Tackle height lowered in community game by RFU.

[mdaclarke]

I don't see this actually coming in given the opposition and the threats of votes of no confidence.

I think we will end up at the legal tackle limit being reduced to arm pit level.

I would suggest that most people can live with that.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I don't see this actually coming in given the opposition and the threats of votes of no confidence.

I think we will end up at the legal tackle limit being reduced to arm pit level.

I would suggest that most people can live with that.

I think that's where it should have been anyway.

 

[Scotty]

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.

How does a 6ft 5 tackle a 5ft 8 scrum half at his belly button. Thats going to be interesting. Also for the 30+ year old club player who loves playing but will stuggle to adapt and doesnt have the flexibility and then feels forced out of the game

I believe this rules at this height should only be for u18s to protect them and ensure their tackle technique is from a base of always aiming low. And will develop an offloading game,

This is a different game to the current one, such a drastic change, its now an amateur varient of the pros game rather than the same game. I like a good offload and a quick game but i also love a good physical battle and that one is the one that is taken away imo. Players in the amateur game love playing and the RFU need to provide ALL data on where is safest to tackle and causes of these head injuries and ways to prevent them, then enhance protocols for when an injury happens and then allow adults to make a choice.

No doubt some will enjoy this new rugby varient more but i really cant see me being on of them. I get player safety is important but so is letting people play the game they love and not a watered down version.

 

[Which Tyler]

I have no sympathy at all for those thinking that everything is fine as it is - because those same people already know about the law suits the RFU (and WRU and WR) are facing - on charges of negligence; which (to my understanding) can only viably be defended by either pleading ignorance (fine when no-one knew, not fine once we understand the risks of head impacts), or by acknowledging and acting. If the RFU loses, then the RFU goes bankrupt. If the RFU go bankrupt, then the vast majority of grassroots rugby clubs goes bankrupt. If the RFU loses, that sets precedence for WRU and WR to lose - and soon after, every other national union, and there's no more rugby union to play.
You want to talk about "destruction of the game" - that's the way to do it.

I don't have much sympathy for those thinking that "waist" meant the waist line of the shorts and complaining on that basis - it's another argument from ignorance. It literally takes 6 key strokes on google to correct that ignorance.
Waist is a stand-in term for Abdomen, which means from the top of the pelvis (typically higher than the waist band of shorts, for men) to the underside of the bottom ribs.
"Navel" is a perfectly decent stand-in for waist, as is "below the sternum".


I have limited sympathy for those arguing "but that'll just mean more head on hip hits, which are more dangerous, because that's the concussions I've seen" - it's another argument based on ignorance.
There are far more tackles carried out with the head at hip height than there are with the head at head height, especially lower down the league structure; whilst ignoring that head on head is approximately 10 times more dangerous than head on hip. It's observer bias (the example Dr Tucker gives about cars seeming more dangerous than motorbikes because more people are killed in car accidents).


I have a decent amount of sympathy for those who thought that it was wrong to introduce this at the amateur level and not professional - it's a perfectly reasonable reaction and thought. Until you realise that the pro.s play far more cross-border competitions, where the RFU has no say, and the pro.s have a RWC coming up in a few months.


I have a great deal of sympathy for those thinking that skipping the torso and going straight to waist is too much too soon (that's still my instinct) - but I can see the rationale that they've tried smaller changes with greater enforcement, and that it hasn't worked; so maybe a more radical change is required to actually get heads away from heads. I'm still not convinced either way.


I have a great deal of sympathy for those thinking that soak tackles should still be legal - and I agree. Though I have difficulty finding a way that would work without it being a cop-out option and without overly complicating already complicated laws.


I have a huge amount of sympathy for those thinking that the whole thing has been handled terribly. The messaging and the optics are a complete mess.


I have less sympathy for professional players/coaches arguing from ignorance than I do for Joe Bloggs turning out for Old Prostate's 2nd XV.






What I would have liked to have seen would be something along the lines of:
Either wait until WR has it's meeting in March, and announce something together.

Or say "We're looking at these changes to the tackle height for the 2024-5 season, and looking to bring it in at all levels. For the 2023-4 season, we're bringing in these changes for the ball carrier (and maybe some of the secondary changes the French made, like double tackles and no pre-binding of any other attacker to the ball carrier).
Here's an SGM to educate the clubs' rep.s, with the science advisors front and centre, legal advisors also present; fully explained rationale, and precise wording used.
Maybe go "Sternum" (or armpit, or nipple line) 2023-24; and "Below sternum" 2024-25.
If going before WR do, then say that they're asking WR to look at bringing in the same globally for post-RWC.

FTR: If going to waist, I'd also have a simple sliding scale for higher tackles.
Sternum = penalty as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation
Shoulder = yellow as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation
Head/neck = red as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation
Actually, make that tackler's head height, rather than first point of contact (that can be seen as an aggravating/mitigating factor, usually the latter), and it's a reasonable guide.
Height of the head is much easier to see in real time

 

[Welsh Exile]

How do you stop pick and goes easpecially around the 5 meter line?

Boxing and all forms of MMA and any combat sport should be banned ASAP.

