JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:57 am
Right. It's a rate of incidence thing. Deal with the absolute worst thing first. The other can be somewhat mitigated with a return to better tackle techniques.
I can't help feeling this is at the root of the problem. We already have laws for illegal tackling to try and prevent head injuries. And they are not working
We’ve had six years since the introduction of the red-card protocols for head contact, with these all being more and more defined and refined each season. The only stat that has changed is the number of red cards, which continues to creep upwards.
and so the RFU's answer is to lower the tackle height further but if players are ignoring the laws already, changing the threshold isn't going to fix this. The real problem is the deterrent clearly isn't sufficient.
1) Fix the illegality,
2) Look at how concussions might (because it might be unfixable: at least without changing the game entirely) be reduced in legal play.
These are separate things.
I'm confused why you think the RFU's answer isn't going to fix anything. It's got nothing to do with the threshold and everything to do with what the laws allow. It's absolutely an acknowledgement that deterrent alone isn't enough, you need to change the game to force players to tackle lower.
Current scenario: You can twat someone in the chest and be centimetres away from knocking them out. It's "dangerous" but completely acceptable within the laws. Lots of big high shots are considered legal and are highly preferable & beneficial to the tackler in some circumstances. Some of the rest have small things change or go wrong and lead to brain injuries. On top of this, upright tackles with head clashes are a big source of problems.
In short: the game still rewards skirting the edge of danger with tackling "high" and risking serious consequences. If there's no head contact, in the majority of cases upright tacklers are not considered illegal and benefit from whatever advantage they get from their choice of tackle. There is no pressure on anyone to tackle lower, merely pressure to ensure you don't hit the head.
New scenario: It no longer allowed to tackle people at the previously acceptable height which skirts with danger. There is no longer any reason for a player to be trying to enter a tackle upright. The only way to tackle people legally is to bend or be vastly, comically shorter than your opponent. Tackling the ribcage is no longer allowed. The big shots to dislodge the ball or simply smash someone back with a rising tackle at that height now no longer bring any benefit, because you'll be penalised every time. And there's now even less leeway regarding head contact.
The benefits are gone, the pressures to tackle higher are gone. Players aren't really ignoring the laws at the moment. They're trying to play to the edge of the laws and that's part of the problem. So when the edge of the law is no longer a binary between "legal" and "potential KO", and instead creates a much larger buffer zone before you get to the really dangerous stuff, then players are simply flirting with penalties rather than flirting with red cards and brain damage.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:20 pm
I'm confused why you think the RFU's answer isn't going to fix anything. It's got nothing to do with the threshold and everything to do with what the laws allow. It's absolutely an acknowledgement that deterrent alone isn't enough, you need to change the game to force players to tackle lower.
Current scenario: You can twat someone in the chest and be centimetres away from knocking them out. It's "dangerous" but completely acceptable within the laws. Lots of big high shots are considered legal and are highly preferable & beneficial to the tackler in some circumstances. Some of the rest have small things change or go wrong and lead to brain injuries. On top of this, upright tackles with head clashes are a big source of problems.
In short: the game still rewards skirting the edge of danger with tackling "high" and risking serious consequences. If there's no head contact, in the majority of cases upright tacklers are not considered illegal and benefit from whatever advantage they get from their choice of tackle. There is no pressure on anyone to tackle lower, merely pressure to ensure you don't hit the head.
New scenario: It no longer allowed to tackle people at the previously acceptable height which skirts with danger. There is no longer any reason for a player to be trying to enter a tackle upright. The only way to tackle people legally is to bend or be vastly, comically shorter than your opponent. Tackling the ribcage is no longer allowed. The big shots to dislodge the ball or simply smash someone back with a rising tackle at that height now no longer bring any benefit, because you'll be penalised every time. And there's now even less leeway regarding head contact.
The benefits are gone, the pressures to tackle higher are gone. Players aren't really ignoring the laws at the moment. They're trying to play to the edge of the laws and that's part of the problem. So when the edge of the law is no longer a binary between "legal" and "potential KO", and instead creates a much larger buffer zone before you get to the really dangerous stuff, then players are simply flirting with penalties rather than flirting with red cards and brain damage.
Even if this new law works brilliantly and nobody ever tackles above the waist ever again, rugby players will still get 'brain damage' playing rugby, this won't stop that happening.
Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:34 pm
Even if this new law works brilliantly and nobody ever tackles above the waist ever again, rugby players will still get 'brain damage' playing rugby, this won't stop that happening.
Are you REFRY today???
We're trying to reduce head contact. Every sensible person knows it can't be eliminated completely in a contact sport.
Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:34 pmEven if this new law works brilliantly and nobody ever tackles above the waist ever again, rugby players will still get 'brain damage' playing rugby, this won't stop that happening.
"We can't eliminate it so there's no point to trying to meaningfully reduce it" is a shit take
Agreed, that's the heart of it. I can't see sternum making much difference given that it is still likely to see the upright, upward driving tackle that leads to head clashes, esp. as NZ love a big hit.
It's also fascinating to see so many coming out against something that's intended to make the game safer. Acknowledging that the RFU could have been more open and with all the potential questions answered/diagramed/with instructional materials, you'd hope that people would see it as a trial to fix the safety issues and give it a shot. But at least James While (is he 'Jake'?) is willing to admit that he likes the 'brutality' of the sport over tries being scored.
... for the last year or so, and especially as I became a youth coordinator, it's this attitude combined with concussion rates, tragic stories of former pros, and shocking examples of refs downplaying/ignoring clear reds, that I'm close to walking away from the sport (or focusing on youth non-contact only). I've only held on because I feel like the sport needs people like me who are strict on safety and who promote attacking flair. But seeing youth player prefer to bosh into each other and coaches continuously talking about 'dominant tackles', yelling 'line speed', etc. celebrating big hits has me thinking it's no longer the game for me.
Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:34 pm
Even if this new law works brilliantly and nobody ever tackles above the waist ever again, rugby players will still get 'brain damage' playing rugby, this won't stop that happening.
Are you REFRY today???
We're trying to reduce head contact. Every sensible person knows it can't be eliminated completely in a contact sport.
Even the experts say that. But people like Tucker continuously say they're hoping to see a more significant reduction because sanctioning clearly hasn't stopped players from entering that extremely risky shoulder area.
If unions do nothing about that, numbers are going to continue to drop as fewer teens transition to adult rugby and fewer parents get their kids involved. (Not to mention the impending lawsuits, which may ultimately fail, but will most definitely point to moments where Unions did nothing or walked back on advice from experts.)
If you look through games that Buck Shelford and the rest of them played, you won't see the kind of hits that have got people worried about brain damage.
Jake going "the studies show that nipple line is safe!!" is infuriating. Yeah Jake, if you tackle someone at nipple line then that's "safe", but if it's legal to do so then people will try to do so and end up hitting higher by accident at times because of "rugby incidents" which is the entire fucking point of this exercise jesus christ
Tichtheid wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:11 pm
If you look through games that Buck Shelford and the rest of them played, you won't see the kind of hits that have got people worried about brain damage.
You look at what the big tackles were back in the 90s and it's largely the midriff ones. There were significantly higher numbers of leg tackles and a lot more "arms only" tackles and bearhugs rather than really putting the shoulder in.
Plenty of cheap shots and all that, but here's a good example:
The Wilko era was the start of the big shot to the chest becoming the default and tackles being expected to be "dominant" every time, but even then it took a good 5-10 years to really turn into what we see these days.
Tichtheid wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:11 pm
If you look through games that Buck Shelford and the rest of them played, you won't see the kind of hits that have got people worried about brain damage.
I watched some late 80s games recently and noticed far more offloading than expected, which meant they weren't trying to run each other over. And while there were a few dangerous tackles, they're the sort of thing the game is pretty good about identifying/eliminating now. It's interesting seeing people up in arms over the tackle height issue say "They're trying to change MY game to something different." While it's clear that today's bosh, big hit, League defence, rucks in the right place possession game is hugely different from the one played early 90s back... to the 30s, at least, given the clips I've seen. Less 'ball in play' time and far more kicking back then, with something like half the amount of rucks as we see today.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:12 pm
Jake going "the studies show that nipple line is safe!!" is infuriating. Yeah Jake, if you tackle someone at nipple line then that's "safe", but if it's legal to do so then people will try to do so and end up hitting higher by accident at times because of "rugby incidents" which is the entire fucking point of this exercise jesus christ
He manages to be spectacularly wrong on nearly everything.
Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:34 pmEven if this new law works brilliantly and nobody ever tackles above the waist ever again, rugby players will still get 'brain damage' playing rugby, this won't stop that happening.
"We can't eliminate it so there's no point to trying to meaningfully reduce it" is a shit take
I didn't say that. The RFU have taken some of the law changes that have (apparently) worked in France but not adopted all of them. Ball carrier isn't banned from lowering height and multiple tacklers are allowed. It's a bodge.
Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:34 pmEven if this new law works brilliantly and nobody ever tackles above the waist ever again, rugby players will still get 'brain damage' playing rugby, this won't stop that happening.
