If you think the game is going soft.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I really don't see how anyone could have thought it was different.  Just watching games you can see that far more HIA checks are for defenders getting their head in the wrong position and catching a hip or a head clash with a fellow tackler than players actually carrying the ball.

Phil Gould was on 100% Footy suggesting there might be more HIAs for tacklers if they lower the target area. I suppose the moral argument is that the tackler is responsible in those cases, unlike when a ball-carrier is hit high. Although James Tedesco demonstrates that`s not always true.

Those friendly fire incidents always seem the worst to me where the ball-carrier slips between defenders and they clash heads behind.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

This is the crux of the matter. The authorities can't stop this 69% of concussions as that is the nature of the game as a full contact sport.

And I don't know how many of the other 31% were due to illegal play but they feel that they have to be seen to be doing something so they are clamping down.

They are going to be attempting to stop the remaining 70% getting injuries (which is what I thought it was, 30% tackled, 70% tackler).  It seems that this has already been discussed at club level because rewarding leg tackles appears to be coming out as the Clubs (and experts) preferred choice.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/rugby-league/nrl-ready-to-assess-defenders-concussions-c-2920316

[Lowdesert]

I frankly don’t see what the resentment is for this purge.  Tackling hard and fair can still be a shock to the system for the tackled player and can quite easily put them out of the game and prevent quick play the balls.

Swinging arms and shoulder charges to the upper body and head have been lazy ways.  A front passive tackle, blockbuster and rear tackle require highly skilled technique and timing.  The aforementioned just require uncontrolled, poorly skilled technique.  Some of our ‘best’ players have led the way in SL for those garbage techniques.

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

They are going to be attempting to stop the remaining 70% getting injuries (which is what I thought it was, 30% tackled, 70% tackler).  It seems that this has already been discussed at club level because rewarding leg tackles appears to be coming out as the Clubs (and experts) preferred choice.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/rugby-league/nrl-ready-to-assess-defenders-concussions-c-2920316

Will be interesting to see if that works.

At the moment, big men are running into each other at high speeds and there is contact between the tacklers head and the ball carriers shoulder.

I am not 100% sure that big men running at each other at high speed and a tacklers head making contact with knees or hips will make matters better.  I see plenty of head knocks when the tackler goes low already.

[Lowdesert]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Will be interesting to see if that works.

At the moment, big men are running into each other at high speeds and there is contact between the tacklers head and the ball carriers shoulder.

I am not 100% sure that big men running at each other at high speed and a tacklers head making contact with knees or hips will make matters better.  I see plenty of head knocks when the tackler goes low already.

No further detail has been made, that I can find.  It appears some (maybe all) clubs have been consulted so any agreement has a better chance of buy-in.

For the head knocks, I think we can guarantee you will always see those you mention too but not the volume.  I don’t believe Vlandys (who’s at the forefront of this) is so naive to expect all head injuries to be eradicated.  Maybe a high percentage, say 50%.  To expect perfection in this campaign is unattainable, in my opinion.  I would try that percentage of attrition in the first instance.  

What I would like to see is hard facts & records, not just ‘not sure’, ‘plenty’ or ‘lots of tackles’ (not aimed as a snipe btw) but injuries by position, body part-body part, size of players, parts of the field, times, numbers in the tackle, injured players time out (including off the field in the actual game), etc etc etc.  The NRL have the resources to engage some smart people to work with them I’m pretty sure they’ll have all this anyway.

My guess (what I would do) is that Clubs will work on the tacklers positioning in open play. Side on and others can still hit the ball from the front.   The ball is quite a simple, easy target.  For hit ups, focus on hitting the ball (we had a push on this around 20 years ago but things have gradually changed to the shoulder/arm charge.).  For rear tackles and other front on, use the basic skills.  I think these are effective but not practiced anymore.  

High levels of aggression can still be used, no problem but leaping off the ground, uncontrolled arms across and around the head is just rubbish.

