World rugby injury prevention recomendations.

[Scotty]

You can just imagine every time a team gets a turnover, usually the most exciting attacking times, they will kick the ball before the sweepers have reset

I was thinking this tbh, make 20m break or boot it down feild and make 50m and sttacking line out in your opponents 22... no brainer.

 

[profitius]

Its not easy kicking it into the 22 from far out. There's not much time and a miss kick will result in a lost chance.

 

[Scotty]

Not easy but if this rule comes in it will be practised alot in training, it wouldnt happen everytime but it would be a tactic to try for the kick instead of just run it. although i currently am against the rule i wouldnt be unhappy if it was trialled, it might work out better than i think but im just sceptical of it.

 

[Which Tyler]

50:22 kick proposal. If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents' 22 or from inside their own 22 into their opponents' half, they will throw in to the resultant lineout. Rationale: To create space by forcing players to drop back out of the defensive line in order to prevent their opponents from kicking for touch. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

Not sure this will make much difference, a well organised back 3 should have this covered anyway, but it will amost guaranttee that turn-over ball is kicked instead of run. Worth a try though (if we must change), which is what they're doing - the law of unintended consequences will inevitably throw something unexpected out of this.

Reduction in the number of permitted substitutions. Rationale: To encourage more space and opportunities towards the end of the game as on-field players tire. Recommendation: For World Rugby to sponsor more research to determine if there is a player welfare benefit.

I quite like this - it will probably increase the risk of minor injuries; but I'm okay with that. We'll need to see how much that risk increases, and whether it does open up matches, or increase risk of more serious injuries. WR are going for more research before putting it to a trial anywhere - which seems fair.

Off feet at the ruck – players must move away from the ball without delay. Rationale: To ensure more space and time is afforded to the attacking side. Recommendation: Specialist working group should be formed to assess all issues regarding the ruck/ breakdown.

Theoretically, this is already the case; it's just not enforced. However, I fully support a working group looking at all issues of the ruck - there are many, most importantly the reckless charging in IMO.

Delaying the movement of the defensive line at the ruck until the ball has reached the first attacking player or until the receiver opts not to pass. Rationale: To give the team in possession more time and space on the ball. Recommendation: Not to approve for trial.

Meh, this seems like "if you're not going to enforce the offside line, then do this to give us more time/space" I'd rather they just enforced the offside line.

Reducing the tackle height to the waist. Rationale: Forcing players to tackle lower may reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

The stats still show that the higher the tackle, the more likely it is to result in injury. So yes, the evidence does suggest that shoulder high tackles are more dangerous than hip or knee high tackle - especially for concussion, where the issue if the tackler being damaged, not the ball carrier. That latter point seems to be the bugger. IMO going to the waist is going too far - I'd be happy with armpit or nipple line, giving that leeway for a mis-judgement of an inch or so to still be "safe enough". I would make an allowance for seatbelt tackles though - I've not seen any evidence that they're dangerous for either player as they just get lumped in with "tackles above the shoulder". WR are suggesting a closed trial, I suspect this will be quietly swept under the carpet after a couple of months.

Ability to review a yellow card when a player is in the sin-bin for dangerous foul play. Rationale: To ensure players who are guilty of serious foul play do not escape with a yellow card when they deserved red. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials.

Yes. Absolutely yes. Should probably be brought straight in (for after the RWC)

The introduction of an infringement (penalty and free-kick) limit for teams. Once a team has reached the limit, a mandatory yellow card is given to the last offending player as a team sanction. Rationale: To encourage teams to offend less. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.

Interesting - I'm never a fan of one-size-fits-all; and whilst not all offences are the same, the number "allowed" shouldn't be either. I guess it's worth a trial, but I instinctively don't like it.

The awarding of a goal line drop-out to the defending team when an attacking player, who brings the ball into in-goal, is held up. Rationale: To reward good defence and promote a faster rate of play. Recommendation: To approve for closed trials at NRC in Australia.

Isn't a 5m scrum enough of an advantage / reward for good defence? Seems like it's designed to award teams with less-good scrums.