"We can't eliminate it so there's no point to trying to meaningfully reduce it" is a shit take
I didn't say that. The RFU have taken some of the law changes that have (apparently) worked in France but not adopted all of them. Ball carrier isn't banned from lowering height and multiple tacklers are allowed. It's a bodge.
That's also not what you said. You made the point that brain damage will still happen. It will. It still happens under the rules used in France. Having a large impact on the rate of dangerous head contact is the point.
Bolded bit: not entirely true. We lack detail on it, but the ball carriers will be having to change how they behave as well:
Ball carriers will also be encouraged to follow the principle of evasion, which is a mainstay of the game, to avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.
We'll have to wait and see what that actually means.
Complaining that they've not gone even further does seem weird given how much you hate the changes they've suggested.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:12 pm
Jake going "the studies show that nipple line is safe!!" is infuriating. Yeah Jake, if you tackle someone at nipple line then that's "safe", but if it's legal to do so then people will try to do so and end up hitting higher by accident at times because of "rugby incidents" which is the entire fucking point of this exercise jesus christ
He manages to be spectacularly wrong on nearly everything.
"We can't eliminate it so there's no point to trying to meaningfully reduce it" is a shit take
I didn't say that. The RFU have taken some of the law changes that have (apparently) worked in France but not adopted all of them. Ball carrier isn't banned from lowering height and multiple tacklers are allowed. It's a bodge.
That's also not what you said. You made the point that brain damage will still happen. It will. It still happens under the rules used in France. Having a large impact on the rate of dangerous head contact is the point.
Bolded bit: not entirely true. We lack detail on it, but the ball carriers will be having to change how they behave as well:
Ball carriers will also be encouraged to follow the principle of evasion, which is a mainstay of the game, to avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.
We'll have to wait and see what that actually means.
Complaining that they've not gone even further does seem weird given how much you hate the changes they've suggested.
Making changes that won't work is what's the problem. All this law change does is introduce a shit load more grey areas for referees to sort out.
Ymx wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:11 pm
I’m sure it’s been covered, but didn’t a previous trial of this completely fail to work??
I’d agree with K on the additional grey areas it will create in terms of judging it.
There was a trial in the championship cup. Basically players would be expected to switch between laws on a weekly basis, and the one where the old laws applied was far more important. It was abandoned after a few weeks.
There's also thousands of hours of match data from France, where it's been running in the lower leagues for 2 seasons now, with no switching between laws etc.
One of these datasets and "trials" is not like the other in terms of reliability.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I didn't say that. The RFU have taken some of the law changes that have (apparently) worked in France but not adopted all of them. Ball carrier isn't banned from lowering height and multiple tacklers are allowed. It's a bodge.
That's also not what you said. You made the point that brain damage will still happen. It will. It still happens under the rules used in France. Having a large impact on the rate of dangerous head contact is the point.
Bolded bit: not entirely true. We lack detail on it, but the ball carriers will be having to change how they behave as well:
Ball carriers will also be encouraged to follow the principle of evasion, which is a mainstay of the game, to avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.
We'll have to wait and see what that actually means.
Complaining that they've not gone even further does seem weird given how much you hate the changes they've suggested.
Making changes that won't work is what's the problem. All this law change does is introduce a shit load more grey areas for referees to sort out.
At the very least it provides a lot more clarity to the single most contentious area of officiating in the current game. If it works correctly, it should be easier for refs, not harder. Importantly we don't have the full details of the law changes yet though so it's probably best to withold judgement until then.
Your previous complaints in this thread weren't that you thought it would be ineffective, but that change was entirely unnecessary to begin with, that rugby was a tough sport, that players already knew what they were getting into, and that the dangers were overblown and spun up by pressure groups. So forgive me if I'm a little slow to believe that your sudden interest in the efficacy of the proposed changes is from a safety perspective. At times it feels like you're just trying to find whatever angle you can to undermine this.
Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:25 pm
Most contentious?!
I've not even mentioned removing jacklers from rucks!
And nor does anyone else outside of a few nerdy circles. It's the head contact laws - the glut of red cards (correct or otherwise), the bans, the concussions, the player welfare, the long term health issues, and the on-field confusion that dominates the airwaves. Everything else is a distant second.
That's not to say the ruck doesn't need fixing. We agree on that.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:22 pm
Your previous complaints in this thread weren't that you thought it would be ineffective, but that change was entirely unnecessary to begin with, that rugby was a tough sport, that players already knew what they were getting into, and that the dangers were overblown and spun up by pressure groups. So forgive me if I'm a little slow to believe that your sudden interest in the efficacy of the proposed changes is from a safety perspective. At times it feels like you're just trying to find whatever angle you can to undermine this.
