Fun thread... let's rewrite the Law book

[Gumboot]

But we're still circling round to the reality that there will always be catastrophic injuries due to the nature of the game.

Regardless of malicious intent. With this in mind, helmet or not, is it morally right to continue along this path?

Or should all contact sports get canned due to safety concerns?

It's complicated. Think I'll leave the last call up to Refry.

[Guy Smiley]

The point of the lower tackle debate is to reduce the risk of injury through modifying how the game can be played... without completely removing contact.

[Gumboot]

The point of the lower tackle debate is to reduce the risk of injury through modifying how the game can be played... without completely removing contact.

Which is a pipe dream, imho.

So now we have a situation where every poorly timed tackle (it's a split-second contact sport) is deemed foul.

That doesn't really help improve safety, either.

[Sandstorm]

How the hell do you scrum in a NFL-style helmet?

[Gumboot]

Some would argue that scrums are mostly pointless exercises these days. Unless you love endless resets and penalties.

[Sandstorm]

Some would argue that scrums are mostly pointless exercises these days. Unless you love endless resets and penalties.

Are they Welsh? Scrums are the most unique thing in spurt and should be cherished.

[Gumboot]

The NFL's much derided quarterback sneak, aka the tush push, is often compared to a rugby scrum. Not in a good way.

The scrum used to be huge for rugby. Now it's a laughable mess.

[Sandstorm]

The NFL's much derided quarterback sneak, aka the tush push, is often compared to a rugby scrum. Not in a good way.

The scrum used to be huge for rugby. Now it's a laughable mess.

Is that you, Sard? You’re talking nonsense, GB

[Gumboot]

Do we really want to be the sport known for having the ball in play for the least amount of time, or having it barely visible to supporters for most of the game? Hard to see how that's gonna attract many new fans, imho.

[Gumboot]

Why is the legality of a lineout throw still determined by whether it's straight or not, but a scrum feed isn't?

[Sandstorm]

Do we really want to be the sport known for having the ball in play for the least amount of time, or having it barely visible to supporters for most of the game? Hard to see how that's gonna attract many new fans, imho.

His old are you? 16? Rugby has ALWAYS had an average of 14 mins ball-in-play. Fucking kids.

[TB63]

Some would argue that scrums are mostly pointless exercises these days. Unless you love endless resets and penalties.

Are they Welsh? Scrums are the most unique thing in spurt and should be cherished.

I cherish my scrum when I spurt...

[Simian]

Yeah, the solid shell helmets prevent things like skull fractures, but the current models don't really give much protection against concussions (and some studies suggest they may even increase concussion severity). Designing helmets that significantly reduce concussion incidence and severity is huge business now. There have been a few studies that have shown encouraging results by increasing internal padding in key areas, adding an outer soft shell, and/or including things like gel 'crumple' zones. Apparently one of the major barriers to new helmet designs actually being widely adopted is that the ones that appear effective in reducing concussions are basically pretty much disposable. Another is affordability and the optics of mandating them at high levels when they aren't affordable at lower levels (apparently they're very expensive).

[Gumboot]

Do we really want to be the sport known for having the ball in play for the least amount of time, or having it barely visible to supporters for most of the game? Hard to see how that's gonna attract many new fans, imho.

His old are you? 16? Rugby has ALWAYS had an average of 14 mins ball-in-play. Fucking kids.

Great to see you enjoying this "Fun thread" so much.

[Ymx]

Didn’t the trial of tackling lower get scrapped as it led to more head collisions for the tacklers. It was trialled at age group level I’m sure.

[Guy Smiley]

https://www.world.rugby/news/808734/wor ... nity-rugby

World Rugby Council has unanimously approved a recommendation that unions participate in trials of a lower tackle height in community rugby.

The opt-in trial, which gives unions the freedom to adapt within their own jurisdiction, aims to improve player safety by reducing the risk of head-on-head contact and therefore concussions.

The international federation’s Council ratified the Executive Board’s recommendation from March, to follow the evidence and lower the permitted tackle height in the community game to below the base of the sternum - the area of the stomach, belly or below – statistically the safest place to make a tackle for both tackler and ball carrier.

