0:00

Have a catch yourself eating the same flavorless dinner

0:02

three days in a row, dreaming of

0:04

something better? Well, HelloFresh is your

0:06

guilt-free dream come true, baby. It's

0:08

me, Giggy Palmer. Let's wake

0:11

up those taste buds with

0:13

hot, juicy pecan-crusted chicken or

0:15

garlic butter shrimp scampi. Mm,

0:17

HelloFresh. HelloFresh. Stop

0:20

dreaming of all the delicious possibilities

0:22

and dig in at hellofresh.com. Let's

0:25

get this dinner party started. Question

0:36

one and your starter for a perfect ten

0:39

was this. How many different colors

0:41

are on the national flag of Greece? And

0:43

the answer is there are two colors and they

0:45

are blue and red. So

0:56

if you haven't joined our discourse channel,

0:58

you're missing out because there's lots of

1:01

big discussions happening on our recently

1:03

launched discourse channel. But I don't

1:05

think we can say recently launched because it's been going for well

1:08

over a month now. And for those of

1:10

you who want to know how to get onto that

1:12

discourse channel, if you're vaguely interested in anything to do

1:14

with sports science, you can join

1:16

our Patreon community and you can go to

1:18

patreon.com and look for the Science of Sport

1:21

podcast. And once you're on Patreon, you can

1:23

donate a small amount of money. And it

1:25

really is a relatively small amount of money. And

1:27

then you get access to our discourse channel. And

1:29

Professor Ross Tucker, who is with me here at

1:32

the moment, is there pretty much

1:34

every single day and answering a lot of the

1:36

questions, although you can't get to absolutely. Oh, yeah,

1:38

I'm still falling behind. I log on there and

1:40

then there's a thing that says how many unread

1:42

categories have you got and I despair every time

1:44

I see because I feel like I'm spending time.

1:47

But the creation of content is

1:49

just so rapid and it's all good stuff.

1:51

You know, it's people sharing their training

1:54

experiences, people sharing podcasts that listen

1:57

to the sports science land, discussing

2:00

our podcast which has always added value for people.

2:02

So it really has, I could not have imagined

2:04

that it would have been any better than its

2:06

benefits. It's just been amazing. So

2:08

if you are interested in this world of sports

2:10

dance that we talk about pretty much every single

2:12

time we do a podcast and you have friends

2:14

who would like to be involved in that, don't

2:16

forget you can also point them in that direction

2:18

as well as well as listening to our podcast

2:20

which is kind of where we all started when

2:22

we started doing this almost five years ago now.

2:25

So today we have a very special

2:28

podcast in that we had the opportunity

2:30

to be involved with the team from

2:32

World Rugby and they

2:34

invited us onto a panel discussion

2:37

where they discussed the debate around

2:39

spectacle versus the safety of the

2:41

game of Rugby Union. And

2:44

the main topics were really whether

2:46

there is a weakening

2:50

of the game, in other words in terms of

2:52

its spectacle because of the safety of the players

2:54

or whether there was being enough done for the

2:56

safety of the players. And I think

2:58

Ross, you will see it during this podcast and what

3:01

we will do is we are going to literally play

3:03

the panel discussion that happened which was, contains

3:05

some real knowledgeable people on

3:07

it who really understand the game really really well. I

3:09

am opinionated too which was cool. Exactly and I think

3:12

what is fascinating about that is you get a real

3:14

players view and we are going to be talking to

3:16

some players you know the game really

3:18

well to get their view on this whole

3:20

debate. And it is something that World Rugby

3:23

is grappling with, isn't it? Yeah

3:25

and I mean for the sake of

3:27

disclosure I am part of the welfare week because I

3:29

consult and do a lot of research for World Rugby

3:32

and help, or try to help anyway

3:34

making some of the decisions around what we try

3:36

and do for player welfare and how and so on.

3:39

And it is funny like in the

3:41

last six months I

3:44

have become acutely aware of

3:46

the tension and the

3:48

tradeoffs that exist between what we play

3:50

welfare trying to do and

3:53

some of the barriers that exist from

3:55

within the game. Not for selfish

3:57

stubborn reasons but just because that is how

4:00

it is and that's one of the things that

4:02

will come out here. It makes me

4:04

question whether I was oblivious to it for the

4:06

four years before or whether there's

4:08

something changing in the landscape and maybe

4:10

it's a little bit of both. I hope it's

4:12

not only the former but definitely

4:15

in the last six months there's been a

4:17

shift in the voice of the game and

4:20

when I talk about the voice of the

4:22

game I'm for now excluding us, World Rugby's

4:24

welfare side from it. So that

4:27

means you leave behind the coaches, the players,

4:29

the match officials who are

4:32

not too strong to say

4:34

rejecting some of the safety initiatives but

4:36

they are holding their

4:38

ground against some of those and

4:40

that's amplifying a degree of tension.

4:42

So I talk now

4:44

about the importance of collaboration. It's always been

4:47

there but you'll hear in the interviews that

4:49

you're about to listen to and the opinions

4:51

of Ugo and Kate and Sarah that

4:54

it's not even about collaboration, it's

4:56

about player welfare being player led

4:59

and that's actually one behind the other

5:01

not lock step because if

5:03

the players and the match officials and especially

5:05

the coaches don't buy in and

5:07

they don't accept that you will get exactly what

5:09

you're about to hear from Ugo and Kate and

5:12

I was surprised to hear it. I was happy

5:14

to hear it. We had no idea

5:16

what they were going to say in response to our questions but

5:18

I was surprised at the direction that some of

5:20

these answers took us in. I don't know about

5:22

your expectations going in but I was surprised because

5:25

you often hear like it often this

5:27

debate just falls into cliche. Yeah we really

5:30

care about player welfare, we fully back blah

5:32

blah blah that didn't come out in

5:35

this. This was an honest conversation I felt.

5:37

I don't know what your thoughts were. Yeah

5:39

I would agree. Let's just I mean

5:42

before we kind of get into it because

5:44

we don't discuss this so much in the

5:46

context of why this is important. You discussed

5:48

some of the issues involved but let's just

5:50

talk about the context of why this debate

5:52

and why this tension exists. Why does rugby

5:54

have to look after the safety of players?

5:56

Why can't it just continue the way it

5:58

is? Right now. The

6:00

specific reason is concussion. Rugby is

6:02

a concussion generating sport because

6:05

of the volume of exposure that it creates. You

6:07

know, you've got 30 players for 80 minutes involved

6:10

in 500 contact

6:12

events per team per match. That's a

6:14

thousand contact events. Now, some of them

6:16

are I'm standing loosely at a rack.

6:18

That's counted as a contact event. There's

6:20

no real risk to me. But hundreds

6:22

of them are tackles and rack entries

6:24

and direct defenses contesting the ball in

6:27

amongst fast-moving players and knees and heads

6:29

and arms and shoulders. And

6:31

the reality is that whilst the per player

6:33

risk might be relatively low, when you put

6:35

30 players through that in 30

6:38

matches on a given weekend during peak

6:41

rugby season, you are producing concussions. And

6:44

those concussions have implications. And then

6:47

there are for every one concussion, there are

6:49

hundreds of head impacts that don't reach the

6:51

threshold to cause a concussion. They're what's

6:54

called by some people sub concussive. I

6:56

would call them non concussive, but they

6:58

may have health implications too. So

7:01

the thing that rugby

7:03

is grappling with is how does it continue

7:05

to be a popular,

7:08

enjoyed, embraced sport given

7:10

the risk when

7:13

the interventions

7:15

designed to reduce that risk might change

7:17

the essence of the sport. Because

7:20

rugby wants to both embrace its physicality

7:22

and downplay the risks that that physicality

7:24

creates. And that's a real tension. So

7:27

that's why rugby is dealing with it. And we

7:29

are, there's lawsuits, right? No, you don't. I

7:31

was going to say the cynic enemies suggest

7:34

that we know what's happened with the NFL.

7:36

Yeah. Where former players have brought legal

7:39

cases against them saying they did not do

7:41

enough to chat. I mean, it's happened for

7:43

rugby already. So that is one of the

7:45

reasons why. Isn't the only reason? No, I

7:47

think obviously the cynic

7:49

in you and everyone else listening to this is

7:51

going to say that, right? And of course, it's

7:54

a factor because the, and it should be a

7:56

factor, right? Because the law, by bringing in lawsuit,

7:58

the law is there to create. the degree of accountability

8:01

to hold to account for not doing things

8:03

that they should, whether that's negligence, whether it's

8:05

deliberate, whatever it is. And

8:08

that's not saying that rugby must not say, oh yeah, you

8:10

know what, we were, we weren't. I'm

8:12

not passing a verdict on what that lawsuit is going

8:15

to end up as. But

8:17

the law is a lever by which you can

8:19

hold people to account. And the sport needs to

8:21

hold itself to account. So yes, the lawsuit is

8:23

there. But at the same time, I think

8:25

there is a moral responsibility.