Not quite. I said it wouldn't reduce concussions. The RFU are introducing changes to the amateur game because of bad optics in the professional game. That's a pisser as well.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:22 pm
Your previous complaints in this thread weren't that you thought it would be ineffective, but that change was entirely unnecessary to begin with, that rugby was a tough sport, that players already knew what they were getting into, and that the dangers were overblown and spun up by pressure groups. So forgive me if I'm a little slow to believe that your sudden interest in the efficacy of the proposed changes is from a safety perspective. At times it feels like you're just trying to find whatever angle you can to undermine this.
Not quite. I said it wouldn't reduce concussions. The RFU are introducing changes to the amateur game because of bad optics in the professional game. That's a pisser as well.
I don't know why you keep trying to rewrite history but your posts are right there, dude. You started off calling the OP pathetic and it didn't improve. You said shit like this:
About the most pathetic OP I think I've ever read.
It is changing but with slow motion replays and a highly motivated but very small group of people hell bent on portraying world Rugby and the unions like they're the tobacco companies back in the day, the tackles when they happen are massively over-exposed and all kinds of nefarious causal health links are trotted out again and again.
In short, it's nowhere near as bad as you think and things have changed massively already. There's more red cards simply because of the forensic pouring over VT looking for it.
And I hope that never changes because if there are zero head collisions - even accidental ones which are still a red anyway - then rugby won't be worth the name anymore. FFS, it is a collision sport, it's supposed to be hard to play and tough to endure.
Unless you make rugby a game with the same tackle threshold as basketball then there is always going to be a risk of head contact. It's not anywhere near as dangerous as boxing, or MMA or even high-diving but there is that danger. And that's ok, people are prepared to play the sport with that level of danger. If they're not then fine, play something else.
Lots of stuff about it's a tough game, the dangers are over-stated, pressure groups blah blah. Notably, not a single thing about the effectiveness of the stated aim of the law changes.
Rugby is a tough game or at least it should be. It isn't for everyone. This is half-arsed, that's obvious. Come back to this thread a year from now and let's compare notes then eh?
Kawazaki wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:45 pm
Rugby is a tough game or at least it should be. It isn't for everyone. This is half-arsed, that's obvious. Come back to this thread a year from now and let's compare notes then eh?
Rugby is a tough game...
but for all the current mess about high tackle technique and concussion related issues, it's guys from 20 or so years back that stand out as the tough men of the game. Nowadays it's just about impact and the intent to use that impact. Simple brute force... that's not tough, it's dumb.
the game has become dumber and that allows gobshites like Eddie Jones to stand out.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:46 pm
Works for me - I've been trying for ages to push the "let's wait and see how it goes" approach.
Listen to Tindall on the GBR thread, I only listened to it this morning but he accords with pretty much everything I've written. That's not an appeal to authority to make my POV more valid but it does demonstrate that maybe I'm not quite the outlier people on this thread might accuse me of being.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:46 pm
Works for me - I've been trying for ages to push the "let's wait and see how it goes" approach.
Listen to Tindall on the GBR thread, I only listened to it this morning but he accords with pretty much everything I've written. That's not an appeal to authority to make my POV more valid but it does demonstrate that maybe I'm not quite the outlier people on this thread might accuse me of being.
I don't think there's much doubt that your view is shared by many people.
Guy Smiley wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:59 pm
I'm not sure that sharing a view with Tindall is any sort of endorsement.
Try listening to him. There's no Haskell to ruin things. It's a very good episode and includes input from the RFU man responsible for the law change.
We've got a parallel over here. Another ex player from that era who is openly dismissive of attempts to clean the game up through disciplinary measures...unfortunately, he has a commentary gig. Justin 'kin Marshall....
these guys should know better. It's their peers who are increasingly reporting the tragic after effects... perhaps they're affected and are asymptomatic. Dead on their feet without knowing it. Zombies.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:20 pm
I'm confused why you think the RFU's answer isn't going to fix anything. It's got nothing to do with the threshold and everything to do with what the laws allow. It's absolutely an acknowledgement that deterrent alone isn't enough, you need to change the game to force players to tackle lower.
Current scenario: You can twat someone in the chest and be centimetres away from knocking them out. It's "dangerous" but completely acceptable within the laws. Lots of big high shots are considered legal and are highly preferable & beneficial to the tackler in some circumstances. Some of the rest have small things change or go wrong and lead to brain injuries. On top of this, upright tackles with head clashes are a big source of problems.
In short: the game still rewards skirting the edge of danger with tackling "high" and risking serious consequences. If there's no head contact, in the majority of cases upright tacklers are not considered illegal and benefit from whatever advantage they get from their choice of tackle. There is no pressure on anyone to tackle lower, merely pressure to ensure you don't hit the head.