Following World Rugby Executive Board’s initial recommendations in March, unions including England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Italy and South Africa are set to join the trials alongside France and New Zealand where similar trials were already taking place. Many more are undertaking consultation.

World Rugby endorsed trials in France and South Africa has shown that lowering the tackle height reduces the number of head-on-head contacts and concussions. Lowering the tackle height has also shown positive outcomes regarding increased ball-in-play time and offloading. The changes have also helped to increase player participation in France.

The new law trial will allow unions to:

Set a legal tackle height at the base of the sternum, or below as best suits their community game
Set secondary laws governing associated areas of the game such as pick and go, double tacklers and ball carriers dipping into contact

World Rugby has pledged to support players and unions with coach and player education tools as well as ensuring that trials are properly assessed and monitored.

[Simian]

Didn’t the trial of tackling lower get scrapped as it led to more head collisions for the tacklers. It was trialled at age group level I’m sure.

There have been a few trials now. There was one trial in a cup competition in England that was abandoned for the reason you mention, but it's hard to know what to make of that because players were switching week-in-week-out between the cup competition (lowered tackle height) and the league competition (normal tackle height). There was also a trial in France, but there have been a bunch of concerns about data quality with that trial (and particularly the reporting of concussions) and the results haven't been published. The trial that was featured in a lot of the WR press releases about lowering tackle height in the community game [edit: it wasn't the community game. It was South African student rugby. I misremebered] is published in a peer-reviewed journal, but didn't actually show lowering tackle height significantly reduced concussions (concussions were less frequent when tackle height was lowered, but it wasn't a statistically significant effect). So, the data on concussions and tackle height aren't really as compelling as has been suggested in some quarters. I'm not against it (lowering tackle height), but the evidence for doing it is not as clear cut as some of the press reports make it sound.

[Simian]

https://www.world.rugby/news/808734/wor ... nity-rugby

World Rugby Council has unanimously approved a recommendation that unions participate in trials of a lower tackle height in community rugby.

The opt-in trial, which gives unions the freedom to adapt within their own jurisdiction, aims to improve player safety by reducing the risk of head-on-head contact and therefore concussions.

The international federation’s Council ratified the Executive Board’s recommendation from March, to follow the evidence and lower the permitted tackle height in the community game to below the base of the sternum - the area of the stomach, belly or below – statistically the safest place to make a tackle for both tackler and ball carrier.

Following World Rugby Executive Board’s initial recommendations in March, unions including England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Italy and South Africa are set to join the trials alongside France and New Zealand where similar trials were already taking place. Many more are undertaking consultation.

World Rugby endorsed trials in France and South Africa has shown that lowering the tackle height reduces the number of head-on-head contacts and concussions. Lowering the tackle height has also shown positive outcomes regarding increased ball-in-play time and offloading. The changes have also helped to increase player participation in France.

The new law trial will allow unions to:

Set a legal tackle height at the base of the sternum, or below as best suits their community game
Set secondary laws governing associated areas of the game such as pick and go, double tacklers and ball carriers dipping into contact

World Rugby has pledged to support players and unions with coach and player education tools as well as ensuring that trials are properly assessed and monitored.

Yeah, the French trial is the one that people have raised concerns about the data quality (that I mentioned above). I suspect that's why it's not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

And the Stellenbosch study (which has been published) is the one I mentioned above that was actually a null result (lowering tackle height didn't significantly reduce incidence of concussions). From their conclusions: "Despite a trend towards reducing injuries, head injuries and SRC, lowering maximum legal tackle height to armpit level did not change SRC incidence in this amateur male rugby cohort." (SRC is sports-related concussion) https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/29/1/56

I think this is probably the trial YMX referred to. It found tacklers in games with the lowered tackle height law trial in place got more concussions (but, as I mentioned above, it's hard to know what to make of this study, given the design). From their conclusions: "Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting." https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/4/220

[Guy Smiley]

There’s a suggestion in an article I posted earlier about the smart mouth guard that the sweet spot for tackle height is around the navel. Part of the problem with WR’s promoting of trials is that they are allowing local unions to decide on the parameters of their trials so results are going to be mixed…

I reckon they should set some uniform guidelines across leagues so that some consistent data can be gathered.