8:28

There is a medical responsibility. And

8:30

of course, there's a legal responsibility to a

8:32

young player, and we'll interview one of them

8:35

now, to say, you're coming in at the

8:37

age of 21. The

8:39

last thing on your mind is your

8:41

status in 2065 when you

8:43

are 60 something years old, maybe younger even. I know that you're

8:45

not interested in that right now. You want to play, you want

8:47

to win, you want to be as good or ugly play as

8:49

you can be. But the sport

8:52

needs to take some responsibility for the

8:54

consequences that that desire to play might

8:56

have for your long term health. And

8:58

that is, again, a calibration

9:00

exercise because it's not to wrap in cotton

9:02

wool. I think you referred to it sometimes

9:04

as just wearing like those protective suits to

9:06

try and minimize the risk as much as

9:08

possible. That's not what you're trying to do.

9:11

You're trying to calibrate that risk reduction

9:13

so that you can have the same

9:15

game with less head

9:18

injury risk, both short term and

9:20

long term. So short

9:22

answer is, of course, there's a legal

9:25

imperative. But there's also a moral imperative,

9:27

a social imperative, a medical imperative to

9:30

try and change that and a performance

9:32

imperative too, because a healthy player is

9:34

a better one. You want to keep as many players

9:36

healthy as you can. Well, whatever

9:38

side of the fence that you stand on

9:40

this issue, we look forward to hearing your

9:42

thoughts either on our Patreon channel

9:45

or our discourse channel or on Twitter

9:47

or anybody we ask you interact with

9:49

us when you listen to this very

9:51

fascinating panel discussion around this very issue.

9:56

If you want to work smarter, you need a

9:58

system with smart built in. Workday

10:00

has AI embedded into the core

10:02

of the system to seamlessly support

10:04

your workflow and deliver unprecedented adaptability.

10:07

Workday, the finance and HR system

10:09

for a changing world. I'm

10:16

sure for all of you that have been

10:18

watching our presentations today, you will see

10:20

some fascinating research that I think kind

10:22

of backs up a lot of what

10:24

the risk involved in rugby is

10:26

and there's no doubt that that is pronounced

10:29

and even though World Rugby is doing a lot in terms

10:31

of its management of that, there's

10:34

no doubt that there is some risk involved.

10:36

So I'd like to welcome some of the guests that

10:39

we're going to have on our panel today. And our

10:41

first panel includes two very special people who are very

10:43

experienced in the world of rugby and of course we're

10:45

going to have Ros Tucker who's going to be joining

10:47

me very shortly. But

10:50

first of all we've got Kate Zachary, who's

10:52

the American woman's captain, a real

10:54

player's voice and from the eating trail finder

10:56

she's a pro player and she's

10:59

experienced more than a decade in the

11:01

game of rugby union and seven world

11:03

caps and she's attracted a lot of

11:05

interest around the sport of women's rugby

11:07

in particular. And

11:10

Ugo Moneo who is an English sports opponent

11:12

and a former rugby union player and for

11:14

those of you in the UK you'll know

11:16

Ugo is one of the well known commentators

11:18

of the game and not only on television

11:20

but also as a commentator on the state

11:22

of the game so welcome to both of

11:24

you. So Kate I'm going to kick

11:26

these off with you first and kind of from

11:29

the players perspective when you see these presentations

11:31

about the risks of the game, how do

11:34

the players view the risk of playing the

11:36

game of rugby union and any kind of

11:38

rugby for that matter? Yeah

11:41

thanks Mike. It

11:44

was interesting especially listening to kind of these last

11:46

few bits and trying to understand a bit more

11:48

about kind of the

11:50

outer view I think because when we especially talk

11:52

about that spectacle versus safety aspect I think particularly

11:55

as bad as it sounds you know as an American I think

11:57

we have so much spectacle in sport you know if you think

11:59

about the NFL. and how exciting. That's

12:01

what I think spectacle and

12:03

how exciting the game is, but I also think of

12:05

everything around it. So it's interesting to think about it

12:08

from the frame of thought too, obviously the on-pitch spectacle.

12:10

And with that, the law changes. You know, we've seen

12:12

a lot taking place in the last few years. We've

12:14

had bunker reviews. I think now we

12:16

talked a lot through the head contact process of the

12:18

foul plays, the degree of danger and so on. But

12:20

I think most interesting actually was that last bit around

12:23

the subs. You know, I think when I think about

12:25

the conversations I have in a locker room, I can't

12:27

say it in my teammates. Like, man, I wish we

12:29

had less subs. That would make the game more exciting.

12:33

Whereas I think what's interesting for

12:35

us, you know, it's about that aspect of how

12:37

you use your bench, how you use those impact

12:39

subs, I think, is that someone

12:41

mentioned with Eddie Jones quoting that term, but

12:43

I think everyone used at this point about, you

12:47

know, if you've got size and speed on the

12:49

bench or if you've just got agility, it's what

12:51

makes your team unique. And I think it's kind

12:53

of exciting. You know, USA traditionally

12:56

doesn't always have the biggest pack, for instance, maybe

12:58

we've got speedy wings and that's what makes our

13:00

team unique compared to someone who has a bigger

13:02

pack. We might opt less for scrums. We might

13:04

choose more for a quick tap or line outs

13:06

or things. So it's interesting to hear,

13:09

even with the sub spectacle versus safety,

13:11

you can kind of see both, but yeah.

13:14

So there's a lot of interesting conversations, I think

13:16

for the players aspect, you

13:18

know, it is important for safety. And in the women's

13:20

game, we have a lot of dual career athletes. So

13:22

when it comes to stepping onto the pitch every weekend,

13:24

whether it's for club or country, most

13:26

of us have to go home at some point and work.

13:28

And so I think from the safety aspect, it's important that

13:30

you can still go to work on a Monday, be

13:33

it training Monday night, Tuesday night, you know,

13:35

on Thursday. So from that aspect,

13:37

the safety is good, but also the spectacle is important.

13:39

You know, we all want the women's game to keep

13:41

growing as it is. And to grow the game, you

13:43

need people in seats, you need an exciting level of

13:46

rugby. And

13:48

so I think it's important to understand why certain

13:50

law changes come in, the importance of them, but

13:52

also the ability to also change them

13:55

as the players have a voice and can

13:57

be a part of that conversation. Then I

13:59

think we can always strike. the right balance of science,

14:01

but then also perception of players on the

14:03

pitch and what they experience. Yeah.

14:07

Okay, I want to bring you in. And obviously

14:09

you've had some heated debates online and I

14:11

saw an interview that you did where one

14:13

of the people was actually saying that the

14:16

game or rugby union should not be played

14:18

at school level because it was tantamount to

14:20

being child abuse. Where

14:23

do you set in terms of where the

14:26

spectacle versus safety of the player is?

14:28

Is it really an issue that you

14:30

think that is something that people have

14:32

to take very seriously? Or do you

14:34

think this whole idea and this tension

14:36

actually is kind of a bit of

14:38

a non-story? I

14:40

definitely don't think it's a non-story. I definitely

14:42

think it's a story that certainly needs to

14:44

be had. But with all

14:46

of these opinions and with all of these

14:48

debates, I think the first thing we've all

14:50

got to accept is so kaleidoscopical. Just speaking

14:52

to Kate there, just about if she was

14:54

to chat to teammates, but hey,

14:57

let's reduce ourselves. No, no, no, no, no,

14:59

no, no. But

15:01

people who perhaps sit on the outside can

15:04

perhaps understand, well, actually what we need to

15:06

create is more fatigue. We're players don't want

15:08

more fatigue. They want to be protected. So

15:10

everyone has a totally different perspective of it.

15:13

Safety is, I

15:16

think is one of the barometers which

15:18

we can use to almost negotiate to

15:20

understand the health of a sport. Because

15:22

if at the very elite end that

15:24

we can present a sport that looks

15:27

like we're doing everything to be as safe as

15:29

possible, then hopefully that drip feeds down to the

15:31

grass roots where mums and dads feel safer, their

15:34

boys and girls to be able to get involved

15:37

in the sport. But it also then can

15:39

become this self-fulfilling prophecy. The more we talk

15:41

about a sport potentially not being safe, the

15:43

more it almost feeds a seed of doubt

15:45

into people's minds. Well, if they're debating it,

15:48

is it because it isn't safe? And

15:50

so it's trying to create that

15:52

balance between creating awareness, having an

15:55

informed debate, but also not scaring

15:57

people off. Because I think we're perhaps at this

15:59

biting point. point whereby I think

16:01

there's so much work being done. I think

16:03

we understand the sport better now than we

16:06

ever have but also by talking

16:11

about it I also think we're scaring people

16:13

off this one. So how

16:15

do you circle that square? I don't quite

16:18

know but I do think the work which

16:20

is being done is absolutely

16:22

essential to create a game which

16:24

is as healthy on the

16:26

pitch as it is on the pitch for everyone involved

16:29

within it. Do

16:31

you think that the spectacle is being affected

16:33

by the rule changes that have been implemented

16:35

the last couple of seasons? Yeah

16:38

absolutely. In what way?