 

[Tony19749999]

I am taking my son away from the local union club to the league club. This, along with awful scrumming and ridiculous breakdown laws / reffing have destroyed to game I played.

 

[Tony19749999]

I have no sympathy at all for those thinking that everything is fine as it is - because those same people already know about the law suits the RFU (and WRU and WR) are facing - on charges of negligence; which (to my understanding) can only viably be defended by either pleading ignorance (fine when no-one knew, not fine once we understand the risks of head impacts), or by acknowledging and acting. If the RFU loses, then the RFU goes bankrupt. If the RFU go bankrupt, then the vast majority of grassroots rugby clubs goes bankrupt. If the RFU loses, that sets precedence for WRU and WR to lose - and soon after, every other national union, and there's no more rugby union to play.
You want to talk about "destruction of the game" - that's the way to do it.

I don't have much sympathy for those thinking that "waist" meant the waist line of the shorts and complaining on that basis - it's another argument from ignorance. It literally takes 6 key strokes on google to correct that ignorance.
Waist is a stand-in term for Abdomen, which means from the top of the pelvis (typically higher than the waist band of shorts, for men) to the underside of the bottom ribs.
"Navel" is a perfectly decent stand-in for waist, as is "below the sternum".


I have limited sympathy for those arguing "but that'll just mean more head on hip hits, which are more dangerous, because that's the concussions I've seen" - it's another argument based on ignorance.
There are far more tackles carried out with the head at hip height than there are with the head at head height, especially lower down the league structure; whilst ignoring that head on head is approximately 10 times more dangerous than head on hip. It's observer bias (the example Dr Tucker gives about cars seeming more dangerous than motorbikes because more people are killed in car accidents).


I have a decent amount of sympathy for those who thought that it was wrong to introduce this at the amateur level and not professional - it's a perfectly reasonable reaction and thought. Until you realise that the pro.s play far more cross-border competitions, where the RFU has no say, and the pro.s have a RWC coming up in a few months.


I have a great deal of sympathy for those thinking that skipping the torso and going straight to waist is too much too soon (that's still my instinct) - but I can see the rationale that they've tried smaller changes with greater enforcement, and that it hasn't worked; so maybe a more radical change is required to actually get heads away from heads. I'm still not convinced either way.


I have a great deal of sympathy for those thinking that soak tackles should still be legal - and I agree. Though I have difficulty finding a way that would work without it being a cop-out option and without overly complicating already complicated laws.


I have a huge amount of sympathy for those thinking that the whole thing has been handled terribly. The messaging and the optics are a complete mess.


I have less sympathy for professional players/coaches arguing from ignorance than I do for Joe Bloggs turning out for Old Prostate's 2nd XV.






What I would have liked to have seen would be something along the lines of:
Either wait until WR has it's meeting in March, and announce something together.

Or say "We're looking at these changes to the tackle height for the 2024-5 season, and looking to bring it in at all levels. For the 2023-4 season, we're bringing in these changes for the ball carrier (and maybe some of the secondary changes the French made, like double tackles and no pre-binding of any other attacker to the ball carrier).
Here's an SGM to educate the clubs' rep.s, with the science advisors front and centre, legal advisors also present; fully explained rationale, and precise wording used.
Maybe go "Sternum" (or armpit, or nipple line) 2023-24; and "Below sternum" 2024-25.
If going before WR do, then say that they're asking WR to look at bringing in the same globally for post-RWC.

FTR: If going to waist, I'd also have a simple sliding scale for higher tackles.
Sternum = penalty as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation
Shoulder = yellow as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation
Head/neck = red as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation
Actually, make that tackler's head height, rather than first point of contact (that can be seen as an aggravating/mitigating factor, usually the latter), and it's a reasonable guide.
Height of the head is much easier to see in real time

Great......sounds like even more time watching the video ref over and over again.......way too complex.....

 

[Which Tyler]

How do you stop pick and goes easpecially around the 5 meter line?

Boxing and all forms of MMA and any combat sport should be banned ASAP.

Me? I'd allow the soak tackle - dipped ball carrier, upright tackler, heads well away from each other.
What I can't work out, is a wording for it that wouldn't overly complicate and already complicated set of laws.

The purpose of boxing and MMA is to batter your opponent into submission, with concussing them being the prime goal of achieving that.
In rugby, hitting someone in the head has always been illegal, so it's a partially accepted side-effect of playing rugby; and consequently needs to be mitigated as much as reasonably achievable (with "reasonably achievable" being decided by law courts and requires valid efforts to be made)

Great......sounds like even more time watching the video ref over and over again.......way too complex.....

Could you explain how please?

 

[Saintjay]

All change at the RFU via The Times

 

[Welsh Exile]

Nipple height would be a good compromise.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Nipple height makes more sense as there's still some chance of stopping an offload. I'd certainly find a game of 'a try every 3 minutes' to be tedious after a while.

As there's some research to suggest that it's constant micro-trauma, rather than infrequent acute concussions, which causes long-term neurological damage, it may or may not help, but at least it will be seen to be doing something.