[mat the expat]

Why is the legality of a lineout throw still determined by whether it's straight or not, but a scrum feed isn't?

That kind of illustrates the key problem with Rugby - inconsistency

[Dan54]

Only one stop of the maul before the ball has to be used.

Tackles can't go higher than the arm pit line.

2 designated water breaks per half. 'Water carriers' (coaches in yellow bibs) are not allowed on at any other point.

The biggest issues are around exsting ruck law enforcement rather than anything that needs to change.

But wouldn't have any water breaks except for a certain heat causing player safety. Or if player needs water he can run to sideline to get a swig while game carries on.

[Niegs]

May be related, this was in the latest NZ coaches' toolbox newsletter: https://www.rugbytoolbox.co.nz/resource ... rogression

... highlights elements of the way it seems everyone's playing these days (televised, even the women) tend to play. Going shoulders down into a ruck, hands in and allowed hands in because it's so difficult to tell who arrived first, not to mention all the "Leave it now!" calls to avoid penalties, but which just slow down play / invite more hands in. And training to take the ball standing still to then smash it up. Only one of the 'progressions' touches upon getting beyond contact, and it doesn't really as the shield holder definitely would have taken him out.

[Sandstorm]

Why is the legality of a lineout throw still determined by whether it's straight or not, but a scrum feed isn't?

That kind of illustrates the key problem with Rugby - inconsistency

Lineout is 50/50 because the ball went out of play. Scrum gives team putting ball in a slight advantage because the other dropped the ball/made an error?

[Slick]

I agree with the principle of lowering the tackle height to minimise head contact, but just don't think it'll work in the split-second reality of a contact sport like rugby. If head contact on the ball carrier is the be all and end all in determining foul play, without any mitigating circumstances, we may as well be playing touch rugby.

Rugby is, or should be, a contest for the ball, after all. Rolling mauls with offside players ahead of the ball-carrier preventing defenders from reaching him is another abomination. And caterpillar rucks - fuck off! Right now, it feels like we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. No wonder long-term fans are starting to look elsewhere...

I think there's a context around protecting the head that needs to be owned... it's only been in the last few years that rugby has become aware of the long term implications of head knocks (shamefully late to it considering the work that's been in in the US on the subject). The threat to the sport these injury types presents has to be taken seriously for a couple of key reasons, one is the potential costs of litigation that may arise and the second is the need to have the game appear safe to new participants.

With that in mind, it's my view that the best option will be to lower tackle height. That will lead to a change in how the game is played... perhaps for the better if it leads to more passing and a faster game. Perhaps the outcome will be less attractive... hypotheticals on the topic would be an interesting worm hole to go down. We've seen the game change before as a result of Law changes... banning rucking and lifting in the lineout are two changes most of us will remember coming in.

It doesn't have to be a negative... but the current status quo is doing damage. The sheer number of cards in the game is not a good look.

It has been said a lot before, usually by me, but the natural height for tackling was low for almost a century of rugby. I genuinely can remember just one chest high "dominant" tackle my entire career, and I guess I remember it because it was so unusual. The whole "it will change rugby" thing is nonsense imo, what changed rugby was league style tackling coming in and it can be reversed.

[Biffer]

Caterpillar rucks, pillar blocks by forwards and slow downs at rucks will stop immediately with 1 simple rule change.

The second the scrumhalf touches the ball, whether it be hands, feet or anything else the ball is considered out and opposition players can pounce. If he has to dig it out then tough titties.

Hell we might even see the return of the dive pass..

Small bugbear for me but kicking tees should be standardised. Everyone uses the exact same one.

No offence for ball carriers palming, forearm smashing or elbowing the defending player. Should be all on the tackler to go low enough.

No kicking tees. A bucket of sand comes on. You've still only got the same amount of time to kick, got to build your tee in that time as well as all the 'centreing' yourself bull shit and actually kicking the damn ball.

Makes longer kicks more difficult and more of a skill, therefore more worth the points if they're scored and encourages more kicking to the corners.

[Slick]

Caterpillar rucks to be fucked off to hell.

No box kicking outside your own 22

Ball comes straight out of the scrum, none of this waiting for a penalty

Lower tackle height to below the chest,and bans that actually hurt, none of this good behaviour bullshit

TMO can only intervene on foul play, let the ref,ref and if he fucks up, so be it.