16:41

I think that's the whole point of creating

16:43

rule changes is to create

16:46

a slightly different aspect of something

16:48

so whether it's a goal and

16:50

dropout, whether it's just

16:53

as one example whether it's changing the rules

16:55

with regards to kicking which

16:58

if I could get into it. So I

17:00

mean we debated it just

17:03

last month so there every

17:05

law has been created I think every single

17:07

coach and player tries to manipulate right so

17:09

we have a rule at the moment that

17:11

if you kick the ball 50 metres so

17:13

long as you're not within the 10 metre

17:15

radius you're effectively onside even though

17:17

you're 40 metres in front of the ball. So

17:20

that perhaps is a rule that we

17:22

need to take out because it actually inhibits players

17:24

from running it actually creates

17:27

more opportunity for people to kick it. So

17:29

I think rule changes are great so long

17:31

as it doesn't necessarily change the

17:33

fundamentals of what makes rugby union rugby

17:35

union but I think it's a healthy

17:38

thing that we're always looking at

17:40

ways of which we can either create more

17:43

flow in the game, create more ball

17:45

in play time, create greater opportunities

17:48

for tries and

17:50

also trying to consider that from everyone's

17:52

perspective whether it be the players but

17:54

also fundamentally the spectators as well

17:57

it's not that long ago we went

17:59

into Covid. And we said, our

18:02

sport without fans isn't really sports at all. And

18:04

now they're back, we're like, oh, I'm not sure if

18:06

the fans' opinion is so important.

18:09

Well, let's just go

18:11

back three years. I quite simply

18:13

think it really is quite important. So we

18:15

do have to take on board what our

18:17

consumers, what our customers, what our fans need

18:20

to want to watch and need to watch.

18:24

I'm going to bring in Professor Ross

18:26

Tuckier here, who's not only representing us

18:28

here at the Sciences Sport Podcast, but

18:30

is Will Brogby's research consultant and independent

18:32

scientist. Ross, I mean, this is

18:34

something you're working with quite closely, literally day

18:36

by day. Yeah, I've

18:38

swapped one hat for a set of

18:40

earphones. And so with these

18:42

earphones on, I want to ask both players actually, and OK,

18:46

if it's present and Zugo, you may have to dip into

18:48

the memory banks a little bit. Both

18:50

of your careers have spanned a period

18:52

over which the culture around safety has

18:54

really changed a lot. I'd like

18:56

to know what your

18:58

first reaction was when the safety initiatives

19:01

and drives came about. Did you say

19:03

this is good? We would need this.

19:05

Or did you say this is interference?

19:08

And I want to have a

19:10

candid discussion around whether the sport

19:12

is grudgingly accepting safety initiatives or

19:14

whether it embraces them as

19:17

constructive as opposed to grudge purchases. If

19:20

that makes sense. Yeah,

19:24

I think it's interesting. There's probably a bit

19:26

of both. I think some

19:28

of it's obviously been reactive to things

19:30

that have happened historically. I think you've

19:33

got, with that atone of proactivity. I

19:36

think, for instance, even with like the IMG,

19:38

the mouse guards, I see how that can

19:40

be useful and important and things like that.

19:43

I'll counter, though, did we roll it out too

19:45

quickly? In my experience with the women's game last

19:48

year, we rolled it out at WXV. It

19:51

wasn't well rolled out, frankly. And

19:53

so it was one of those that players were a bit confused.

19:56

I don't think they were confident in it or how it was being

19:58

used. And after learning more

20:00

about it you continue to then understand the importance and

20:02

how we can use it and even listening to what

20:04

live in the had to say with some of the

20:07

data, again more and more like this is

20:09

great to hear about the differences, the play

20:11

of the humans and how we're going to apply it and things. Sometimes

20:15

do we maybe roll it out too quickly because we

20:17

are trying to fix a narrative that's out in the

20:19

media. And is it actually for the players is it

20:21

more to protect rugby and the union

20:23

itself and so it's, and

20:25

it's always a bit of to those worlds and

20:27

then how does it actually affect the players who

20:29

are playing and have to kind of showcase the

20:31

changes and if you don't get there by and

20:34

it's also not kind of maybe not

20:36

help the media flurry either is it. It

20:40

is interesting that you talk about the

20:43

media because it's one of

20:45

the largest discussion points that we have

20:47

in our game is head injuries, concussion,

20:49

what happens when you retire and the

20:51

safety and the health of your brain.

20:54

And they're all really important obviously

20:56

extremely valid. But

20:58

I think we're, and there's loads of different sides to I'm

21:00

just going to take one angle

21:02

for a second but that doesn't mean I'm so

21:04

undemanded to mean anything else of course it's important

21:06

I say that before people attack you is,

21:10

I think our sport is becoming certain

21:14

over the last years become scared of itself.

21:17

And we're a physical contact slash

21:20

combat sport. That is the essence

21:22

of who we are and what we are. And

21:24

that needs to be celebrated. It's one

21:26

of the reasons why people play our

21:29

sport. It's why we choose rugby union

21:31

over other sports because it

21:33

has a contact element and whilst understand this different

21:35

variations of our games you can play tag, you

21:37

can play touch you can play all those things.

21:42

And we're talking about 15s contact

21:44

sport. And at the nucleus

21:46

and the core of our sport is contact.

21:50

And we need to celebrate it whilst trying to mitigate

21:52

against and try and create an

21:54

environment where is the safest possible and

21:56

the players need to be protected

21:58

from themselves and to answer your questions. Your question,

22:01

Ross, back in my day,

22:04

I retired nine years ago now, I

22:07

remember bringing in things like Cog Sport where we

22:09

had to have a cognitive baseline test at the

22:11

start of the season. Pleasure

22:13

used to cheat that. By cheat that, I mean,

22:15

we used to, it might be a

22:17

memory test, it could be a reaction test, but

22:20

the lower the baseline level test

22:22

that we had, the easier you

22:25

would be able to actually pass

22:27

it if you had a head

22:29

injury or potential concussion. So we,

22:31

when we aware of the effects

22:34

of concussion, I think we perhaps

22:36

knew enough, but by

22:38

trying to cheat a system whereby you could

22:40

return to play as quick as you could,

22:43

that would perhaps understand that we either

22:45

didn't have, we were either ignorant or

22:47

weren't informed. I think we're informed, we're

22:49

definitely ignorant. And the number one factor,

22:52

or number one driving factor for

22:54

us was getting back to the pitch as

22:56

quick as possible. And why

22:59

I know it's massively changed because you should look

23:01

at the men, Six Nations, which finished just a

23:03

few weeks ago, you've got

23:05

a young gun like Emmanuel Feirobosa from

23:07

Exeter Chiefs, and he

23:09

played against Ireland. And as

23:11

I just listened to you just recently,

23:13

Ross, about not necessarily delayed concussion, but

23:16

how some of the symptoms can show

23:18

themselves a little bit later. Well,

23:20

Emmanuel Feirobosa, he played against Ireland,

23:22

and then on the Monday, he

23:24

reported that he had symptoms of

23:26

concussion. To contextualize it,

23:29

he's also studied medicine, I don't

23:31

know exactly in what genre, but

23:33

this is a player of today

23:35

with less than five caps. That

23:37

is, we've drawn himself from

23:40

an international match and losing

23:42

out on a cap, because

23:44

he totally understands the

23:46

safety element of our sport. I

23:49

think back in my day, had I had delayed

23:52

representation of concussion, would I be going

23:54

into the doctor on a Monday saying,

23:57

I'm out of concussion, I'm not playing

23:59

against France? in Leon this weekend and

24:01

lose that international cap. I'm just going

24:03

to be honest, there was no chance,

24:06

absolutely no chance

24:08

I'd be having that conversation. And so

24:11

I'm saying this not because, only

24:14

because I think back in the day it was perhaps a badge

24:16

of honor. If you went down, it

24:18

would be a case of just get back

24:20

onto your feet. So it's really important to

24:23

illustrate and underline how the needle and the

24:25

dial has really changed, not

24:27

just people like yourselves on this call who

24:29

are trying to talk about the safety element

24:31

of our sport, but how it's filtered into

24:34

players and that they truly get a buy

24:36

into it as well. So,

24:39

Kate, I mean, I think what it is

24:41

sort of suggesting is that you can apply

24:43

a whole bunch of rules that will ensure

24:45

the safety of the players, but

24:47

getting the players to comply for

24:50

their own benefit is probably the

24:52

biggest tension between those two agendas.

24:56

Yeah, yeah, and I think Igo brings up a good point.

