up.

Absolutely agree that we don’t want to destroy said clubs. That to me is the crux of this whole matter. How can we have a national comp without losing the current club competitions but keeping the club supporters interested at the national comp level. I still think there might be unexplored ways available for that to be done.

I am on the side of the negative in this situation. The NRC has performed a function that should be able to be performed by other means. The NRC is a good shop window for the players. It condenses talent and could be argued it is a successful testing ground used by some states to reinforce talent identification. But it doesn’t develop talent. It is not semi-professional. Players are not paid (in Qld at least) unless they are already contracted. They are asked to train the same as they would for their local clubs although they do have to incorporate travel into their routine.
Fotuaika didn’t need the NRC. He needed someone to identify him. He needed a system to bring him up to the physical and skill requirements of the next level. Could he have done that at Sunnybank? Maybe. Could he have done that at Sunnybank with external help from the Reds System? Almost certainly.
What the NRC does is it exposes players to personnel within the professional system whom are then able to pass judgement on them as to their suitability to the next level. And this at a financial cost to the rugby system. The NRC should not be needed for that to occur.
A national club competition, as others above have suggested, harnessing the supporter and financial strength from the grass roots, I believe is a better alternative to the NRC. A competition similar to what Rosie has mentioned above would, in my opinion, be the best idea for providing development, exposure, talent identification and most importantly grassroots support if done properly and with input from the professional franchises. The parochiality issue around who makes up the teams is the tricky but not insurmountable part that is hopefully explored later this year.

I really like the sentiments expressed by the author.
The head should be protected, but the suggestions given do not prevent that from happening, rather they ensure the integrity of the spectacle that is a rugby game. Sanctions can still be strong but they can happen after the event, and they can be harsh if required. If on reflection it is decided that the head contact was deliberate or intentional….yellow card and later suspension or dark yellow card and replacement and suspension. Same message will be given and same message will be received. I am not a believer that there is much intentional “taking out” at a professional and semi-professional level where things can be reviewed by video. A slightly different approach might be needed at lower levels of rugby however.
The other thing that requires clarity is the role of the ball carrier. Wright was sent off balance by the contact of Savea. He was considerably lower at the point of contact than his usual height and his height approaching the point of contact was changing. Whitelock a couple of frames prior to contact was considerably higher than when Swinton connects.
Both are mitigating circumstances – not necessarily the viewpoint of the judiciary in this case. Therefore for the sake of contest and the safety of other players (eg ALB playing in the scrum) being able to replace the player post yellow would have been the best and fairest result for all concerned.
Of some interest to me is the question of the ball carrier running bent at the waist into contact? How can the tackler avoid contact with the head and why does this tend to be ignored unless the tackler attempts a head roll? With whom does the contact fault lie? Whom should be sanctioned?
I believe its usually all too grey – yellow, replace, sanction later.

Absolutely spot on.Agree bans are too long, but from a CA perspective and legal challenge, couldn’t they just rescind the bans and say “BUT we are not going to pick you to play for Australia for x amount of time/matches” Do your time playing club and shield and if you are in form when x has past you will be deemed available if selected.

Absolutely spot on.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree I am afraid. I do understand the difference – although would think diving for an advantage in a soccer world cup final might be more morally corrupt than ball tampering -and have no problems with suspensions and sanctions of a lesser nature. I just think the hysteria in the current situation is unwarranted and unhealthy.

Well written Junior. About time this has been called for what it is and the media held responsible for their exaggerated, sanctimonious and at times misleading reporting. The mainstream cricket journalists are the ones whom i hope feel the wrath of the current players in this situation. I would love the Australian Cricket team to ban conversations with certain reporters from this point forward based on their representation of facts during this past week.

Cooling off period is key.

Totally agree James and Duncan and Internal Fixation.
This has absolutely summarised what I was going to write.
I hope for Ken’s sake he doesn’t follow sports like soccer, AFL, or the rugby codes where ‘cheating’ takes place in the majority of contests for the ball to some degree. I am surprised he watches cricket with the amount of non-walking batsmen and incessant appealing bowlers playing the game.

I guess I’ll have to switch off soccer, and rugby league, oh yes and AFL, and then unless they get rid of the openside breakaways and the scrum in rugby union, I’ll have to turn off the rugby too. NFL gone, baseball nope, cycling, sprinting – actually most athletics. So I guess if there is no point watching any sport that is tainted by cheating, I’m going to have to learn to talk to my wife more as TV will be off. Wait on … golf …oh no that’s right Tiger cheated on Elin.

1. Punishment outweighs the crime.
2. Had cricket Australia pulled David Warner in to line much earlier none of this would likely have happened.
3. What is the timeframe involved in the definition of “premeditated”? It seems as if a large basis of the sanctimonious commentary (not necessarily by the above author) hinges on the planning of the event. I would argue premeditated means considerable planning. There didn’t seem like a lot of pre planning before this event. The idea of this being well thought out and calculated tactic is questionable and I would suggest when considering punishment, this event was just as spontaneous as Atherton and others in the past.

Absolutely agree Simon, with the only added rider that some of the mainstream journalists who have cast opinions rather than report facts, should also be sanctioned or boycotted.

Spot on Ban. Well said. Only hysterical journalists should lose their jobs over this.

History and experience says short leg always get the job. Touches the ball the most.

Pretty sure a 25 year old can make his own choices.