• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Tackle height lowered in community game by RFU.

RFU finally produced some supporting info.
Anyone else think these figures seem very high? I play a lot of low level rugby and we don't have 10 high shots a game. Maybe from clear outs (can't imagine what those numbers would look like).
 

Attachments

  • 38F7C80B-B111-47A1-AE80-1533909F4CFC.jpeg
    38F7C80B-B111-47A1-AE80-1533909F4CFC.jpeg
    190.2 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
The RFU board have realised, far too late, that they are not a dictatorship and they are only in power because they have been elected in-directly by the amateur players. They can be unelected if needs be. They have arrogantly tried to impose a rule that nobody asked for, without consultation. The amateur players have woken up and realised that they are strong and are fighting back.

I can't see how Bill Sweeny can survive this. I am not sure if the board as a whole will survive either.

I truly think this is a "line in the sand" moment. I also think that any talk of a waist high tackle law is stone dead.
 
Crash Hamster said:
Their argument is, however, predicated on the idea that it's possible to make things completely safe, which is clear nonsense.
Click to expand...
Point of order - this is a complete fiction. A strawman. A lie.

It is simply not possible to have read the arguments and honestly come to that conclusion.
 
Which Tyler said:
Point of order - this is a complete fiction. A strawman. A lie.

It is simply not possible to have read the arguments and honestly come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
If you read what I wrote carefully instead of jumping to conclusions based on what you think I said, you'll realise that I'm talking about 'safety campaigners' in general rather than whoever it is that you specifically mean (presumably the RFU.)

So not a strawman, not a fiction, not a lie. Pretty rude of you, really.
 
Thanks for the assumption about my assumption - but you missed your mark.
Safety campaigners who want to eliminate risk do not exist.
Or at least, not I numbers big enough to make any difference to anything at all - and would be laughed out of town if they ever tried.

It's a straw man, an untruth, a lie.

Yeah, I can be pretty rude when people predicate an argument on something that simply isn't true.

Tell you what - prove me wrong. Prove that these people exist in the conversation about rugby.
Find all these people who make Allyson Pollock look like a -highly influential) danger-lover
 
Which Tyler said:
Thanks for the assumption about my assumption - but you missed your mark.
Safety campaigners who want to eliminate risk do not exist.
Or at least, not I numbers big enough to make any difference to anything at all - and would be laughed out of town if they ever tried.

It's a straw man, an untruth, a lie.
Click to expand...
Complete nonsense, I'm afraid. BRAKE, for a start. 1600 road deaths per year is insignificant, statistically, and 400 due to speeding is a complete blip, and yet...

Anyway, I'm not debating any further with someone so dogmatic that they post their opinion as fact. People posting opinion as fact are crap at argument, so there's no fun in it.
 
Oh, and nice edit after the fact. I tell you what, prove me wrong about it applying to rugby instead. You're the one who said I was wrong in a general context, then I provided you with an excellent example to show you were talking rubbish.
 
I admit that I thought you were talking about campaign groups within rugby.

I dont recall what edit I made, but it certainly wasn't in response to something I hadn't read at that point.

Brake do indeed state a desire for noone to die in the roads, I would need a lot of convincing that they thought it realistic target.
As far as I'm aware (reserve the right to be wrong), they're not campaigning for the banning of all road vehicles from scooters, bikes, horses, upwards.

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm understanding - what do you want me to prove?
 
"Yeah, I can be pretty rude when people predicate an argument on something that simply isn't true.

Tell you what - prove me wrong. Prove that these people exist in the conversation about rugby.
Find all these people who make Allyson Pollock look like a -highly influential) danger-lover"

Those were your additional words, I didn't edit my quote.

Yes, I'm completely correct about the stated aims of BRAKE. I have no idea whether they're cynics or zealots, but it's just the sort of nonsense we don't need in rugby. Whether it's there currently or not, we will certainly see people cynically adopting such attitudes in order to win court cases.

I've been involved in the investigation of a case where the prevalence of certain conditions in the general population compared to in a specific group was key to its outcome, but the epidemiology of brain injury and rugby players is going to be considerably more complex. If anyone* tries to exploit this, it will be an existential threat to rugby.

* This will be someone with financial gain in mind, who also has some knowledge of epidemiology and statistics.
 