24:58

I remember when I first kind of got into 15 and

25:02

I had my first experience of our like pre-concussion

25:04

test, yeah, it's like, if you get it too

25:06

good, then are you actually going to pass it

25:08

when the game? Because I think

25:10

I remember years ago, I did one at a

25:13

World Cup and I think two in that moment

25:15

post during my concussion World Cup, I was like, have

25:17

we also factored in though the emotion

25:19

of doing a concussion test in the midst

25:21

of the semi-final? I did one against New

25:23

Zealand in 2017 and

25:25

I had five doctors all staring at me,

25:27

including my doctor, you've got a game on

25:29

the line, representation for a country, and they're

25:31

like, can you remember these seven words?

25:34

And I'm like, no, I can't remember bubble, saddle,

25:36

fork, anything right now, but it's not necessarily

25:38

because I'm concussed, it's also because there's an emotional

25:40

state and things. And I mean, as you learn

25:42

and grow as players, it's some of its experience

25:44

of the player and understanding though, in hindsight afterwards,

25:47

I was like, maybe I was a little concussed.

25:49

In the moment, like Igo was even saying, I probably

25:51

would have argued to anyone to try to get back

25:53

on that pitch, but the more you understand the symptoms,

25:55

the more you understand the importance. But I think it's

25:57

also a bit of trust as well. And

25:59

that's... comes with consistency in your coach's consistency

26:02

in your medical staffing as well. And so

26:04

not only do you understand the symptoms, but

26:06

you also trust your team behind the scenes

26:09

that, you know, Emmanuel, like, for instance,

26:11

he feels confident that he can go to his medical

26:13

team set out that game, but that

26:15

doesn't affect his relationship with the coach and

26:17

his selections in the future. He's confident his

26:19

abilities and the coaches selection criteria that if

26:22

he looks out for himself, that's actually good for him

26:24

and the team. So it's kind of this layer of

26:26

players confidence and the team players

26:29

understanding and feeling

26:31

confident to report those symptoms and then feeling that

26:33

they'll be taken care of by the system. So

26:35

it's a bit of like how many rules are

26:37

put in place? How are those given

26:39

to players and how are they actioned by the team

26:41

who supports them? Sorry, can I just

26:44

jump off the back of that? I think the

26:46

biggest thing is just truly understanding. If

26:48

you look at the different categories

26:50

and areas where players become

26:52

solely responsible for their actions,

26:55

whether it's in preparation

26:57

on the field of play and

26:59

then in recovery, whether it's

27:01

your diet, your nutrition, your mental well-being, we

27:04

almost need to be experts in all of

27:06

those. And it's absolutely impossible for everyone to

27:08

be experts. I remember the first time I

27:10

went into training. Hi,

27:14

everyone. No longer Ugo, but instead me,

27:16

because at this very moment, we

27:18

had a technical failure, one of the pitfalls

27:21

of doing a live recording. I don't know

27:23

what happened exactly. Someone somewhere decided to boil

27:25

a kettle and make a cup of tea

27:27

and they unplugged a crucial device. But basically

27:30

what it did is it cut

27:32

Ugo off for about two minutes. And unfortunately,

27:35

the point he was making was lost. So

27:37

it falls to me instead to try and

27:39

paraphrase what he was about to say. And

27:42

that was that when he began training,

27:44

he was told as a young player by

27:46

the nutritionists that he needed to take creatine.

27:48

And he had no idea what this meant,

27:50

but he went along with it because that's

27:53

what the experts within his team were telling

27:55

him to do. And the broader

27:57

point that he was trying to get at is that players

28:00

will often do what they are told because they

28:02

kind of have to. But

28:04

if you really want them to come

28:06

along the journey with you, you have

28:08

to help them understand and take responsibility

28:10

for what they do for their own

28:12

professional performance and development. And

28:15

for player welfare purposes, the same would

28:18

be true. And so he was basically

28:20

saying that a lot of the time

28:22

the players are not necessarily aware and

28:24

can't take ownership because they lack understanding

28:26

around what some of those player welfare

28:28

initiatives are. And part of that

28:30

is because the players don't prioritize it. They just want

28:32

to go out there and perform. And

28:35

what player welfare is trying to do

28:37

is often seen as someone else's problem,

28:40

something they're not specifically interested in. And

28:43

so we, the player welfare side,

28:45

need to do a better job of

28:48

educating and bringing understanding in

28:50

order to change attitudes and behavior. So

28:52

he made that point with better examples

28:54

than I can provide and more eloquently

28:56

than I can. But then suddenly

28:58

the power came back on and we were

29:00

able to resume from where he left off.

29:03

Yeah. So, Ugo, so given

29:06

what you've just said there, on a scale

29:08

of one to ten, where one is Ugo

29:10

Maungia's knowledge of creatine back in your playing

29:12

days and ten is fully enlightened

29:15

and aware of the safety risks, how

29:18

well would you say players are currently

29:20

educated about the welfare risks and the

29:22

initiatives like mouth guards, law change and

29:24

so forth? Because I sometimes feel that

29:27

we have great theory and we just

29:29

really fall down on implementation and

29:31

education is such a big part of that. So actually

29:34

to both of you, like where would you rate our

29:36

ability to get the message into the

29:39

stakeholders currently? I

29:43

think the effort made to get the

29:46

messaging out would be at an all

29:48

time high, greater than I've ever seen

29:50

it. But I think there's a

29:52

number of things which need to be factored in. Whilst

29:55

offering information is really important, it'd

29:57

be no different to... If

30:01

during a team meeting, the coach

30:03

starts talking about scrum play, I'm

30:05

switching off. Whilst it might

30:08

be relevant to me, it kind of bores me

30:10

because I'm not in the heart of the action.

30:13

I often feel rugby players a little bit

30:15

like that when it comes to brain health

30:17

and concussion. We really need

30:19

to understand and hear it. It's just

30:21

not the most interesting thing I'm going to

30:24

hear today. So I'll nod and

30:26

they'll put in time, that'll be before the start of

30:28

the season, to talk about, hey, by

30:31

the way, this has been brought in or whatever.

30:33

So they'll be aware of it as to the

30:35

degree they buy into it. Of course, so I

30:38

do think it is worth just noting that human

30:41

behaviour is something which is very hard

30:43

to control as well

30:45

as it is for interest levels. But

30:48

all the game can do is try

30:50

and get as much information out there

30:52

as possible. The other thing just worth

30:54

noting is whilst people campaign and often

30:56

look and want for change, and I

30:58

mean positive change, it's

31:00

also human behaviour to

31:03

often resist change. And

31:07

that's just a natural thing. I think it takes a little

31:09

while. You get into this biting point

31:11

where you get the change that you're looking for,

31:14

you resist it, and then that

31:16

change of heads in and then you have

31:18

a proof that the change that you've resisted

31:21

is actually to the benefit of the

31:23

game, and then it's there as

31:25

if it's forever been there. So that might be

31:28

my takeaway of that. I

31:31

think it's a take the opportunity to bring in Sarah Byrne,

31:33

who I'm going to ask Sarah just to switch her camera

31:35

on because we want to see your face as much as

31:37

we want to hear your voice. Sarah

31:39

has had an international career with England

31:41

under 20 as a back row forward,

31:44

and since converted to proper, she has

31:46

thrived since taking on that position. She

31:48

was player of the year in

31:50

2019, and she was shortlisted for

31:52

the TikTok Women's Six Nations as well.

31:55

So, Sarah, you come into

31:57

this game as a younger member of

31:59

the... player fertility, how do

32:01

young players view the risk

32:03

versus spectacle debate? Is

32:05

there concern over the risks involved in

32:07

playing the sport? I

32:12

don't think so at all. It's not

32:15

something that goes around the Red Roses group.

32:17

It's a game people want to play it. They want to play

32:20

for fun. That's

32:22

what everyone does. So really, like, yes, in

32:24

terms of the high tackles, that's probably something

32:26

because that is something we know that is

32:28

unsafe. So if there's a way that we

32:30

can manage that, which has

32:32

been like far better managed within the women's

32:34

game recently, there's

32:36

no, to be

32:38

honest, it doesn't come up in

32:40

conversation within the Red Roses camp. Do

32:43

you think there is that? I mean, within

32:45

your fraternity, obviously there are, it's a

32:48

fairly high level of the sport. If you look

32:50

at the sport and its development and its younger

32:52

players that are coming through, do

32:54

you think there are some radical

32:56

discussions about whether they should be

32:58

contacted at school, for instance? What

33:00

is your view on that? I

33:03

think there should be contact in school. I think

33:05

actually it's far more dangerous. Like if you're not

33:07

letting someone tackle and you're trying to get

33:09

them to learn these movements, which are

33:12

really difficult movements when they put

33:14

puberty and their body changes, it's then

33:16

twice more challenging to get into those

33:19

movements and be able to use those

33:21

patterns well enough

33:23

if you've not practiced it when you're

33:25

young. So my personal opinion is that

33:27

it's really dangerous if we take out

33:30

contact. It's a contact sport. There's many

33:32

contact sports. It's not a form of

33:34

child abuse. If you don't want your

33:36

child to play it, they don't have to play it,

33:38

but I do think you're then limiting their opportunities and

33:41

limiting who they're going to be

33:43

around and just limiting them a chance to

33:45

live their own life. So I

33:48

personally think that is actually the wrong step. I

33:50

think what we should do is teach really

33:53

effective to tackling and

33:56

safe tackling and concussion

33:58

symptoms from a really young age and

34:00

people will start to know faster themselves. We

34:03

could get next strength working

34:06

through young age groups because that doesn't happen,

34:08

particularly in the women's game, you're lucky to

34:10

get strength and conditioning until

34:12

you're in a pre-hearship club.