I think the issue with scrums is that it looked at now as just a way to get penalties. Having a dominant scrum is such an advantage anyway that we need to stop rewarding it further with a penalty. I don't think there should be a law to get the ball out straight away, let the dominant team take advantage of it with a push but if they lose control of the ball at the back, tough shit, that used to be a skill. Now, as soon as the ball is accidently lost or kicked through, or the scrum wheels etc they get a penalty anyway.

Also, yes re the TMO, but if we let the ref have all the control back (we should) then we have to stop endless replays at the stadium and on TV during games which undermines him.

[laurent]

Didn’t the trial of tackling lower get scrapped as it led to more head collisions for the tacklers. It was trialled at age group level I’m sure.

it's in place in kids+ all lower leagues in France

[Slick]

Didn’t the trial of tackling lower get scrapped as it led to more head collisions for the tacklers. It was trialled at age group level I’m sure.

Not sure if I'm missing the point here, but there is a lower tackle height from the Premiership down in Scottish rugby this year. It took me until the 2nd half of the first game of the season before I realised. Anecdotally, scores seem to be higher so far but I haven't seen a yellow/red for a tackle so far in the games I've watched.

[Simian]

Didn’t the trial of tackling lower get scrapped as it led to more head collisions for the tacklers. It was trialled at age group level I’m sure.

Not sure if I'm missing the point here, but there is a lower tackle height from the Premiership down in Scottish rugby this year. It took me until the 2nd half of the first game of the season before I realised. Anecdotally, scores seem to be higher so far but I haven't seen a yellow/red for a tackle so far in the games I've watched.

Yeah, they've lowered the tackle height in lots of competitions. My point was just that the evidence doing that reduces incidence of concussions is (currently) really mixed (even though you'd intuitively expect it to). One published study of a trial found it increased concussions, one published study found it had no significant effect, and the one that found it significantly lowered concussions hasn't been published.

[Slick]

Didn’t the trial of tackling lower get scrapped as it led to more head collisions for the tacklers. It was trialled at age group level I’m sure.

Not sure if I'm missing the point here, but there is a lower tackle height from the Premiership down in Scottish rugby this year. It took me until the 2nd half of the first game of the season before I realised. Anecdotally, scores seem to be higher so far but I haven't seen a yellow/red for a tackle so far in the games I've watched.

Yeah, they've lowered the tackle height in lots of competitions. My point was just that the evidence doing that reduces incidence of concussions is (currently) really mixed (even though you'd intuitively expect it to). One published study of a trial found it increased concussions, one published study found it had no significant effect, and the one that found it significantly lowered concussions hasn't been published.

Yup, very useful to know.

[Brazil]

Didn’t the trial of tackling lower get scrapped as it led to more head collisions for the tacklers. It was trialled at age group level I’m sure.

Not sure if I'm missing the point here, but there is a lower tackle height from the Premiership down in Scottish rugby this year. It took me until the 2nd half of the first game of the season before I realised. Anecdotally, scores seem to be higher so far but I haven't seen a yellow/red for a tackle so far in the games I've watched.

Yeah, they've lowered the tackle height in lots of competitions. My point was just that the evidence doing that reduces incidence of concussions is (currently) really mixed (even though you'd intuitively expect it to). One published study of a trial found it increased concussions, one published study found it had no significant effect, and the one that found it significantly lowered concussions hasn't been published.

A big factor in the historical concussion cases seems to be the amount of contact training the players were doing at the time, which significantly increased the number of concussions and subconcussions they were getting, so hopefully the risks for modern players are already significantly lower as a consequence of changes in training procedures. That does, of course, beg the question of whether the tackle height needs to be dropped if it's not making any difference in terms of concussion frequency, but as Slick says, hitting high is a relatively new phenomenon (I was only ever coached it to strip the ball at school) and low tackling has apparently helped open the game up through increased numbers of offloads in the leagues where it's been applied.

[Sandstorm]

That does, of course, beg the question of whether the tackle height needs to be dropped if it's not making any difference in terms of concussion frequency, but as Slick says, hitting high is a relatively new phenomenon (I was only ever coached it to strip the ball at school)......

