Tackle height lowered in community game by RFU.

[RedruthRFC]

I wonder if the amateur clubs could break away from the rfu and form their own game. It's such a joke the way the rfu seems to be living in a dream world.

This seems to be a popular opinion, but I can't follow the logic. If the RFU need to make this change in order to indemnify themselves, how is setting up a new body with less money and resources going to solve the problem?

 

[ncurd]

This seems to be a popular opinion, but I can't follow the logic. If the RFU need to make this change in order to indemnify themselves, how is setting up a new body with less money and resources going to solve the problem?

Yup the nays seem to be coming from a place a denial and confirmation bias.

That isn't to say things are being handled well just anything to legitimate reduce concussions have to be done or any body will be sued into oblivion.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Yup the nays seem to be coming from a place a denial and confirmation bias.

That isn't to say things are being handled well just anything to legitimate reduce concussions have to be done or any body will be sued into oblivion.

Just stumbled across this article, which pretty much confirms what I thought was a reasonable inference about the decision making process:

https://archive.ph/3LdlQ

I'd be interested to hear the argument as to why those responsible should have ignored the best evidence available to them and how they would be able to deal with the consequences of doing so.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

This seems to be a popular opinion, but I can't follow the logic. If the RFU need to make this change in order to indemnify themselves, how is setting up a new body with less money and resources going to solve the problem?

There's lots to unpack but in short.

If there is real evidence that reducing the tackle height to the waist reduces concussion then this needs to happen at all levels (inc the professional game?) And needs to be led by world rugby.

By them saying it's fine for pro players but not for amateur sends mixed messages. I can't think of any other sports with that level of change from pro to amateur.

Also they need to really demonstrate that there is a reduction in concussions rather than the 'head on head' contact they keep saying. Maybe they have great data but really they arnt selling it very well if they do. I can't see concussions being reduced with people hitting knees and hips constantly opposed to the stomach-chest which is usually nice and soft.

They also have created a lot of issues with players dipping into contact (which you will never stop) and pick and gos. They have also ignored the mail in okay and holding players up/ going for the ball in the tackle. That's a material change to the game. Just doesn't seem thought through or addressed at all.

 

[Which Tyler]

1. If there is real evidence that reducing the tackle height to the waist reduces concussion then this needs to happen at all levels (inc the professional game?) And needs to be led by world rugby.

2. By them saying it's fine for pro players but not for amateur sends mixed messages. I can't think of any other sports with that level of change from pro to amateur.

3. Also they need to really demonstrate that there is a reduction in concussions rather than the 'head on head' contact they keep saying. Maybe they have great data but really they arnt selling it very well if they do. I can't see concussions being reduced with people hitting knees and hips constantly opposed to the stomach-chest which is usually nice and soft.

4. They also have created a lot of issues with players dipping into contact (which you will never stop) and pick and gos. They have also ignored the mail in okay and holding players up/ going for the ball in the tackle. That's a material change to the game. Just doesn't seem thought through or addressed at all.

1. There is no "if there is real evidence" - there categorically is real evidence.
Who says it isn't? Just because France, New Zealand and England have beaten them to it, doesn't mean that World Rugby aren't driving it. Ross Tucker (of the Patreon link) specifically says that they're supporting the initiative, and World Rugby have convened several summits on this issue, with IIRC, another in March 2023.

2. Who's saying that? As far as I can tell, it's a strawman - nobody has said "this is fine for pro players but not for amateurs" At best, you've got "this is administratively implausible at the professional level before the RWC"

3. They have; with several links in this, and previous threads, showing the evidence.
They're absolutely not selling it well - seems to have been a rush decision to go public earlier than intended (presumably because of the law suit by a bunch of amateurs announced the following day).
It's not replacing stomach hits with knee/hip hits; it's (trying to) replacing stomach hits with stomach hits, and head hits with hip hits - which are demonstrably safer. Knee hits are likely to remain unchanged.

4. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here; but I fail to see how the RFU statement of "ball carriers... to avoid late dipping" is going to create a problem with players dipping into contact.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

1. There is no "if there is real evidence" - there categorically is real evidence.
Who says it isn't? Just because France, New Zealand and England have beaten them to it, doesn't mean that World Rugby aren't driving it. Ross Tucker (of the Patreon link) specifically says that they're supporting the initiative, and World Rugby have convened several summits on this issue, with IIRC, another in March 2023.