34:14

So, yeah, I think there's ways

34:16

we can educate and we can make it safer.

34:18

I think the wrong thing to do would be

34:21

to take it out completely. Yeah,

34:23

that's actually, when Lindsay

34:25

presented earlier, she showed a couple

34:28

of slides and stats on the

34:30

proportion of head accelerations that happen

34:32

in training being significantly higher in women than in

34:34

men. And then your first response to that

34:36

is, you say, well, you know what, we could

34:38

actually manage the women's head load by just intervening

34:41

at the level of training. But the problem is

34:43

those head accelerations might be necessary because they

34:45

might be part of adaptation. And if you take

34:47

them out, it's almost like

34:49

to me analogous to saying to a marathon runner, you're

34:51

going to race 42Ks, but you may not

34:53

manage to train more than 10. I

34:55

know that marathon runners are not finishing and

34:58

breaking down with injury. And that's kind

35:00

of like what you've just said, Sarah, is there's always

35:02

been our rationale for also pushing back and

35:05

saying, let's just be cautious about

35:07

saying less contact in training, because that contact

35:09

in training might be the very thing that protects

35:11

you in the match. It's

35:13

another classic example of that trade-off where

35:15

you can do something with every good

35:18

intention and you end up creating an

35:20

unintended consequence that makes the overall picture

35:22

worse. Yeah, there are

35:24

some complications in that because that's sort

35:26

of the adolescent area you've got players

35:28

that might be the same age, but

35:30

different sizes. There might be

35:32

young players who

35:35

don't develop as fast as other players within

35:37

their age group and therefore the injury risk

35:39

is higher. So I think there's a lot

35:41

of evidence, there's a lot of logical arguments

35:44

to suggest that might work. Do you still

35:46

believe that that is still not

35:48

good for the game in the long term? No,

35:51

I don't think so. I think

35:55

that's where it has to be

35:57

managed. If you're teaching... effective

36:00

tackles, choptackles, that people's,

36:03

it doesn't matter, like it's different in the

36:06

men develop so drastically different. In the women's

36:08

game, like if you have a larger

36:10

player, like try

36:13

even you teach a chop

36:15

tackle, their legs or their ankles will

36:17

still be the same size as your back.

36:19

I think it's how do you cope, how do

36:22

you cope, is it safe, how

36:24

is it being managed, is there ways that can

36:27

separate out. I think getting rid of it

36:29

altogether, I think in my own experience, if

36:32

I don't contact training, I

36:34

feel more playing than when I

36:37

do regular contact training. I have to be

36:39

managed because in a professional environment you could

36:41

get exposed to far too much contact and

36:43

then that's the other side, that's dangerous. Well

36:45

I think just the right amount where you

36:48

feel the effects and you are more functional

36:50

in the game, I think that's the most

36:52

important thing. I think you look at people

36:54

who have injuries, long-term injuries, they come back,

36:56

they generally get injured again and again and

36:59

it falls into this cycle of having a

37:01

long-term injury, exposure to rugby, a long-term injury,

37:03

exposure to rugby and that's what causes the

37:05

recurring injury because you haven't, like

37:07

the load has changed, it's too high and I

37:10

personally think when I'm exposed to more

37:12

contact and in a safe

37:14

environment, that's when I can be the best player

37:17

I can be and I think where

37:19

I am today because I was exposed

37:22

to a lot when I was younger

37:24

in a very safe way. Yeah, makes

37:26

a lot of sense. Let's bring in

37:28

NFLB who is an Irish senior rugby

37:30

doctor from 2009, he

37:32

went to the rugby ball caps in that position in 2011 and 2015. He's

37:34

an active member

37:37

of the Irish sports medicine community and one of

37:39

the most outspoken members around us and I think

37:41

NFLB, for us to hear from you from a

37:44

sort of a medical perspective,

37:47

what are your views on the

37:49

spectacle versus the safety of the

37:51

players scenario? Are we facing

37:54

a crisis here in World Rugby as a result

37:56

of this tension? Everybody

37:58

wants change but nobody's wants to

38:00

change. So that's the tension

38:02

we have and I think we all

38:04

understand that and we all appreciate it.

38:06

We will disagree at times but we

38:08

all want to get to the same

38:11

place which is understanding that this is

38:13

a contact sport. People are playing it

38:15

because they want to be involved in

38:17

a contact sport and our job in

38:19

the medical department is to make that

38:21

sport as safe as we can within

38:23

the confines of understanding that it is

38:25

still a contact sport and we need

38:27

to keep the essence of the sport

38:29

going. So I think it's

38:31

always good to hear from the people

38:33

who are out there who

38:36

are in the middle of this, hearing Sarah's

38:38

opinion on this. We have good data from

38:41

places like Canada where a lot

38:43

of women joining will be joined quite

38:46

late and their playing age is the

38:48

big risk factor in their risk of

38:50

head injury. So that very much backs

38:53

off the point of view. When you

38:55

have a lower risk, your ability to

38:57

teach contact at a lower age in

39:00

a safer environment probably makes more sense

39:02

than banning it until you have bigger

39:04

athletes who have less skill and are

39:09

attaining the skill set of tackling later.

39:11

That's a more risky proposal than doing

39:13

it when they're younger and they're moving

39:15

more slowly and the objects that are

39:17

moving are smaller as well. So I

39:19

think there's a lot in all of

39:22

this and it's great to hear from

39:24

both sides of

39:27

the approach today. I'm

39:29

interested to hear your views on what Yoo-Goo was saying

39:31

earlier, this idea that

39:34

is it not a case of it always being a

39:36

compromise because you have to, if you can't go on

39:40

completely safety and you can't go completely in

39:42

spectacle, do you think it is going to

39:44

be a case where there is a compromise

39:46

on both sides of those arguments to keep

39:48

the game in a safe space and is

39:50

it a constantly moving target? There

39:53

has to be, there has to be and

39:55

I think, you know, as Kate alluded to

39:57

a while ago, sometimes amongst the players there's

39:59

a big that measures that

40:01

are being put in place aren't just for

40:03

player safety therefore to protect the game or

40:05

to move that on. I think I

40:08

start most of my talks with saying the health of

40:10

our game depends on the health of our players and

40:13

if we don't have a healthy playing population who

40:15

are happy and enjoying their play we don't have

40:18

a game. In the same way as Hugo said

40:20

if we don't have spectators who enjoy watching the

40:22

game we don't have a game either so there

40:24

have to be compromises along the way in this

40:26

and I think you know what unfortunately in some

40:29

of the age we live in you know I

40:31

will always come first with a player welfare point

40:33

of view I will if I

40:35

could take every head contact out of the game

40:37

possibly I would but that's not

40:39

going to be compatible with some of the

40:42

things that players want to be able to

40:44

do in the game so I'm gonna have

40:46

to compromise on that and other people are

40:48

going to have to compromise in other ways.

40:50

Where this debate becomes difficult is where people

40:52

take a black and white approach and

40:55

don't agree that there should be any compromise in this

40:57

space I think that there has to

40:59

be for this to thrive. Okay

41:02

just a couple of questions from people they're joining

41:04

us on the chat today what are them suggesting

41:06

and I'll read what it says here I also

41:08

heard both Kate and Hugo say that players feel

41:10

left out of the decision-making process in

41:13

other words only consulting means they tokenized

41:15

while the power to make decisions are people

41:17

who believe etc etc but what they're suggesting

41:19

Kate is that players aren't

41:22

involved enough in the decision-making process

41:24

but would you agree or disagree

41:26

with that? Yeah

41:29

I think it's I mean if we're

41:31

talking the context of games and trainings you

41:34

know that comes with the trust of your staffing

41:36

I think when it comes to law changes and

41:38

things like that could we you know

41:40

we've got different councils who kind of get

41:42

feedback and things but are they the loudest

41:44

voice in the room I would be hesitant

41:46

sometimes of like I'm not sure about that

41:49

and I think when it comes down to player

41:51

management in the pitches and in the locker

41:53

rooms in your clubs and on your teams and

41:56

it's all it's a bit more about the education

41:58

aspects do you even know what you're advocating for

42:01

and do you know how to advocate? And do

42:03

you understand what it is you're advocating? Like Ugo

42:05

kind of hinted at, do players even understand

42:08

what it is they should be looking for? What are the

42:10

symptoms and why are they important and why

42:12

should you flag them? What's going to be

42:15

the process after you flag them and how

42:17

do you work through that? I think

42:19

it's important to understand a bit of... I look

42:22

at it at two points with that question as well. Like

42:24

I said, is it the law changes? Do they understand? Are

42:26

they part of that? But I do think they have... do

42:29

they understand enough to make

42:31

the appropriate decisions? Because if not, we're all going

42:33

to make the decision to play. But that's two,

42:35

I think we've hinted that's where medical also has

42:37

to come in. They have to speak

42:40

with the player from the safety mindset of the

42:42

player, the longevity of their career. And

42:45

so I will say it's probably a bit team

42:47

dependent, it's a bit individual dependent and even experienced.