New scenario: It no longer allowed to tackle people at the previously acceptable height which skirts with danger. There is no longer any reason for a player to be trying to enter a tackle upright. The only way to tackle people legally is to bend or be vastly, comically shorter than your opponent. Tackling the ribcage is no longer allowed. The big shots to dislodge the ball or simply smash someone back with a rising tackle at that height now no longer bring any benefit, because you'll be penalised every time. And there's now even less leeway regarding head contact.
The benefits are gone, the pressures to tackle higher are gone. Players aren't really ignoring the laws at the moment. They're trying to play to the edge of the laws and that's part of the problem. So when the edge of the law is no longer a binary between "legal" and "potential KO", and instead creates a much larger buffer zone before you get to the really dangerous stuff, then players are simply flirting with penalties rather than flirting with red cards and brain damage.
I didn't actually say it wouldn't fix anything! I said it was not going to reduce the illegal tackle count which is actually increasing....... not because the deterrent alone isn't enough but because the weak deterrent alone is not enough. Ergo: start punishing the offences properly.
OK, maybe this law change will reduce the incidence of concussion but it absolutely will not fix it. That Nolan guy on PR along with the massed ranks of dissenters are correct here. Because plenty of concussions happen due to poor or unlucky head positioning when going low.
In short
- this change will do f**k all to reduce illegality. My bet is it will increase it. Because the threshold line is lower. But critically, the incidence of head shots outlawed on the current laws won't be impacted at all.
- it might reduce some concussions but the only way to end that is to stop playing rugby.
I disagree on the point of players not deliberately ignoring the laws. That is exactly what they are doing. It won't be under the new laws: that will be because changing the instinctive which has been programmed into for years will not happen. It will take a generation to do that......... except, of course, at the top level this law won't apply.
Your argument is akin to saying the speed limit is 70mph but some drivers routinely do 100mph. So, let's reduce the limit to 50mph. That'll fix it.
No. It won't. The dangerous drivers will continue at 100mph (unless you, say, jailed for 1 year as a min) and all you'll do is criminalise a large subset who hitherto were law abiding.
Torquemada 1420 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:32 pm
Your argument is akin to saying the speed limit is 70mph but some drivers routinely do 100mph. So, let's reduce the limit to 50mph. That'll fix it.
No. It won't. The dangerous drivers will continue at 100mph (unless you, say, jailed for 1 year as a min) and all you'll do is criminalise a large subset who hitherto were law abiding.
To borrow from this analogy, it also looks like the suggested speed limit used to be 70mph, but gradually everyone started going 100mph. It didn't result in a rash of deaths and some people bloody love it, but there are more accidents as a result of reckless speeds (mad rush without thinking) / people who aren't capable (poor technique). You can punish drivers, but those accidents are still going to happen at the same rate. Is that acceptable? People know the risks of getting in a car, but should the people in charge allow that level of risk and do nothing to try and fix it, even with a trial study?
That's the weird tone from some people in this, beyond feeling hurt about not being personally contacted by the RFU (like World Rugby contact anyone at that level as I may have said before). Some people bloody love going fast and be damned to others, they knew what they were getting into. That's an underlying tone in many of the rants I've read on twitter and they always seem to start with "I'm all for player safety, but... [not really as I love smashing people]"
Torquemada 1420 wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:32 pm
Your argument is akin to saying the speed limit is 70mph but some drivers routinely do 100mph. So, let's reduce the limit to 50mph. That'll fix it.
No. It won't. The dangerous drivers will continue at 100mph (unless you, say, jailed for 1 year as a min) and all you'll do is criminalise a large subset who hitherto were law abiding.
To borrow from this analogy, it also looks like the suggested speed limit used to be 70mph, but gradually everyone started going 100mph. It didn't result in a rash of deaths and some people bloody love it, but there are more accidents as a result of reckless speeds (mad rush without thinking) / people who aren't capable (poor technique). You can punish drivers, but those accidents are still going to happen at the same rate. Is that acceptable? People know the risks of getting in a car, but should the people in charge allow that level of risk and do nothing to try and fix it, even with a trial study?
That's the weird tone from some people in this, beyond feeling hurt about not being personally contacted by the RFU (like World Rugby contact anyone at that level as I may have said before). Some people bloody love going fast and be damned to others, they knew what they were getting into. That's an underlying tone in many of the rants I've read on twitter and they always seem to start with "I'm all for player safety, but... [not really as I love smashing people]"
Except I don't think everyone is gradually doing that. The vast majority are trying to do it right. And if you properly punished those drivers, rather than just 3 points when you need 10 before it hurts, you might effect meaningful change. Yes, let's have a trial study: a trial of properly punishing miscreants like Farrell rather than an already derisory regime being manipulated to suit.
