1. I think firstly it separates what you can do in the professional game vs the amateur which means every amateur player will be playing a watered down version of the professional sport and that will have a massive impact on participation.
2. Secondly it's way too confusing, the refs at amateur level are usually very poor. Given how difficult it is to police waist height tackles with the dipping player etc I think it might create too many problems each match.
3. Thirdly it really negates holding someone up in a tackle and makes it difficult to knock them back in the tackle.
4. And lastly I'm heavily involved in coaching kids rugby and this is going to ruin games because however much coaching goes on kids want to tackle above waist height naturally. Especially after a summer or Xmas break. It's too strict.
5. I've played amateur rugby for over 20 years and I must say that I've seen more people knocked out from knees hips than any head or heads or high tackling. I know that's only my observations but you don't see the crazy professional head on heads at amateur level.
1. Absolutely fair, and a worry of mine as well - but it's going as high as it really can whilst it's individual unions doing this initiative, rather than World Rugby themselves. I'd be interested to see if the French have had this problem - they're 2 years ahead of us (and went further with their changes, after all).
2. Rugby's always too confusing for refs at amateur levels. Navel is way lower than I would have gone personally, but I don't see it as being more confusing than sternum, nipple, armpit or shoulder line.
2.a Ball carrier's being encouraged not to dip is part of this initiative - I have no idea how that's going to pan out in the real world.
3. Meh - death of the choke tackle would be a good thing IMO; whilst knocking someone back in the tackle is easier when hitting the midriff - see any big hit by the likes of Lawes, Underhill or Worsley. Hit someone in the midriff and they fold around you, soaking their momentum into their legs and shoulders, allowing you to push their midriff further backwards; typically taking their feet off the ground too, so that there's less they can do to stop you.
4. Yep - and 20 years ago, kids wanted to ruck; 15 years ago, anyone jumping to catch a ball was fair game; 10 years ago kids wanted to lift the ball carrier and dump them on their shoulder. How strict it is will depend on enforcement.
5. At amateur level, that's because more tackles happen at hip height than head height. By the same token, more people die in their cars than on (or recently on) motorbikes - that doesn't mean that motorbikes are safer than cars, it's just the way statistics work, and from the research done, there's no doubt that head in the vicinity of head is a more dangerous tackle than head in the vicinity of hips.
Addendum (not addressed at anyone specifically): Rugby is facing an existential threat; doing nothing simply isn't an option. Lose players, and the game continues at a lower level. Do nothing, and the game could very well cease to exist.
For my own sake, I'm instinctively not in favour of this change, and think it's too far in one go (I favour armpit / nipple line). But I'm willing to give them a fair shot, and I'm willing to play devil's advocate in defending them to try and get a reasoned discussion, rather than blanket condemnation with little rationale given.
My hope is that, like some of the other changes (eg tackling the player in the air) this is the initial over-reaction, intended to lead to a loosening up a few years down the line, once everyone's got it into their heads to go lower. I think it's a partially realistic hope, given that they tried an over-reaction with the use of red cards; but it was still felt that going high was worth the risk, so we had more red cards, but not really any fewer head injuries.
You stop pick and go's by diving at the knee tackles like LCD but done by amateur players with no technique
Leading to busted knees and ankles - on the plus side; those don't give you dementia or death.