42:49

You know, me 10 years ago, I probably

42:52

didn't feel like I had a voice. Whereas now

42:54

I feel like I can also go to my

42:56

medical team and say, look, I've got this thing

42:58

going on. Here's what I'd like to

43:00

trial first. What do you think with like return to

43:02

play or even in a match? Here's the symptoms

43:04

that I don't recall this, I don't feel that,

43:06

etc. I know now how to speak to medical

43:09

whereas I would say 10 years

43:11

ago, Kate would have been like, no, thanks. I'll keep

43:13

doing what I'm doing because I just want to play.

43:17

What about at the world rugby level? And maybe

43:19

I know, you've been for the last 12 months

43:21

part of the head contact process calibration group, which

43:23

is a group that meets once a month and

43:26

runs through some clips. And it's got coaches and

43:28

players and former players, match officials and so on

43:30

on it. Because I

43:32

think what we're talking about within the team

43:34

environments is absolutely true. But and

43:37

again, I'm sorry if I'm asking a similar question to what

43:39

I asked before is, it

43:41

really strikes me that we don't speak

43:44

directly to the players in the language that they

43:46

need it to be said. And I want to

43:48

understand from you knowing that some of the inner

43:50

workings of world rugby, how we can do that

43:53

better. The

43:57

only way we could do it better is by actually having

43:59

players. on those calls. I find

44:01

it really interesting just to give

44:03

a brief summary of what those calls are. So

44:05

we get sent some clips all

44:08

from Match Play all around the world and

44:11

we get to decide individually as to whether

44:13

the sanction of that tackle is play on

44:15

yellow card, red card or whatever it is.

44:17

And we debate it and we try and

44:19

formulate a library which is then used to

44:21

be able to use this guide as referees

44:23

going forward. I have these

44:25

conversations offline with players and

44:28

I will go 70% of our group and

44:30

it is a make up as Ross already

44:32

said players and coaches and everything else, referees,

44:34

70% thought that is a red card,

44:36

what do you reckon? That is play on.

44:40

What on earth is going on? What

44:42

do you mean? Like a straight shoulder to

44:45

the head, no mitigation and you think that

44:47

is play on? Oh yeah. So

44:50

I find it fascinating some of

44:52

the players opinions and it really

44:55

does vary depending on your position,

44:57

your club and what hemisphere that you are in.

45:00

Also a lot of dependency is on the style

45:02

of rugby that you play. So I think it

45:04

is so important that we do speak to the

45:06

players and I sit there with World Rugby, part

45:09

of the International Rugby Players Association, we

45:11

have the RPA Rugby Players Association here

45:15

and they are

45:17

certainly listen to their heard and we try

45:19

and lodge their opinions. We also feed it

45:21

back but I am not quite

45:23

sure what more else that can be

45:25

done at this point. Players will tell me there

45:28

is loads more but we also need to hear

45:30

that as well. I

45:33

have a question from one of

45:35

our watchers at the moment, Mossella

45:37

Saka saying he is suggesting that

45:39

if a game is a defensive game

45:42

can it not be as entertaining as a

45:44

game where there are lots of tries. He

45:46

is suggesting that if you have more rules

45:49

and the spectacle is being affected

45:51

by the fact that the game is much more defensive

45:53

and he is saying that a defensive game is

45:56

as good as an attacking game with a high

45:58

score. Would you agree with that? I

46:00

would agree with that. We spoke

46:02

about it in a recent World Rugby

46:04

match, a World Rugby conference. So

46:07

England against Africa and the Rugby World

46:09

Cup despite the outcome, that was fascinating.

46:11

That was gripping really. It was unbelievable wasn't

46:14

it? But so was New Zealand

46:16

against Ireland, which is a completely different type

46:18

of game. Loads of the ball

46:20

in play time you could not even compare.

46:22

What we want in our game is jeopardy.

46:24

I think the one word that often gets

46:27

missing in these

46:29

conversations is quality. We

46:31

just want to see total quality in

46:33

whatever it is, total quality in the execution

46:35

and how a team wants to apply themselves.

46:38

England gets to Africa, it was a wet,

46:40

miserable day, but the quality of the scrum,

46:43

the kick chase, the reception as well

46:45

as what was being done outside of

46:47

that I thought was so gripping. The

46:49

jeopardy in the match went to 77

46:51

minutes and we know what Pollard did.

46:53

Ireland against New Zealand, there's no point

46:55

saying hey what does free flow in

46:57

game but players that can't go more

47:00

than four or five phases. That's

47:02

really boring because what you think you

47:04

started out as is free flow in

47:06

game and turned into a set piece

47:08

to set piece game. The beauty of

47:10

our game is that we can play

47:13

the game of rugby in so many different

47:15

ways and to Kate's point USA having quicker

47:17

wingers but maybe not as big a pack

47:19

could be combated by someone else. It's

47:22

an absolute chess match isn't it where people are

47:24

trying to figure out different ways to be able

47:26

to find solutions. South Africa

47:28

calling a scrum from a

47:30

long kick from France because they wanted to put

47:33

extra fatigue into the game. I don't

47:35

really care much the scrums but the

47:38

South Africans make me care so much

47:40

for scrums and my value for watching

47:42

scrums is all because I watch South

47:44

Africa and how they really buy into

47:46

it. What they do on the bench,

47:49

the type of personnel they have and

47:51

Sarah's probably looking at me thinking this

47:53

is brilliant we've got wingers talking about

47:55

scrums but I think so many

47:57

teams can add so many different aspects to it. so

48:00

that we can all enjoy it. So

48:03

then given what you're saying there about how many

48:05

ways they are to play rugby well and how

48:07

many ways they are to enjoy it. And

48:10

with reference to what was said last

48:13

week by Rob Baxter in

48:15

the news, I'm sure you saw the piece, Ugo,

48:17

where he said, rugby changes the laws too much.

48:19

What are your thoughts? And same question to Kate,

48:21

is does the sport change the

48:24

laws too frequently in

48:26

order to try and get ahead of patterns? And what would

48:28

happen if it was just left for five years? Do you

48:30

think the game would evolve in a direction that is good?

48:33

Or do you think it'd evolve in a bad direction because

48:35

everyone's trying to find another way to win? I

48:39

think from, okay,

48:41

we've got lawmakers and

48:45

then you've got playing group that's coaches

48:47

as well as players. I

48:49

think there was a, and this is not a

48:52

perfect comparison, but it's the only analogy I can

48:54

think of right now. In cycling

48:56

way back when, when Larms Armstrong

48:58

was involved, I felt as if

49:00

like the blood doping and the

49:02

ability to be able to cheat

49:04

the system was

49:08

way out of kilter. So the

49:10

way in which they developed drugs was

49:12

way more sophisticated than people who were

49:14

trying to catch drug takers. If we

49:16

left our game for five years, Kate,

49:19

Smilin, Sarah will absolutely understand, coaches

49:21

will be able to manipulate rules

49:23

at a far greater rate than

49:25

we're actually changing them, 100%. In

49:29

the same way, Sean Edwards and I mentioned about

49:32

the kicking duel and how

49:34

Antoine Dupont and the French coaching

49:36

staff absolutely manipulated that and turned

49:39

what was a

49:42

nice kicking duel into something

49:44

totally unintended, where we can

49:46

see two people involved in

49:48

a game, kicking the ball 60 yards

49:50

with 28 other players playing

49:52

stuck in the mud for minutes on end.

49:55

We could just leave that for five years, or

49:58

we could do something about it. it. We have

50:01

an ever changing game, ever changing shapes. And

50:03

I think it's really important that we try

50:05

to stay on top of it. Okay,

50:08

would you agree? Yeah, I think it's insane.

50:10

I think it's, it's two part because it's,

50:12

I find myself stuck in with our

50:14

argument a little bit, because I do think some things

50:16

that I want to leave some laws because what I

50:18

found in the last couple of years is that we

50:21

changed a few laws, but

50:23

it's also not being applied equally

50:25

across men's games, women's games, grassroots

50:27

games, right? And even again, you

50:30

tackle hype mitigation, taking outside of like

50:32

club games in England, it's sternum and

50:34

the different things. But in the women's

50:36

game, it's too far inconsistent.

