Laws around dangerous play

Firstly let me start this post by saying that I wasn't sure where to put this post as it is not specifically related to club or internation so if a MOD believes it should be somewhere specific please move it.
Secondly I don't want this post to turn into some slagging match merely I want people's thoughts and suggestions

So with the number of kicks to the head and the various ways they have been dealt with recently I wanted to make this post to discuss do we think enough is being done to protect players in vulnrable situations and indeed is the current laws effective in policing this. I am off course talking about incidents such as Paul O'Connels v Leinster and Mike Brown v Ireland.

These incidents are often controversial and cause much debate due to the fact they are usually acidental in nature but concern a part of the body with which it is imperative risks are not taken.
Can the fact that we believe them to be accidental be enough when dealing with such a sensitive area? Or is it too harsh to punish someone for something they have accidentally done?
Also how without you being the player doing it how can we know it is accidental and if people were to get away with it how long before people see an opportunity to do it on purpose knowing it would be very difficult to prove they had?
My view is that it should not be acceptable to hack or kick wildly at a ball when it is either 1. clearly close to another persons head or 2. you cannot see what you are hacking at and so have no way to tell if it's the ball or someone's head.
If we were to change the laws though how could we do it so that it does not also stop all competition etc

Is there a problem in rugby with not taking concussions serious enough? Now everyone takes them seriously I am sure but do they take them serious enough? It is tough because if someone breaks an arm for example this is easy to see and it heals etc but with concussion injuries the damage is not plainly visible and it never heals truly with many of the symptons and effects coming years, decades down the line.

There is no doubt some clarity is needed from the IRB on this issue as it is a very dangerous issue to player safety as well as the fact that we see the wildly different ways that various instances of this have been treated by referees and citings that no one is particularly clear.

I would love you guys thoughts on this issue and how it could go forward? And again if we not have this descend into some sort of slagging match over particular incidents I would gateful.

neilthom7

Add to your couple of examples the kick to the head that Mike Brown received against Italy during last year's 6Ns, which led to on-going concussion issues. From recollection, there was a loose ball that Brown dived on at the same time as an opponent kicked out - clearly an accident in that the Italian player was going for the ball and not the man, but made heavy contact with Brown's head.

To be honest though, I think in a game like rugby, accidents are going to happen, whether it is kicks to the head, contact with the eye area or collisions between players in the air leading to injury. Hell, even most 'tip tackles' are in my opinion unintentional but occur because the tackler gets into a very strong position relative to the ball carrier.

Attempting to legislate all risk out of the game is not practical, but I do feel that at times referees could officiate dangerous play under a generic Law rather than judging a specific offence. In the case of Brown's boot hitting Murray's face, I don't think it meets the definitions of either a kick or a stamp/trample under Laws 10.4, but can be argued to be dangerous (reckless rather than with intent), and the consequence was unpleasant but could easily have been much more significant (a cut around the eye is much less important than damage to the eye itself).

The IRB (now world rugby) commissioned a pretty comprehensive study a few years back looking at where injuries aoccurred and the severity of those injuries.

The most dangerous parts of the game (Collisions, scrums) and specific actions (charging/clear outs, taking people out in the air, high tackling, tip tackling) were identified and laws / punishments adjusted to try and reduce the number of injuries form them.

Concussions have also been a big thing, again more recently post Flutey. The protocols etc around them have been reiterated and are now taken more seriously. The types of incidents that were identified as most commonly causing these which could easily be legislated against without fundamentaly breaking the game had already been addressed...and the number of cards and citings has increased dramticaly over the last decade. More indcidents are now picked up by TMOS as well.

The actual number of incidents a la Brown and others is pretty rare, its caused a big hoo hah and garnered much more attnetion than it deserves because of that. Should using the foot in rucks be banned? I hope not. It was quite refreshing to see someone contesting a ball properly for a change despite having a player doing his best to lie on the wrong side of it. It was unfortunate he got hit in the head and yes all players should take care of one anotehr in all their actions and act within both the letter and spirit of the laws...but Brown was attempting normal and legal play.
The ref was happy at the time after reviewing the footage, the citing commisioner too. Why the witch hunt? Where were the demands to change the laws when George North was knocked out twice in a game...doesnt that mean tackling is inherently dangerous? Were the collisions reckless?

It would be a sad day when we start seeing people red carded getting bumped into someone attempting to catch a high ball when trying to make a legal challenge...oh wait....