The bit in red. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Rugby is a game enjoyed by people who like smashing people. All of them.. We need a seismic shift in the game laws to reward skill, passing, flair etc rather than conservatism and one out trucking bosh.
Doing it on my phone so will have dredged up some crap with it, apologies
The legal tackle height is set to be lowered across all elite rugby globally, despite a growing revolt against plans to roll out the most seismic changes to the way the game is played since it turned professional.
The chief executive of World Rugby, Alan Gilpin, confirmed on Thursday it planned to follow the Rugby Football Union’s lead in rewriting its own rules on an issue that has left the sport bitterly divided.
But, in an exclusive interview with Telegraph Sport, he also said the “likelihood” was that the legal tackle height in the international and professional club game, which currently lies at shoulder level, would not be lowered as far as the waist.
The RFU’s decision to ban tackling above the waistline in the community game in England provoked outrage but Gilpin gave it a ringing endorsement and said other countries were set to follow suit.
He also confirmed World Rugby was planning to stage a global law trial from Jan 1, initially at amateur level, with a decision yet to be made over whether that would involve a prohibition on tackles above the waist or the sternum.
Unlike the RFU law change, which takes effect from next season, any change to the legal tackle height at the top end of the sport would not be any earlier than the 2024-25 season and may not even be in place until after the 2027 World Cup.
Gilpin said: “Yes, we’re looking to make sure that we are implementing a lower tackle height across all parts of the game. How that’s actually implemented is slightly different in the community game to the elite game.”
He added: “You’re in a slightly different environment, for a number of reasons, in the elite part of the game, particularly at an international level, because the level of – for example – medical provision, diagnostic ability etc, is very different.
Advertisement
Advertisement : 14 sec
“We obviously have TMO [Television Match Officials], HIA [Head Injury Assessment], the ability for immediate pitch-side care in all of elite-level rugby that you don’t have in the community game. We’ve got to recognise that they’re not the same sport.”
The RFU has stood firm over its ban on tackles above the waist, which its council refused to consult the wider game on before voting for.
So fierce has been the backlash from those affected that Bill Sweeney, the governing body’s chief executive, and its board are in danger of facing a vote of no confidence.
But Gilpin defended the ban, which was announced amid the latest wave of legal action against World Rugby and the RFU by former players with dementia or other brain disorders.
Advertisement
He said: “The RFU obviously is in the process of implementing some changes around tackle height that we support. Because we know, from all of the research and science and medicine, that lowering the tackle height is a really important part of making the game safer.
“There’s a lot of work to do to educate people. But we’ve got to, as a sport, try to find that really difficult but hugely-important balance between safety but making the game entertaining to watch.
“It’s not binary. It’s not one or the other. It’s how do we make the game safer and a better spectacle to watch and a better game to play?
“It’s tough because it’s a really, really complex message to deliver. On one level, it’s very simple. We know from all the research that’s been done and is incredibly comprehensive, you’re four-and-a-half times more likely to sustain a head injury when you tackle from an upright position than when the tackler is bent at the waist.
Advertisement
“We need to get players tackling lower at every part of the game. Obviously, there’s an elite part of the game where we’re doing a huge amount of work and we’ve used sanctions, and red cards in particular, trying to drive changes in behaviour.
“When you look at the community game, it’s challenging to roll that out on a global basis.
“It requires significant buy-in from the game in different parts of the world.
“You’ll always have the traditionalists, I guess, who understandably say, ‘Stop tweaking things and don’t change too much, because we’re really concerned about losing the inherent fabric of the sport’ – and we all absolutely get that.
“At the same time, we’ve got to make sure that we are attracting people to the sport that is safe to play – or is as safe to play as a sport that’s a contact one can be.
World Rugby to lower tackle height across elite game
World Rugby do not believe new tackle height will be as low as the waist CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES/Cameron Spencer
“There’s always work to do in implementing change and how you can consult around change and how you communicate and educate around change. But the key message is let’s get the tackle height lower at every level of the game because that will reduce – absolutely reduce – the number of head injuries that we see in rugby. And that’s really important if, again, we’re going to win the battle for the hearts and minds of not just the young people we want to play the game, boys and girls, but the mums and dads who may be concerned about injuries in rugby.
“So, we’ve got a responsibility from a World Rugby perspective, to work hard with our member federations around the world.
