Tackle height lowered in community game by RFU.

[stus768]

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:

It doesn't seem like they are reffing it particularly strictly. Lots of 'high shots' and a few where ball carrier is dipping.

There's also not hundreds of tries or offloads which I thought was supposed to be one of the 'selling points'.

 

[RedruthRFC]

It doesn't seem like they are reffing it particularly strictly. Lots of 'high shots' and a few where ball carrier is dipping.

There's also not hundreds of tries or offloads which I thought was supposed to be one of the 'selling points'.

Luke Cozens' tweet and interview about what went on in France are pretty worrying, but as always on both sides of the debate, it's hard to know what to behave and what to discount as propaganda.

It's hardly without precedent for a cup final to be a dour, attritional affair. Discounting this possible upside on the basis of one level 7 cup final is either mad or indicates another bias as far as I can see.

 

[stus768]

Luke Cozens' tweet and interview about what went on in France are pretty worrying, but as always on both sides of the debate, it's hard to know what to behave and what to discount as propaganda.

It's hardly without precedent for a cup final to be a dour, attritional affair. Discounting this possible upside on the basis of one level 7 cup final is either mad or indicates another bias as far as I can see.

It wasn't really a dour or attritional game. I'd
expect the two best teams at that level to be making the most of the new laws and there didn't seem to be a huge difference in how they played. Similarly I would expect it to have had a high standard of ref. That level final good in France because they have a much flatter league structure. So it's best from that level across the whole country.

As an aside I'm very jealous of the set up they have over there. Must be awesome to have that level of support at lower levels.

 

[Lancashire Nick]

Glad that the RFU have had to backtrack on this.

Yes, the tackle height needs to come down to prevent head on head clashes, but tackling below the waist leads to head on hips and knees clashes. 70% of concussions and head injuries are suffered by the tackler, so it's a myth that the ball carrier getting tackled at head height is all that the law makers have to worry about. We need to encourage tackling between the nipples and waist, as this is the soft area (always remembering that the head of the tackler is usually several inches above the shoulder); and to try to remove head on head clashes.

The law makers also have to remember, that it's clashes at high speed, when both parties have run a few yards that are the real danger, and not get wrapped up in stopping defenders tackling the Scrum Half when performing a "pick and go" from 1 yard out.

 

[Which Tyler]

Once again for those at the back.
There was never any suggestion of making it "tackling below the waist" but "at the waist and lower" - the upper border of the waist being described by the lower ribs, hips are lower than the lower border of the waist.
Head hitting hips and heads hitting knees are safer, and preferable than heads hitting heads, and wasn't the target of the initiative, though an increase would be inevitable.
Yes, 70%(ish) of head injuries are suffered by the tackler - that doesn't make it okay.
Only addressing the tacklers height was explicitly NOT the only thing the law makers were trying to address.
Nipples to waist is not a soft area; ribs are bony (though more giving than shoulders and hips). Waist is the soft area.
As you say, the tacklers head is almost always higher than their shoulder - so the point of contact wants to be low enough that the tacklers head isn't in the same vicinity as the ball carrier's shoulder, so the tackle height wants to be a few inches below the lowest high-risk contact area (the shoulder).

Also worth noting, if the change is too minimal, then the chances are that nothing much actually changes on the pitch. There also seems to be a desire - explicitly expressed by FFR - to introduce a... buffer zone between the target area and the high risk area, to allow for the fact that mistakes happen (and that heads are typically higher than shoulders).

 

[Which Tyler]

As for my own actual thoughts, having spent a couple of weeks thinking about it, and sifting through the evidence (that I can find) trying to apply common-sense packs etc; I've come up with what I would actually like to see (rather than a bunch of "not that"s)

I would drop the tackle height to armpit / nipple line, but I'd make it that the tackler's head needs to be below that target line OR the tackler's target line needs to be higher than the ball carrier's head.
I'd then encourage (or make law if taken up by WR) that shirt-companies put... something... at that line to make it more easily visible for refs.



The point is to get 1 players head away from the heads and shoulders of other players.
I don't really care which is higher, as long as they're not in the same place (as a trial, at least - but that trial needs to be at least 1 full season).

This still allows a buffer zone for misjudgements, between the armpit, and the bony top of the shoulder - about 3" (NB this is supposition. As far as I'm aware, the research hasn't differentiated between the bony top of the shoulder, and the meaty outside of the shoulder.)
I think heads are easier to see than shoulders at point of contact, especially at lower levels with no replays and no touch judges interventions.

I'm happy with "encouraging ball barriers not to dip into contact" - depending on the final wording and interpretations.
Bracing for impact should be fine; but not the "lunge & present shoulder" we see from some of the bigger wingers to bounce tacklers off them. The point here for me should be about showing the tackler where they can hit you, and then not deliberately changing that - height wise.