Rugby. League. Defence. Coaches.

[Mahoney]

There's no point blaming the coaches, if it's legal and more effective for winning games then coaching it is just... being a good coach.

If you don't want people to do it you have to change the law, you can't just rely on coaches not noticing.

[OomStruisbaai]

Interesting one from Pierre Schoeman against Leinster on the weekend

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... nts-laces/

Towards the end of the first half, Schoeman was pictured at the bottom of a ruck reaching out towards the boot of Lee Barron, who was stood in the defensive line. The prop appears to be trying to untie the laces of the Leinster hooker.

[Biffer]

Interesting one from Pierre Schoeman against Leinster on the weekend

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... nts-laces/

Towards the end of the first half, Schoeman was pictured at the bottom of a ruck reaching out towards the boot of Lee Barron, who was stood in the defensive line. The prop appears to be trying to untie the laces of the Leinster hooker.

Seen things like this plenty of times. just a little bit of good natured niggle imo. Same as if there's an opposition boot lying on the ground you chuck it as far away as possible so they've got to go and get it (I was just getting it out of the way ref).

Just typically precious Irish reporting of how they're ever so hard done by.

If they were serious about cheating they wouldn't get themselves into man love frenzies over O'Mahony.

[Sandstorm]

Interesting one from Pierre Schoeman against Leinster on the weekend

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... nts-laces/

Towards the end of the first half, Schoeman was pictured at the bottom of a ruck reaching out towards the boot of Lee Barron, who was stood in the defensive line. The prop appears to be trying to untie the laces of the Leinster hooker.

Seen things like this plenty of times. just a little bit of good natured niggle imo. Same as if there's an opposition boot lying on the ground you chuck it as far away as possible so they've got to go and get it (I was just getting it out of the way ref).

Yet refs penalise players (Nic White) who throw boots away. If you think this is acceptable at elite level, I can see why you have become disenfranchised by Rugby.

[Slick]

Interesting one from Pierre Schoeman against Leinster on the weekend

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... nts-laces/

Towards the end of the first half, Schoeman was pictured at the bottom of a ruck reaching out towards the boot of Lee Barron, who was stood in the defensive line. The prop appears to be trying to untie the laces of the Leinster hooker.

Seen things like this plenty of times. just a little bit of good natured niggle imo. Same as if there's an opposition boot lying on the ground you chuck it as far away as possible so they've got to go and get it (I was just getting it out of the way ref).

Just typically precious Irish reporting of how they're ever so hard done by.

If they were serious about cheating they wouldn't get themselves into man love frenzies over O'Mahony.

I hadn't read the article before, but that is glorious Irish precious.

[Slick]

Interesting one from Pierre Schoeman against Leinster on the weekend

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... nts-laces/

Seen things like this plenty of times. just a little bit of good natured niggle imo. Same as if there's an opposition boot lying on the ground you chuck it as far away as possible so they've got to go and get it (I was just getting it out of the way ref).

Yet refs penalise players (Nic White) who throw boots away. If you think this is acceptable at elite level, I can see why you have become disenfranchised by Rugby.

Can someone post the picture of the Saffer standing on the guys hand at the ruck please.

[OomStruisbaai]

Seen things like this plenty of times. just a little bit of good natured niggle imo. Same as if there's an opposition boot lying on the ground you chuck it as far away as possible so they've got to go and get it (I was just getting it out of the way ref).

Yet refs penalise players (Nic White) who throw boots away. If you think this is acceptable at elite level, I can see why you have become disenfranchised by Rugby.

Can someone post the picture of the Saffer standing on the guys hand at the ruck please.

Thats why the dust never will settle with kants like you and Biffer. Schoeman is a In Bred per Biffo. A genuine Gauteng Inbred.

[Slick]

Yet refs penalise players (Nic White) who throw boots away. If you think this is acceptable at elite level, I can see why you have become disenfranchised by Rugby.

Can someone post the picture of the Saffer standing on the guys hand at the ruck please.

Thats why the dust never will settle with kants like you and Biffer. Schoeman is a In Bred per Biffo. A genuine Gauteng Inbred.

No, the dust will never settle because you lot can't help yourselves and there is ALWAYS a much worse example from a Saffer