2. Who's saying that? As far as I can tell, it's a strawman - nobody has said "this is fine for pro players but not for amateurs" At best, you've got "this is administratively implausible at the professional level before the RWC"

3. They have; with several links in this, and previous threads, showing the evidence.
They're absolutely not selling it well - seems to have been a rush decision to go public earlier than intended (presumably because of the law suit by a bunch of amateurs announced the following day).
It's not replacing stomach hits with knee/hip hits; it's (trying to) replacing stomach hits with stomach hits, and head hits with hip hits - which are demonstrably safer. Knee hits are likely to remain unchanged.

4. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here; but I fail to see how the RFU statement of "ball carriers... to avoid late dipping" is going to create a problem with players dipping into contact.

Sorry if I've missed this but where is the data on lowering tackle height reducing concussions?

 

[Which Tyler]

Off the top of my head:

and




Otherwise Pubmed is (near enough) the equivalent of google for (English language) medical journals; so here's a link with some basic search terms:

rugby tackle height concussion - Search Results - PubMed

rugby tackle height concussion - Search Results - PubMed

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Of course, not all trials get written up in medical journals; or even in English

ETA: Ross Tucker's Patreon piece, previously referenced, contains this paragraph on currently red-card tackles versus non red-card tackles - so blunt tool

And believe me, I'm sympathetic to this argument because players are not making these head high head contact tackles on purpose. A red card is not a judgment of a player's character or moral fiber. They are, frequently, the result of technical errors or errors in decision-making. But the latest evidence we have is that when a red card is given for a tackle causing head contact, the risk of a head injury is 232 times higher overall, almost 800 times higher for the ball carrier, and 40 times higher for the tackler. That cannot be left unchecked, knowing what we know. The paradigm around cards needs to change, because issuing them in the current climate seems to be creating negative outcomes without the desired positive behaviour change.

Obviously, he was writing a blog post, not an academic paper; and I don't see a reference for it, but I also see no reason to disbelieve him.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Off the top of my head:

and




Otherwise Pubmed is (near enough) the equivalent of google for (English language) medical journals; so here's a link with some basic search terms:

rugby tackle height concussion - Search Results - PubMed

rugby tackle height concussion - Search Results - PubMed

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Of course, not all trials get written up in medical journals; or even in English

ETA: Ross Tucker's Patreon piece, previously referenced, contains this paragraph on currently red-card tackles versus non red-card tackles - so blunt tool

Obviously, he was writing a blog post, not an academic paper; and I don't see a reference for it, but I also see no reason to disbelieve him.

Cheers for the info.

The below is not address at you, just some thoughts. Although I'm sure you'll go through it as always.

Interestingly the paper they quote doesn't really show too much difference in the 2018 vs 2019 trial, especially with head injuries increasing but concussion reducing (I've not had time to read all the paper though). Would be interesting to read the detail of the other trials (this just the SA one that I found and see a bit more detail. Also would be interesting to see what causes the concussions in the lower tackle trial (it might be in the paper just not got to it yet).

A lot of the red card head on head incidents seen on tv have nothing but o do with tackle height and more to do with the tackler just not being prepared at all. I'd assume that's still the same.

Noted as well in the study is that the tackle maximum height was to the line of the armpit. Not sure if the RFU are using that same definition or not with their new ruling.

Lots more reading to do to understand the detail but far from conclusive evidence shown in the SA trial. Wonder how that compares to other contact sports per hours, like boxing and mma etc we will never remove concussions as we play a contact sport so it's all around an acceptable level.

 

[Which Tyler]

Just to discuss the thoughts...
It's a couple of years since I read the Stellenbosch trial - IIRC it was mostly an issue of being low-powered - there simply wasn't enough data to draw meaningful conclusions; so concussion rates did drop, fairly significantly, but there wasn't enough data to have confidence that it was a "true" reading, rather than a fluke set of results.
Yeah, they used armpit / nipple (which is my favoured height) - so it's also not a massive difference; RFU are going straight to "waste", so below the ribs.

I would love to see a write-up of the French trial btw, if you or anyone else finds it.

On the red cards one - yeah, as a tool, it's blunt as hell.

Absolutely, we'll never eliminate concussion from our sport - but I think it's essential that we mitigate as much as possible without losing the sport's soul - from there we can say "we've done what we can, these are the risks, enter at your own risk". I don't like comparisons to martial sports personally - the point of boxing is to batter someone into submission, with concussion being the prime target; in rugby, it's a side-effect of a usually-banned thing (in the same way we don't accept gouging, spitting, sack-grabbing etc, even though they may be allowed elsewhere - like porn, for example).



FTR, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything with my contributions, I've not even made up my own mind yet - just interested in rational discussion of things to help me myself, rather than the anger and vitriol postings of Thursday/Friday

 

[Saintjay]

My understanding from the data is that the safest area to tackle is between upper leg and nipple line. Interesting that the knee and hip are red areas but trials have flagged these areas as preferable. I'm assuming this is because of the risk when heads share the same space during a tackle.