Advertisement
“That communication challenge is tougher in places where rugby’s got a long heritage and history and is played in significant numbers, and that’s what the RFU is experiencing in this last week or so.”
Gilpin’s declaration comes as momentum is building towards a vote of no confidence in RFU chief executive Sweeney, with close to 250 clubs now in support of a special general meeting (SGM) in the wake of the governing body’s move to implement new tackle laws.
Community Clubs Union (CCU), an independent organisation launched in response to last week’s announcement, has spearheaded the campaign. They are hoping in the coming days to reach final sign-off on a letter requesting the SGM, which requires the support of at least 100 members of the union, and are coordinating the process of collecting letters from each dissenting club which must be signed by a chairperson and a secretary.
Analysis: Rugby's brave new world could cause unintended consequences
By Charlie Morgan, Senior Rugby Writer
The chief aim of World Rugby’s inevitable move to lower the legal tackle height in the elite game to below the sternum is to reduce the number of upright tackles and the frequency of head-on-head collisions between players.
Advertisement
Data shows that these events are most likely to cause concussions and global authorities evidently feel, with two legal actions taken out against governing bodies including the Rugby Football Union and World Rugby, as though the intervention is necessary because there is an acknowledgment that stricter sanctions are not having the desired outcome of decreasing the number of brain injuries.
If we accept that, then there is an obvious follow-up question: What will be the ripple effects of such a drastic change on the sport as a spectacle? As ever, both intended and unintended consequences have to be considered.
First, the obvious aspects. Rangy-limbed offloaders are certain to become more valuable. While he made a significant impact on the sport as a back-to-back World Cup-winner, ex-All Blacks centre Sonny Bill Williams will curse that he retired too early. Imagine how much havoc could be caused by an in-form Leone Nakarawa, the supremely dextrous Fiji lock, if defenders are not permitted above his sternum.
New Zealand's Sonny Bill Williams in action during the 2019 Rugby World Cup matc
Sonny Bill Williams would have been an even more valuable commodity under new tackle laws CREDIT: PA/David Davies
Upright wrap-tackles, often featuring multiple defenders and widely known as “choke tackles”, grew in popularity as a means of suffocating attacks and stopping opponents from releasing passes out of contact. It may still be possible to slow down opposition phase-play, and perhaps force a turnover by creating a maul, but surely much more difficult. Pick-and-go sequences, regarded by many as a blight on the game, could grow in influence. How does one stop them without standing tall?
With that in mind, then, how else will defences contest possession in open play? One has to think that the breakdown will increase in significance as a battleground – as if it were not ferocious and pivotal enough. Defenders arriving second to the contact area will often hold up a carrier under current laws. Will they now wait for the ball to hit the floor and flood into the ruck even more fiercely in hunched-over jackal positions? The worry is that the breakdown is already a mine-field for injuries and governed by idiosyncratic refereeing interpretations. This is unlikely to alter either of those things. Quite the opposite.
Advertisement
On both sides of the ball, the skill of support-running will be placed under greater scrutiny because, as well as offloads, there should be more onus on ruck-speed – with attackers aiming to blow past the ball and defenders bidding to scrap and spoil.
“We know the issues the breakdown is causing and a lot of people think that is worse than the tackle,” says Nick Easter, the former England back-row, who is now coaching at Chinnor after spells with Harlequins, Newcastle Falcons and Worcester Warriors. He is also wary of an avalanche of penalties bringing about more stoppages with “whistle-happy” officials exacerbating what is “already a difficult sport for the layman to understand”.
The changing face of the sport is, of course, little concern right now to Twickenham, at least not in the immediate future. RFU figureheads could well face a vote of no confidence due to their handling of the impending waist-height tackle trial. Besides the anger at the governing body’s aloof and vague communication, compounding the lack of consultation with community clubs and players, a major frustration sweeping across English rugby union is that the notion of ‘tackle-choice’ – essentially how a player picks from an arsenal of defensive tools depending on the match scenario – would seem to be nullified. Currently, there is an art in choosing which sort of tackle to use in any given situation.
The RFU have stressed that finer details are yet to be determined and World Rugby’s plans for the elite game are clearly at a far earlier stage. Interestingly, a trial at grassroots and junior levels in New Zealand, which is to be rolled out across the country more widely in 2023, required the first tackler to target below the sternum, around the belly. A second tackler could then come in as high as the shoulder line. It would seem as though this has addressed safety concerns and retained an element of ‘tackle-choice’.
Advertisement
Pace, passing and ball-in-play time were the intended outcomes of the 50:22 kicking law and implementation of a goal-line drop-out instead of a five-metre scrum. The sternum-height tackle will no doubt be pitched as a means to deliver these things as well. Rugby union should always reward powerful runners, muscular scrummagers and athletic jumpers, but it will be interesting to monitor any gradual changes in body composition among elite teams and across positions.