50:38

We don't have TMOs, our ARs are

50:41

inexperienced. I think we've got some good ones, but

50:43

we also have a lot of inexperience where because

50:45

they're learning. But so then their understanding of how

50:47

to implement this head action or

50:50

excuse me, the head process is going to

50:52

be different than one of

50:54

the men's referees who's done, you know,

50:56

four World Cups and 100 plus premiership

50:58

games and high competitive games. Their way

51:01

they implement is going to be

51:03

far different than what we experienced and stuff. So it's

51:05

kind of two part. It's, I do think

51:08

part of me says leave some laws, let

51:10

them develop, then let's make sure we're

51:12

backfilling with the referee education, the coach

51:14

education, the player education. But

51:17

on the other hand, if you start to

51:19

see the knock on effects of a 50-22 a

51:21

few years ago, then all we saw was kicking

51:23

happening. But now people have figured out how

51:25

to defend it, which is now exciting, but it's because

51:27

we left it alone. We could have chopped it

51:29

after a year and been like, nah, it actually

51:31

hasn't worked out really well. But now teams have

51:33

figured out how to defend better. Now you've got

51:35

more people in the backfield, which now has turned

51:38

to more running on the sides because now people

51:40

kick, they receive after the third kick, like

51:42

I didn't get 50-22, but now Claudia

51:44

McDonald's got the ball, we're going to send her down the wing

51:47

and she's still going to score a brilliant try from 70 meters

51:49

out now. So certain laws, I

51:51

think you have a knock on effect, but if you give

51:53

it time, teams figure out how to play with it better.

51:56

There are other laws though that we've implemented, but

51:58

do they need to be changed? they just

52:00

need to be applied better and they need to be

52:02

educated better. And that, again, isn't the players, but

52:04

rather the referee support and the coaching

52:06

support. So just on

52:08

that. Sorry, Mike. And at the

52:10

recent World Rugby event

52:13

we had last month, it was interesting. We're talking

52:15

about the Caterpillar Rock and how that just takes

52:17

forever and age and perhaps we need to look

52:19

about how to speed it up. I

52:22

was sat there with an international coach who

52:24

had a solution for what

52:26

we can do to mitigate against that time,

52:28

which is taken up to do that. But

52:30

he'd also found a way in which he

52:33

could manipulate that to basically create another Caterpillar

52:35

Rock. So we found a solution and he'd

52:37

also been able to like crack

52:39

the code of how he was going

52:41

to manipulate that to do it. So

52:43

coaches are already thinking about the solutions

52:46

to the law implementations that we're already

52:48

created and how they can manipulate it

52:50

to only better benefit themselves. So we

52:52

do have to understand that coaches have

52:54

spent many hours trying to tweak the

52:56

laws in itself to best suit themselves.

52:59

Yeah, just on that and to give it a

53:01

play welfare spin with a similar anecdote is when

53:04

the sanctions were introduced and we knew

53:06

that it was going to cause a spike in red cards,

53:08

there was one coach, in fact, more than one. A few

53:10

coaches said, well, if you're going to ask the tackler to

53:12

go lower, I'm going to coach the ball carrier to carry

53:14

low so that it makes it impossible for the tackler to

53:17

tackle him. And you sit there with your head in your

53:19

hands and you say, gosh, we're just

53:21

going to create a race to the ground now, because

53:23

you see, the coach is doing what his job is,

53:25

right? He's trying to find a way to win rugby

53:27

matches. And so they will always react

53:29

to a law and you have to try and anticipate that.

53:32

And it's so difficult because I was in the room when

53:34

that same conversation was happening and it was like a

53:37

it was like a high speed table tennis match of one

53:39

shot back and forth, back and forth. If you do this,

53:41

I'll do that. I'll do this. You do that. It's that's

53:44

where I'd be so fascinating, but unfortunately

53:46

complex. And it's difficult to

53:49

turn that into a public message. You

53:51

know, we've only got about five minutes left. So

53:53

we're going to try and get to as many questions

53:55

as we can. Another one that's come through, it says

53:57

we've heard the relationship between taking injury risk and

53:59

risk. clock and cash and other injuries is measured

54:02

in match time played. How does

54:04

the scrap against the drive for more

54:06

spectacle by increasing matches in club and

54:08

world cup level and reducing recovery time

54:11

between matches? I'm going to ask

54:13

maybe to send this your way because it's a

54:15

difficult one that because the difference is more

54:18

player time because that's

54:20

what professional players want to do

54:23

but it does conflict with the idea

54:25

that it increases injury risk. Yeah,

54:28

absolutely. It's just another one of the conflicts. I mean

54:30

if you ask a professional player what they want to

54:33

do, they want to play games. That's how they earn

54:35

a living. They want to win matches, they want to

54:37

play in the big games, they want to be in

54:39

balance. So you've got

54:41

a situation where in one sense we

54:44

have a scenario where there's a maximum number

54:46

of games that players can play but that

54:49

figure at the moment affects a very very

54:51

small number of players where I think we

54:54

would benefit from would be having

54:56

a really structured pre-season, having a

54:58

structured break for players in season

55:00

and then having an understanding that

55:03

there are pros and cons to this and that

55:05

there are different players who benefit differently from an

55:07

individualized approach. So it's going to suit one player

55:09

to have a break, it's going to suit another

55:11

once they're going well, they want to stay going

55:13

and stay playing and stay training. So I think

55:16

there isn't a one size fits all to this and

55:18

I think one of the things which we

55:21

are quite excited about is that rather than

55:23

looking at games, one of the

55:25

metrics for this could be head impact load. So

55:27

if you're a back row

55:29

forward and you're one of the guys that's getting

55:31

the 12 impacts over 40 Gs in

55:34

a game as opposed to the guy who's getting two,

55:36

then you should probably be having a rest

55:38

a lot sooner than the person who's having

55:40

less of those impacts. So you have a

55:42

situation there where there's an individualized

55:45

approach to that rest

55:47

and try to fit it in

55:49

with a process where it's a game where people

55:51

want to watch it and if the players want

55:54

to play it. So it's trying

55:56

to find a way that is fair for

55:58

people, that is fair for players. for

56:00

the players in particular and that

56:02

is individualised to help players achieve what

56:04

they want to achieve as safely as

56:06

we can. My first thought

56:08

sharing that though and I want to ask Kate

56:10

this is if that was the policy and I

56:12

agree you could definitely manage load in a smart,

56:15

targeted way and then way. What would the

56:17

players do in response? We've heard about action

56:20

reaction. What's the reaction to that, do you

56:22

reckon? Yeah, I think you're

56:24

going to have some reaction. I was in a

56:28

council call this fall and I think we

56:30

were kind of talking about again with the data and

56:32

concussions and this and that and I think you're going

56:35

to have players who they don't

56:37

want to be told when they can't play.

56:39

You know, I think obviously that's a huge

56:41

factor but it just

56:44

have I think the longer I've gotten in my

56:46

career and my experience I'm like yeah I would

56:48

probably appreciate if a coach is like no you're

56:50

going to take this two weeks like you're not

56:52

going to get unfit by taking this two weeks

56:54

off you've played 2400 minutes of rugby in the

56:56

last calendar year

56:58

which is something that's happened recently in the women's

57:01

game at least I know even for the United

57:03

States players with when we're in the prem

57:05

to them when our pack four tournament is in July

57:07

there's two years in a row where I only had

57:09

about 10 days off from rugby and I played over

57:11

2400 minutes of rugby because

57:13

I played 80 minutes of almost every game which isn't

57:16

necessarily always a brag some of that comes to you

57:18

from you know we inexperienced in our

57:20

program so it's about the development of

57:22

all players so you have depth in

57:25

your bench so you can rotate players

57:27

but also more importantly it's about a

57:29

calendar alignment aspect so players can have

57:31

windows where everyone's protected from coaches who

57:33

want players to keep playing but

57:35

then how do you use that data I think within that

57:37

so when you come off you know even with the

57:39

women coming off six nations all right

57:41

you're a player who didn't play many minutes but you

57:43

also had these accelerations here's our recommendation of how

57:46

long you need to be out from and things

57:48

like that I think it will be met with

57:50

toughness because players do want to advocate for themselves

57:52

but I think if you give it plenty

57:54

of education time over the next two years you'll start

57:56

to a new go contact with us earlier I think

57:59

the more you also talk and educate players,

58:01

you'll start to get buy-in. You just have to know

58:03

it's going to take time. And

58:05

so it's about how we talk to the players,

58:07

how you get medical to talk to players or

58:09

coaches and things like that. So it is important

58:11

for the longevity of players careers. The more we

58:13

add games, the more head impacts, the

58:15

faster players get, the heavier, etc.