One additional replacement per team be allowed during extra-time in a sevens match. Rationale: To manage player fatigue and workload. Recommendation: To approve for closed trial at the HSBC World Rugby Sevens Series and HSBC World Rugby Women's Sevens Series.

I don't watch enough 7s to comment

The High Tackle Technique warning has been successfully trialled at the World Rugby U20 Championship for the last two years. Rationale: Head Injury prevention strategy. Recommendation: To approve further closed trials.

I haven't really got my head around the warning as it is, let alone any tinkering with it.

A number of potential changes to tackle law were discussed by the group, with a particular reference to the community level in France. Rationale: To reduce injury rates in the domestic game. Recommendation: Approve for closed trials in designated FFR competitions.

Seems to be a local issue with a local proposed solution.

 

[Rinkadink]

Tackle height trial is nonsense; as I predicted elsewhere there would be issues with hips and knees especially... which bore out in the RFU championship where the trial was abandoned part way through due to the increase in injuries and severity IIRC.

Not that it will stop a governing body from politicising a percieved issue, even if the arguments don't add up. EG: Rugby League did a study on shoulder charge tackles (where you didn't have to wrap) and found that they actually resulted in less serious injuries than regular wraps yet some years later they ended up being outlawed anyway. Seen plenty of players wanting them brought back too in various videos but it's never going to happen.

For the other big point teams Exeter will be salivating at the chance to gain attacking line outs from turnovers. Hoof it up, grind. 40-20 is fine in league because of how possession works - the risk/reward in kicking your limited set away early against a defence potentially not set for fielding kicks until the later PTBs. It's very different in Union and won't translate in the same manner.

 

[Reiser99]

Isn't a 5m scrum enough of an advantage / reward for good defence? Seems like it's designed to award teams with less-good scrums.

Isn't the change that the attacking team gets the scrum currently. Instead the defensive team gets to kick from the try line. Big change, though I don't like it as it's not good defence usually but just get a body part in the right place and is a bit hit and miss. Occasionally it is good defence, but mostly just packing bodies in.

 

[Which Tyler]

Isn't the change that the attacking team gets the scrum currently. Instead the defensive team gets to kick from the try line. Big change, though I don't like it as it's not good defence usually but just get a body part in the right place and is a bit hit and miss. Occasionally it is good defence, but mostly just packing bodies in.

Yes it is; and it will change that part of the game significantly, and for the worse (as you say, hiding it from the camera becomes a turn-over).
My responce earlier is what comes of posting in a hurry between patients, and forgetting that it's still an ATTACKING 5M scrum.

 

[Scotty]

If we lower the tackle height then the number of head injuries will go down but the ones that do happen will be alot worse from hips and knees. Thats my thoughts on it.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Here's the BBC item on it today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49281949

The tackle height one will be very difficult. Well intentioned, but marginal calls for refs, big changes in technique for players.

I like the others although the 50:22 and drop out from own line are very RL!

The drop out from own line puts the onus on the attacking team to do something positive to score rather than just keep pounding away in a 2 yard area in the safe knowledge that they'll retain the ball if held up. That's Chiefs game plan up in smoke.

 

[Scotty]

Lowering tackle height to waist is stupid IMO. Right in the level of hips and knees and even elbows. It may lower head contacts but the ones that do happen will be alot more severe.

 

[Rinkadink]

Lowering tackle height to waist is stupid IMO. Right in the level of hips and knees and even elbows. It may lower head contacts but the ones that do happen will be alot more severe.

Indeed. BBC article on the prematurely abandoned trial; https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47000468

Highlight is a 67% increase in concussions, up from 0.6 a game to over 1 per match. It will be worse only being able to tackle even lower.

I think we've reached a point where we can't do much more without fundamentally compromising the game as we know it. I don't think anyone wants this aside from the bean counters concerned about being prosecuted/sued.

 

[Leinster Fan]

Reducing tackle height makes the game more dangerous if anything. I don't know what the solution is but it sure as hell isn't this.