Last edited:
Which Tyler said:
As far as I'm aware (reserve the right to be wrong), they're not campaigning for the banning of all road vehicles from scooters, bikes, horses, upwards.

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm understanding - what do you want me to prove?
Click to expand...
Responding to your edit here, too, though goodness knows why.

It's not complex, the more you reduce speed, the fewer speed-related deaths you get. It's not a case of banning the vehicles, it's making them so slow that they're useless for their original function. Now try applying this to rugby. You don't ban the game, just head contact, then shoulder contact, then anything above the waist, but players will still get whiplash injuries and lo and behold, you have touch rugby. Thin end of the wedge, innit? I'm sure I'll be quoting myself every time the game moves in this direction.

Prove? Me wrong, of course, in the same way I did to you re BRAKE.

You shouldn't be so grumpy, your side are winning.
 
Whether the correct decision or not one thing seems clear to me - this will make rugby much less enjoyable to play and watch. Far easier to infringe and likely to be even more penalties than there already is. Particularly as players 'adjust'.

Dont envy the big locks.
 
Crash Hamster said:
Responding to your edit here, too, though goodness knows why.

It's not complex, the more you reduce speed, the fewer speed-related deaths you get. It's not a case of banning the vehicles, it's making them so slow that they're useless for their original function. Now try applying this to rugby. You don't ban the game, just head contact, then shoulder contact, then anything above the waist, but players will still get whiplash injuries and lo and behold, you have touch rugby. Thin end of the wedge, innit? I'm sure I'll be quoting myself every time the game moves in this direction.

Prove? Me wrong, of course, in the same way I did to you re BRAKE.

You shouldn't be so grumpy, your side are winning.
Click to expand...
He's always grumpy and argumentative on here, don't take it personally but then what do you expect from a Bath fan 😂
 
Don't Skip Leg Day said:
He's always grumpy and argumentative on here, don't take it personally but then what do you expect from a Bath fan 😂
Click to expand...
All sorted in a proper and gentelmanly manner.
I think it might be the temporary stands and all the mud, to be fair. I'd like to publically apologise for jinxing them in the last minute, though. Harsh of me... :D
 
www.nzrugby.co.nz

Reduced tackle height the focus of community rugby game innovations for 2023

www.nzrugby.co.nz www.nzrugby.co.nz

Includes the following 3 paragraphs about last year's trial:
The new initiatives were trialled in selected grades last year and Lancaster said feedback from players, coaches and referees confirmed the focus on reducing tackle height was the right approach for the community game.

"Our participants have told us that they want to see improvements made to the tackle and breakdown areas, so that's been our focus. The resounding feedback we've received from this season's trials is that the game is more enjoyable to play and safer when the tackle height is reduced to below the sternum, or what some people will know as the belly."

Feedback from community grades trialling the reduced tackle height in the 2022 season found that 78% of participants believed it improved the tackler's safety, 73% felt it made the game faster and 72% thought there were more opportunities for offloads.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I've also found this, a full match played under the French initiative rules, so that we can see what that one actually looks like:



ETA: Level is the final of Fédéral 3 - 7th level for the French system; equivalent to mid-table in Regional 2 (6th level) of the English system - more-or-less playing to break into the top 200 teams.
 
Last edited:
Which Tyler said:
I've also found this, a full match played under the French initiative rules, so that we can see what that one actually looks like:

Click to expand...

Jumping through this, it looks like a lot of examples of v good tackle technique, mirrored by very bad tackle technique in situations when it is totally inappropriate to be tackling below the waist.

There's a couple of really nice chop tackles that look textbook, and then a few minutes later where there is a kick return and about 4 players seem to just launch at the player with their head and all get bummped/stepped, where a smothering hit would have been waaaay more appropriate.
 

Similar threads

G
Help tackle big issues in Rugby: "I Bet You Need to Know This"
Replies
0
Views
296
GREATNetwork
G
A
Tackle bag/dummy questionnaire.
Replies
0
Views
308
awaldo
A
S
2034 - what will the game look like?
Replies
9
Views
671
Kiwiwomble
Kiwiwomble
A
Player shaped tackle bag/dummy
Replies
8
Views
2K
awaldo
A
Leonormous Boozer
No Foreigners in our front rows
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)
LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)

Latest posts

Top