 

[Crash Hamster]

I absolutely object to the use of 'waist' to describe the abdomen. I've just done extensive (10 second) research on the definition of the waist and it changes depending on the source. I'd argue that the narrowest point of the abdomen (on a slim person, such as myself <cough>) is the waist and I can provide dictionary definitions to prove it. However, there are some definitions to suggest that it means the whole abdomen (which is clearly wrong IMHO, but I'd be citing it at a disciplinary hearing if I'd been sent off for a high tackle nevertheless.)

It's not a precise term at all, so certainly should not be used to define the laws of the game.

I think 'everything below the nipple line', at least at initial contact, seems to make the most sense. It's easy to define with a hoop on the jersey (though wait for 'Hoopgate' scandals) and isn't going to change the game completely. Which Tyler to replace Bill Beaumont!

 

[BiggusLaddus]

I think 'everything below the nipple line', at least at initial contact, seems to make the most sense. It's easy to define with a hoop on the jersey (though wait for 'Hoopgate' scandals) and isn't going to change the game completely. Which Tyler to replace Bill Beaumont!

Don't forget that the position of the 'nipple line' is a quite variable for a prop.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Don't forget that the position of the 'nipple line' is a quite variable for a prop.

It would have to be the anatomical nipple line for the chunkier gentleman, that's for sure!

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Waist meant below the belly button initially. The RFU then backtracked from that and said up to lower sternum. That's directly from the RFU.

The thing that gets me with this is most cases I watch on tv of head on head are already red cards and are caused by the offside line not being policed so the players are flying up etc. players end up too high my accident a lot. Is changing the tackle height going to affect this?

Nope.

 

[Which Tyler]

Having realised fairly quickly that they had screwed up, England Rugby is now trying to do it properly and has released a survey for all players, coaches, parent of players etc to complete.

RFU

www.englandrugby.com

It has some good videos which explain the issues and than some questions to answer. It is both informative and welcome. I would encourage anyone who has a view on this (which should really be everyone on this board) to complete the survey.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Having realised fairly quickly that they had screwed up, England Rugby is now trying to do it properly and has released a survey for all players, coaches, parent of players etc to complete.

RFU

www.englandrugby.com

It has some good videos which explain the issues and than some questions to answer. It is both informative and welcome. I would encourage anyone who has a view on this (which should really be everyone on this board) to complete the survey.

I did the survey but thought it was useless. They are not really gathering data or getting opinion unfortunately. They also didn't ask what areas we thought the tackle grog her should be which is key really.

Again the RFU is completely out of its depth and out of touch.

Thank you for sharing this though. It's strange that me as a player and coach haven't been sent this directly by the RFU.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Well, I've got a migraine after watching that. Just because text can be made to appear from several diferent directions doesn't mean that it ever should. Did they let the work experience loose with Publisher or something? Blimey.

Also, it won't currently let me carry on as it says I've not watched the video...

 

[Saintjay]

Ditto thanks for sharing I've done it but I'm still confused as to why the changes are not across the board. Head injuries and concussion just as much an issue in the pro game. Certainly don't agree the data from the France trial is all is cracked up to be either.

 

[Which Tyler]

1. I'm still confused as to why the changes are not across the board. Head injuries and concussion just as much an issue in the pro game.
2. Certainly don't agree the data from the France trial is all is cracked up to be either.

1. Because the RFU can only legislate for the game in England.
2. We can't really know what their data is like until they actually publish their data.

Personally, I wasn't expecting the RFU consultation to clear up either of those points.

 

[Nofrontteeth]

1. Because the RFU can only legislate for the game in England.
2. We can't really know what their data is like until they actually publish their data.

Personally, I wasn't expecting the RFU consultation to clear up either of those points.

Gary Ringrose v. Kinghorn's hip. Tackle low and neck brace followed!
Hope he's OK .

 

[Saintjay]

 

[Which Tyler]

Gary Ringrose v. Kinghorn's hip. Tackle low and neck brace followed!
Hope he's OK .

Sorry, is this quoting me by mistake, or addressing something I've said?
Goes without saying that I too hope that GR is okay.

 

[Nofrontteeth]

Sorry, is this quoting me by mistake, or addressing something I've said?
Goes without saying that I too hope that GR is okay.

Sorry an Academy Players error. Just indicating that no tackle height is free from hazard and risk.
It certainly didn't look good and hopefully he won't be rushed back to soon for either club or country.

 

[Which Tyler]

Sorry an Academy Players error. Just indicating that no tackle height is free from hazard and risk.
It certainly didn't look good and hopefully he won't be rushed back to soon for either club or country.

Trust me, it's not just rookies that make that error.
And yes, there's no risk-free tackle area, and never can be; which is why it's all about mitigation, not removal; and trying not to let the perfect be the enemy of the achievable.

I have that same hope for so many players, for so many different injuries - I'm usually disappointed.