FAFO, I guess..?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

All change at the RFU via The Times

View attachment 15965

This morning, before this news broke, Warburton wrote an interesting piece for the Times.

A great deal of sympathy for what they were trying to achieve, if not the way they've gone about it. But also pointing out that there's much more to this than just tackle height. Bad tackle technique with the head on the wrong side was a particular bugbear and he was also concerned about reckless clear outs.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The law suits of the amateur players is a joke though. One player in that law suit used to play 80 games a year (played league and union) and had 18 concussions.

Surely the RFU can't be held responsible if the player is a class A simpleton.

The professional game is a different kettle of fish. That's where they need changes. You watch any prem game vs an amateur one and you'll see where all the head on head and high tackles are.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

World Rugby signals intent to lower pro tackling height

World Rugby intends to follow the Rugby Football Union's lead with a reduction in the defensive height at the elite level of the game.

www.espn.co.uk

Why wait til 2027 possibly? Appeasing the aussies?

Just make it the gut or chest and move on.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

This morning, before this news broke, Warburton wrote an interesting piece for the Times.

A great deal of sympathy for what they were trying to achieve, if not the way they've gone about it. But also pointing out that there's much more to this than just tackle height. Bad tackle technique with the head on the wrong side was a particular bugbear and he was also concerned about reckless clear outs.

The jackler is the most dangerous part of the game. Brain, neck, and knees are all vulnerable. Much more so than open field tackles. It's why every openside retired at 26 or so.

A #protectthejackle would do more to make the game safer than tackle height.

 

[Saintjay]

Interestingly the WRU are now looking at tackle height in the pro game.

If you have really played 80 games in a year. Not tacking into account training once or twice a week. I'd say you probably need to take some personal responsibility especially if you've had 18 concussions.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

The law suits of the amateur players is a joke though. One player in that law suit used to play 80 games a year (played league and union) and had 18 concussions.

Surely the RFU can't be held responsible if the player is a class A simpleton.

The professional game is a different kettle of fish. That's where they need changes. You watch any prem game vs an amateur one and you'll see where all the head on head and high tackles are.

That player, Alex Abbey, was aged between 13-18 when he was playing that volume of matches, many against adults.

Less simpleton and more victim of failure of duty of care, possibly by multiple parties in my book.

Amateur players launch lawsuit against rugby authorities over brain injuries | Concussion in sport | The Guardian

Rugby union authorities are facing a second major lawsuit as group of more than 55 former amateur players have begun legal action against the RFU, the WRU and World Rugby

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Saintjay]

He was playing open grade club rugby, against adults, by the time he was 13.

That's concerning my old clubs even then from early 90's you made your way through age grade to colts then into adult rugby. The process was also club, schools, county. I know very few 13 year old capable of playing adult rugby. I certainly don't know any coaches who'd have allowed that even back when. Massive f@ck up if people did. I'd also question some of the parents responsibilities in this.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

yeah maybe the RFU should be responsible for the actions of their counties if stuff like that was happening.

 

[Crash Hamster]

The law suits of the amateur players is a joke though. One player in that law suit used to play 80 games a year (played league and union) and had 18 concussions.

Surely the RFU can't be held responsible if the player is a class A simpleton.

The professional game is a different kettle of fish. That's where they need changes. You watch any prem game vs an amateur one and you'll see where all the head on head and high tackles are.

It's going to be expensive and time-consuming to prove or disprove. Having just done some quick and dirty maths, about 8 in 10000 (0.08%) of the population under 65 will have dementia. Whether that is increased in players of contact sports (and how you establish a control group in those cases) will be a source of argument for decades.

On a personal basis, I stopped playing after a nasty neck injury in my late teens; I thought the tap on the shoulder from the Grim Reaper to be sufficiently serious for me to consider how a second such injury might effect my fun, career and life. A shame, but not as much of a shame as being paralysed.

The problem with all actions like these is that they're difficult to argue against, because it's easy for their proponents to reply "so you want people to be brain damaged and die horribly?" Their argument is, however, predicated on the idea that it's possible to make things completely safe, which is clear nonsense.

There needs to be an honest discussion about how many deaths is acceptable. If none, rugby (league and union, boxing, MMA, football, American football etc) need to be banned. Of course, you then have to look at other avoidable deaths for the sake of consistency:

Smoking 77800 deaths a year
Dementia 66400 (includes **subset below)
All road deaths 1600 (includes the subsets of *road accidents below)
**Early-onset dementia (<65) 1000
Falling down the stairs 700
*Car occupants 680
*RTCs where excessive speed is listed as a cause 400
*Pedestrians 360
*Motorbikes 310
Trains 300

We make an occasional fuss about smoking, are completely paranoid about a comparatively tiny amount of road deaths, no-one cares at all about people falling down the stairs even though you're twice as likely to die on a staircase than a pavement.

Rugby probably has low-hanging fruit to pick to make the game safer, but it cannot end up like the national obsession with "speed kills", when the odds of someone doing 37 in a 30 zone and killing someone is basically zero.

(and I'm not callously disrearding any individual's loss in the face of tragedy, just pointing out that it's possible to recognise the significance of an event to an individual and the complete insignificance of the same event in a population of 68M)