BBC Home

Explore the BBC

81 comments

user rating: 5 star

Cheating is not widespread, allegedly

English
by Dr Webb (U1763043) 01 October 2009
comment on the article

So the RFU has issued its reports, the professional player survey, the professional coaching teams and the last drawn from an online rugby community survey

Just looking at the report drawn from the pro players:

- 5% Have seen or participated in faking a blood injury at international level.

- 10% Have seen or participated in faking a blood injury at GP or European level.

- 10% Have seen or participated in feigning injury in the scrum leading to uncontested scrums, or sharing of front row duties at international level.

- 41% Have seen or participated in feigning injury in the scrum leading to uncontested scrums, or sharing of front row duties at GP or European level.

- 14% Have seen or participated in spying on the opposition at international level.

- 15% Have seen or participated in spying on the opposition at GP or European level.

- 2% Have seen or participated in illegal drugs at international level.

- 12% Have seen or participated in illegal drugs at GP or European level.

- 1% Have seen or participated in performance enhancing drugs at international level.

- 2% Have seen or participated in performance enhancing drugs at GP or European level.


There's quite a lot more in the reports. But from first glance I'm left with two questions:

1) What would it take for cheating to be widespread?

2) But, given no evidence has been found of widespread cheating which players are being banned for two years to force them into testifying?












Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by U8659606

posted Oct 2, 2009

If you insist on having two props on the bench, with only one allowed as a tactical sub, then it could make the issue less likely to occur. But I agree, the prop issue is the one with the most difficult solution. It's obviously preferrable to keep scrums contested at all costs, but if you allow subbed props back on the field, where does it end?

I'm certain of one thing though, rolling subs throughout the squad is a horrible idea that totally runs against the principles and ethos of rugby union.

Apologies if I misrepresented old_one_eye's position, not my intention. His point about the blurring between backs and forwards is exactly the right one. Rugby opens up when defences and sides get tired, particularly heavy forwards. It's part of the sport. Rolling subs will take away that dimension, and smaller players will find that their role is diminished.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 2, 2009

Rolling subs? Is this a serious suggestion? If so its as grim as they come. As grim as watching Castleford get hammered on a cold February evening away at St Helens.

No. Thrice no to rolling subs.

Yes to an extra prop on the bench in case of need. Where does it end? as Funny_exiled_scot asks, right there. No other extra subs just a measure to sort out the nonsense of uncontested scrums.

How about no tactical substitutions? Just injury subs which can be checked by the opposing team doctor and a neutral match official?

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Thunor (U10890672)

posted Oct 2, 2009

It is a serious issue and any changes to the laws must consider this aspect. But weren't there cries of the same thing when they allowed lifting? Yet we still generally get locks over 6'6" (Toner is 6'10") and locks shorter than this are labelled short.

Implementing things as a knee-jerk reaction is foolish. But so is disregarding them out of hand. Every single change in rugby since it was first codified has been fought by people who felt it was losing its identity. The game wouldn't be the game is it now without many many many changes to it.

I hope that any changes are thought out and discussed at length.

BTW I think old_one_eye was very much against rolling subs but didn't discount they completely out of hand so I think it was me misrepresenting him more than you winkeye Sorry

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 2, 2009

"If you insist on having two props on the bench, with only one allowed as a tactical sub, then it could make the issue less likely to occur. But I agree, the prop issue is the one with the most difficult solution. It's obviously preferrable to keep scrums contested at all costs, but if you allow subbed props back on the field, where does it end?"

I'm in agreement with you that widespread rolling subs (to be referred to here on as RS) is the wrong way to go but to me the only suggestion that really seems to work is to allow front row RS. Limit the amount of times a single player can be rolled on and off, for example can only enter the field twice.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by U8659606

posted Oct 2, 2009

"How about no tactical substitutions? Just injury subs which can be checked by the opposing team doctor and a neutral match official?"

I would support that. See Thunor, I'm not totally opposed to change winkeye

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Thunor (U10890672)
comment by Dr Webb (U1763043)

posted Oct 2, 2009

But how do you officiate when a player claims they've a rib cartilage injury

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Thunor (U10890672)

posted Oct 2, 2009

If a prop gets a yellow card, do you have uncontested scrums until they come back on?

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by U8659606

posted Oct 2, 2009

"But how do you officiate when a player claims they've a rib cartilage injury"

Poke him in the ribs and watch the reaction....

If it's any player other than a prop, tough luck. If it's a prop, then you have the reserve prop than only covers injuries. If they all have rib cartilage injuries, then you have to result in uncontested scrums, ultimately it's always going to be the last resort for safety reasons. But you investigate such incidents with overbearing scrutiny. Difficult for the ref at the time, but it's not an ultimately symptomless injury.

"If a prop gets a yellow card, do you have uncontested scrums until they come back on?"

No, the reserve prop comes on for 10 minutes in his place. Personally I'd allow the opposition captain to select the player he replaces!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 2, 2009

Lets face it - dubious injuries are commonplace in the game (bring on the Welsh and Irish wummers in denial). This is countered by a limit to the number of subs. The prop issue is different and a emergency Prop should be allowed, perhaps an emrgency hooker - allowed on with opposing medical team checks...

I'm not sure how this works at grass roots level...

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 100.00%
    3 votes
  • 4
    0 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1
    0 votes

average rating:
5.00 from 3 votes