Also the waiste area will defined as below the navel under the new laws and not top of shorts. I did also read somewhere that it's been suggested that a 2nd tackler can go for the ball providing the 1st tackle is legal. This strikes me as madness. The tackled player will be losing height (body position) rapidly when tackled around the legs. Why on earth risk trying to rip the ball. Unfortunately I can't find the article to repost at the moment.

 

[stus768]

My understanding from the data is that the safest area to tackle is between upper leg and nipple line. Interesting that the knee and hip are red areas but trials have flagged these areas as preferable. I'm assuming this is because of the risk when heads share the same space during a tackle.

Also the waiste area will defined as below the navel under the new laws and not top of shorts. I did also read somewhere that it's been suggested that a 2nd tackler can go for the ball providing the 1st tackle is legal. This strikes me as madness. The tackled player will be losing height (body position) rapidly when tackled around the legs. Why on earth risk trying to rip the ball. Unfortunately I can't find the article to repost at the moment.

Below was in Brian Moore article

 

[Saintjay]

Bingo that's the one. Moore was pretty pro I think.

 

[Saintjay]

Moore vs Maul Over Pod

 

[Which Tyler]

Moore vs Maul Over Pod

Maul are still technically correct in that Brian doesn't (present tense) play amateur rugby.

It's entirely besides the point though, and something I've been "asked" in several locations now, as if playing amateur rugby changes the science and rationale of the approach.
The logic seems to go "You're presenting a rational argument, which seems to be broadly in favour of the RFU's approach, pointing out the pro.s and admitting the con.s => therefore you can't be a current player => therefore you're not a stakeholder => your argument is worthless"
It's the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy

 

[TRF_Olyy]

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Also hints that WR will introduce a global trial next January but not sure if it will be Sternum or stomach. I think sternum would make sense but wander if the NFL Hamlin story has scared them away from hits to the chest.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Worth listening to the good the bad the rugby podcast on this as they get the RFU on.

Couple of things stick out to me from the pod, firstly they've not actually thought every situation on a pitch through and there was talk about allowing tackles between the waist and sternum.

Also the rfu said the pick me go would remain the same (no additional reffing) which makes no sense.

They also seemed to really want this change as it would open up the game. Their own data said it dropped head on head concussions best case by only 8%. But they banged on about increased offloads and more ball in play time etc

The RFU brushed over the can you rip the ball question.

Also I'm guessing they will add a law about the ball carrier dipping into contact by the sounds of things.

They also didn't have any data on the amateur game, it seems this is a professional only problem but it's being forced on the amateur game. The 55 player law suit sounds bs also.

The cynic in me firmly sees this as a way for the powers to be to 'open up the game' rather than really make it safer. I do really see this as the coming of the death of rugby.

 

[stus768]

Worth listening to the good the bad the rugby podcast on this as they get the RFU on.

Couple of things stick out to me from the pod, firstly they've not actually thought every situation on a pitch through and there was talk about allowing tackles between the waist and sternum.

Also the rfu said the pick me go would remain the same (no additional reffing) which makes no sense.

They also seemed to really want this change as it would open up the game. Their own data said it dropped head on head concussions best case by only 8%. But they banged on about increased offloads and more ball in play time etc

The RFU brushed over the can you rip the ball question.

Also I'm guessing they will add a law about the ball carrier dipping into contact by the sounds of things.

They also didn't have any data on the amateur game, it seems this is a professional only problem but it's being forced on the amateur game. The 55 player law suit sounds bs also.

The cynic in me firmly sees this as a way for the powers to be to 'open up the game' rather than really make it safer. I do really see this as the coming of the death of rugby.

On the pick and go Ross Tucker on his Science of Sport podcast made the point that they're sort of a high tackle anyway because a lot of times they involve the attacker running head first at the chest of the defender. They only become an issue when defender tries to beat the attacker to the ground and both heads then in same area.

 

[Scotty]

Have we had any clarification on what a waist tackle means and what will be considered high?

Or what it was for the other trials in france ect.?

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Have we had any clarification on what a waist tackle means and what will be considered high?

Or what it was for the other trials in france ect.?

The trials in France used some different rules. The rfu statement was waiste which has been clarified as belly button or below.

Interestingly though the gentleman from the rfu said that if the tackle rides up to below the sternum then that would be ok. Not what was meant by that, if it means ok for the player (as in no injury) or ok as in no penalty.

Not very well communicated though from the rfu.