Passionate about retaining “the fabric of the game” as a pursuit for “all shapes and sizes where there is a contest for possession”, Easter would prioritise tackle technique and cap replacements in order to incite fatigue. The first is a necessity. In time, the second may also become part of this brave new world.
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
Niegs wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:45 pm
Can anyone get the full text on this?
Analysis: Rugby's brave new world could cause unintended consequences
By Charlie Morgan, Senior Rugby Writer
The chief aim of World Rugby’s inevitable move to lower the legal tackle height in the elite game to below the sternum is to reduce the number of upright tackles and the frequency of head-on-head collisions between players.
Data shows that these events are most likely to cause concussions and global authorities evidently feel, with two legal actions taken out against governing bodies including the Rugby Football Union and World Rugby, as though the intervention is necessary because there is an acknowledgment that stricter sanctions are not having the desired outcome of decreasing the number of brain injuries.
If we accept that, then there is an obvious follow-up question: What will be the ripple effects of such a drastic change on the sport as a spectacle? As ever, both intended and unintended consequences have to be considered.
First, the obvious aspects. Rangy-limbed offloaders are certain to become more valuable. While he made a significant impact on the sport as a back-to-back World Cup-winner, ex-All Blacks centre Sonny Bill Williams will curse that he retired too early. Imagine how much havoc could be caused by an in-form Leone Nakarawa, the supremely dextrous Fiji lock, if defenders are not permitted above his sternum.
Upright wrap-tackles, often featuring multiple defenders and widely known as “choke tackles”, grew in popularity as a means of suffocating attacks and stopping opponents from releasing passes out of contact. It may still be possible to slow down opposition phase-play, and perhaps force a turnover by creating a maul, but surely much more difficult. Pick-and-go sequences, regarded by many as a blight on the game, could grow in influence. How does one stop them without standing tall?
With that in mind, then, how else will defences contest possession in open play? One has to think that the breakdown will increase in significance as a battleground – as if it were not ferocious and pivotal enough. Defenders arriving second to the contact area will often hold up a carrier under current laws. Will they now wait for the ball to hit the floor and flood into the ruck even more fiercely in hunched-over jackal positions? The worry is that the breakdown is already a mine-field for injuries and governed by idiosyncratic refereeing interpretations. This is unlikely to alter either of those things. Quite the opposite.
On both sides of the ball, the skill of support-running will be placed under greater scrutiny because, as well as offloads, there should be more onus on ruck-speed – with attackers aiming to blow past the ball and defenders bidding to scrap and spoil.
“We know the issues the breakdown is causing and a lot of people think that is worse than the tackle,” says Nick Easter, the former England back-row, who is now coaching at Chinnor after spells with Harlequins, Newcastle Falcons and Worcester Warriors. He is also wary of an avalanche of penalties bringing about more stoppages with “whistle-happy” officials exacerbating what is “already a difficult sport for the layman to understand”.
The changing face of the sport is, of course, little concern right now to Twickenham, at least not in the immediate future. RFU figureheads could well face a vote of no confidence due to their handling of the impending waist-height tackle trial. Besides the anger at the governing body’s aloof and vague communication, compounding the lack of consultation with community clubs and players, a major frustration sweeping across English rugby union is that the notion of ‘tackle-choice’ – essentially how a player picks from an arsenal of defensive tools depending on the match scenario – would seem to be nullified. Currently, there is an art in choosing which sort of tackle to use in any given situation.
The RFU have stressed that finer details are yet to be determined and World Rugby’s plans for the elite game are clearly at a far earlier stage. Interestingly, a trial at grassroots and junior levels in New Zealand, which is to be rolled out across the country more widely in 2023, required the first tackler to target below the sternum, around the belly. A second tackler could then come in as high as the shoulder line. It would seem as though this has addressed safety concerns and retained an element of ‘tackle-choice’.
Pace, passing and ball-in-play time were the intended outcomes of the 50:22 kicking law and implementation of a goal-line drop-out instead of a five-metre scrum. The sternum-height tackle will no doubt be pitched as a means to deliver these things as well. Rugby union should always reward powerful runners, muscular scrummagers and athletic jumpers, but it will be interesting to monitor any gradual changes in body composition among elite teams and across positions.
Passionate about retaining “the fabric of the game” as a pursuit for “all shapes and sizes where there is a contest for possession”, Easter would prioritise tackle technique and cap replacements in order to incite fatigue. The first is a necessity. In time, the second may also become part of this brave new world.