58:17

I think

58:19

you can get there with players, but yes, I think

58:21

I've already encountered players when I've thrown out ideas. They're

58:24

like, absolutely not. I would say no. And I'm like, okay,

58:26

well, maybe we just need to find a different way to

58:28

explain this to you. Yeah,

58:31

your thoughts? Agreed.

58:35

We're talking about compromise, but I think

58:37

compromise is such a negative connotation to

58:39

it, doesn't it? Because it always automatically

58:42

feels as if you're taking something away

58:44

from me. But if we

58:46

were to look at diet, we

58:48

would never say, hey, you need to have a compromised

58:50

diet. You'd say you need to have a balanced diet

58:53

and you need the X amount

58:55

of this, that and the other. And no

58:57

one's actually taking anything away. You're just having

58:59

a number of things just in moderation. And

59:01

it goes back to Case Point about perhaps

59:03

it is the same message, but just how you package

59:05

it up and wrap it and sell it. It

59:08

can be computed and feel a little bit

59:10

more palatable. So I

59:13

do think we need balance. And that's from

59:15

everyone. Me as a broadcaster, what do I

59:17

want to see? I want to see the

59:19

best players as frequent as possible. But whilst

59:21

understanding, we can't be seeing them every single

59:23

week. And when we don't see them, that

59:25

can't then be a story. Oh, gosh, we're

59:28

not going to get the head to head

59:30

that we wanted. But ultimately,

59:33

you need players to buy in. I know there'll

59:35

be some players that might, that

59:38

fans and broadcasts will be expecting

59:40

to see this weekend as European

59:42

quarterfinal, but have been given a

59:44

weekend off because they

59:46

need a weekend off. How that goes down, I

59:48

think is going to be really interesting. It could

59:50

be a really good case study for us going

59:52

forward. So final

59:54

question, I know there's been some talk

59:56

and there's some proposals out there about changing

59:58

the red card. a rule where players

1:00:01

can be sent off for a red card

1:00:03

and after 20 minutes a replacement can be

1:00:05

put on the field to get the game.

1:00:07

There's also a suggestion from one

1:00:09

of our listeners today

1:00:11

suggesting that maybe they reduce the game to

1:00:13

12 aside so that it's more

1:00:16

of a running game and there's more space for

1:00:18

players to be able

1:00:20

to make a game more respectable that way. I'm

1:00:22

going to ask both of you just to finish

1:00:24

things off and just to kind of give us

1:00:27

your views on radical moves.

1:00:29

Do you think there's a radical space for

1:00:31

changing the game? I'll

1:00:34

be with you, you

1:00:36

go. I

1:00:38

think there's other versions of rugby which

1:00:41

have less numbers than there's been and

1:00:43

I think it's called Rugby League so there

1:00:46

are other options. I kind of want to keep

1:00:48

rugby in and rugby union. We can tinker and

1:00:50

get bored with and sometimes you feel like you

1:00:53

need to tinker for the sake of it and

1:00:55

all this might be better but I don't know.

1:00:57

I just keep the fundamentals of our

1:00:59

game the same. What can we create within that

1:01:01

to make the game as

1:01:04

good as possible? I'm a huge advocate for the

1:01:06

20 minute red card or

1:01:08

the orange card or however it was to be

1:01:10

characterised and for me the

1:01:13

best example I've seen recently was at Rugby

1:01:15

World Cup. I think we've

1:01:17

all established that most red cards that we

1:01:19

see nowadays are actually more mistakes than any

1:01:22

real intended foul play, a side-spec

1:01:24

here or there or someone just

1:01:26

getting their techniques slightly wrong. Sia

1:01:29

Khaleesi, he got yellow carded didn't he

1:01:32

in the Rugby World Cup final. Sam

1:01:34

Kane, he got red carded. The difference

1:01:36

between the tackle heist is about six

1:01:39

inches. One person is

1:01:41

off for 60 minutes, the other one's off for 10

1:01:43

minutes. I don't know. I

1:01:45

think 10-15 years ago when you're seeing

1:01:47

people swinging and punching and that

1:01:49

classic red card is so different to what it

1:01:52

is now and I think we

1:01:54

need to use the

1:01:56

word which has often got negative connotation, compromise

1:01:58

and be more in keeping with

1:02:01

the mistakes that we see in that leads

1:02:03

to a red card then just

1:02:06

a full sanction. I'd go 20 minute red

1:02:08

card with higher sanctions off the field, that

1:02:10

would be my suggestion. Okay,

1:02:13

your thoughts on that. Yeah, I

1:02:15

think answer one, I agree those.

1:02:17

I came from sevens, I was new

1:02:19

to rugby after leaving soccer

1:02:21

as we call it or football, whichever your preference

1:02:23

is. But I think if you're

1:02:26

interested in that fast-paced game, just go watch some

1:02:28

sevens tournaments then. I think I've fallen

1:02:30

in love with Union since transferring over and I like

1:02:32

it for what it is, the 15 aside with

1:02:34

the complexities, it scrums the line-up. But don't

1:02:36

get me wrong, do you really want something

1:02:39

entertaining? Go watch a sevens tournament, catch, I

1:02:41

don't know, 100 games in two days and

1:02:43

enjoy the speed and sport. But so

1:02:46

yeah, as far as those radical changes go, I think leave 15s to 15s.

1:02:49

But within that, you know, the 20 minute red card,

1:02:51

I go back and forth, I think, sometimes

1:02:54

when I look at it, I think it

1:02:56

does change the game. But on the other hand, if

1:02:59

by allowing the 20 minute return, does it

1:03:01

also change a team's behavior? And I

1:03:03

think one instance I think about, you know, the

1:03:05

England men, last year leading up to

1:03:08

World Cup at one point, they had three men on

1:03:10

the bench, all for yellow cards at one point, all

1:03:12

with bunker views, deciding what it was. And

1:03:14

sometimes when I see that, I think is that a team issue

1:03:16

then? And is that going to be fixed by

1:03:19

allowing them, let's say one person gets a red card, the

1:03:21

other two go back on, but then they still get

1:03:23

to add one on. Does that change a team habit? Coaches

1:03:25

habit and things and that's where, you

1:03:27

know, you can change the players behaviors. If

1:03:29

you have that, like Hugo saying, you know,

1:03:32

you, you have 20 minutes, a

1:03:34

different player comes on, the player who came

1:03:36

off still has a higher sanction, that changes a

1:03:38

player behavior. But let's say you start to see trends

1:03:40

with the team. Well, now what are you going to

1:03:42

do, though? Are you going to start to penalize the

1:03:44

coaches? Or is it going to be a continuation of

1:03:46

just those players? If you see trends like that, which

1:03:48

you do sometimes, you see teams who are more highly

1:03:51

carted than others. And so then I'd be interested to

1:03:53

go back to the training behaviors and what they're

1:03:55

being taught in trainings and practices and

1:03:57

coaches trying to manipulate laws. And

1:03:59

so. Part of me still says, I don't

1:04:01

think we're still ready for that. Because once again, it

1:04:03

goes back to application and education in

1:04:06

trainings of coaches and of players holistically. And

1:04:08

then if you can start to see trends

1:04:10

go down, team over team, do you then

1:04:12

bring in the 20 minute red card to

1:04:15

allow the game then to stay fast paced, knowing

1:04:17

that the team though it isn't a behavior of

1:04:19

the team, it just happens to be an incidental

1:04:21

someone dropped you caught the shoulder unfortunately.

1:04:25

And it was less of a cynical red card, but it

1:04:27

is a red card at the end of the day, isn't it? So

1:04:30

I don't think we're quite there yet from my point of view, but it is somewhere

1:04:32

I think we could get to. Well, fascinating discussion.

1:04:34

A big thank you to all of our panelists

1:04:36

in a follow up who's from the medical side

1:04:38

to Ugo Monier and Kate Zachary and of course

1:04:41

Sarah who was with us just a few moments

1:04:43

ago, she heads to the event and Ross Tacko

1:04:45

who is with me. And for

1:04:47

those of you who want to see and

1:04:49

listen to this podcast again, it will be

1:04:51

live on the World Rugby site, hopefully this

1:04:53

afternoon, if not tomorrow morning, and we'll be

1:04:55

putting it out as a podcast on the

1:04:57

Sciences Board podcast as well, sometime later today

1:04:59

as well. So keep an eye out for

1:05:01

that if you want to share that. But

1:05:03

a big thanks to everybody. And for

1:05:05

now, it's goodbye. You

1:05:08

have been listening to the Science

1:05:10

of Sport Podcast. Follow us on

1:05:12

X, Facebook, Instagram, and join the

1:05:14

conversation on our exclusive Science

1:05:16

of Sport Patreon page. Tired

1:05:23

of ads interfering with your favorite sports

1:05:26

podcasts? Good news. Ad-free

1:05:28

listening is available on Amazon Music for all

1:05:30

the music plus top podcasts.