 

[DavidM]

The way players tackle a lot now , around the chest to lock up the ball often with 2 or 3 men involved , there’s very little margin of error . Some of the tackles pulled up are obvious careless high shots but plenty involve some incidental contact above the shoulders , and officials nor commentators are seeing anything , then the bunker is viewing them frame by frame and picking something up . Others are just nothings where the contact wouldn’t knock the top off a rice pudding . Black and white rules set down to get ‘ consistency ‘ seem great but in practice it just seems inflexible , unrealistic and lacking empathy with how the game is actually played . I feel the same with obstruction . Well it’s consistent they say , but it doesn’t make it look consistently right or in tune with the play . Now the reflex reaction with such intransigent protocols is to tackle a lot lower but that opens up its own problems for tacklers 

[Harry Stottle]

54 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

At the moment, big men are running into each other at high speeds and there is contact between the tacklers head and the ball carriers shoulder.

Most are the result of the attacker dipping his shoulder into a body shot and contacting the head, not maliciously mind when carrying the ball in two hands it is the ball carriers shoulder is his only defence.

I also posed the question earlier what did people make of Campbell-Gillards on report and sin bin, so I will direct the question at you personally.

 

[graveyard johnny]

when players like radley etc go to ru cos they are constantly frustrated and dont enjoy the game anymore the game will be poorer for it

[DavidM]

4 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

when players like radley etc go to ru cos they are constantly frustrated and dont enjoy the game anymore the game will be poorer for it

Come on ... there were only 29 charges in this round . And that’s without the ones that were pulled up on the paddock but led to no charge . I just think that’s a complete farce . We’ve gone from zero to 100 in no time and gone zooming past all sense of perspective , common sense and understanding of the nature of the game. 

[Lowdesert]

27 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Most are the result of the attacker dipping his shoulder into a body shot and contacting the head, not maliciously mind when carrying the ball in two hands it is the ball carriers shoulder is his only defence.

I also posed the question earlier what did people make of Campbell-Gillards on report and sin bin, so I will direct the question at you personally.

 

He goes to put a shot on, no intention of using his arms to wrap around the ball carrier and has been banned for 2 matches.

[Lowdesert]

17 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

when players like radley etc go to ru cos they are constantly frustrated and dont enjoy the game anymore the game will be poorer for it

If you think we’ve got problems, RU have twice the amount.  Every ruck/pile on/ jump on, throwing themselves into rucks to hit stationary upper bodies, scrums,  it goes on.  Where do they start?

Radley will adapt, as will all skilful players but the hit men will have their work cut out.  Bad habits that are hard to get rid of.

its still a tough enough game for fans to get excited about.

[graveyard johnny]

we were working on a retirement home the other year, it was mainly elderly old ladies - think most of them had dementia- i also think none of them had picked up a rugby ball in their lives apart from to throw it back over the garden fence- new rules =way way over the top - lets get some context

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

What I would like to see is hard facts & records, not just ‘not sure’, ‘plenty’ or ‘lots of tackles’ (not aimed as a snipe btw) but injuries by position, body part-body part, size of players, parts of the field, times, numbers in the tackle, injured players time out (including off the field in the actual game), etc etc etc.  The NRL have the resources to engage some smart people to work with them I’m pretty sure they’ll have all this anyway.

Absolutely.  You can only fix a problem if you understand it.  When I was looking at this a year or so ago the only detailed data I could find on positions and impact type were from Union. It would be good to see this in League so we know where we stand.

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

He goes to put a shot on, no intention of using his arms to wrap around the ball carrier and has been banned for 2 matches.

The ball carriers head after colliding with the initial tacklers head moves and collides with RCG's shoulder, if you are advocating that defenders should stand off and not go into the collision zone 'just in case' then the game is going to change for the worse.

I didn't realise he had been suspended for two games (thanks for that info) but in all honesty if it comes over here what is happening in the NRL with this "clampdown" I would consider reviewing my lifelong allegiance to this sport.

[Lowdesert]

19 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

we were working on a retirement home the other year, it was mainly elderly old ladies - think most of them had dementia- i also think none of them had picked up a rugby ball in their lives apart from to throw it back over the garden fence- new rules =way way over the top - lets get some context

Most of the scaffolders I’ve dealt with must’ve had some form of dementia.  None could remember to use SG4, TG or follow the agreed design.  Something so simple yet most could do it.

 

[graveyard johnny]

2 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Most of the scaffolders I’ve dealt with must’ve had some form of dementia.  None could remember to use SG4, TG or follow the agreed design.  Something so simple yet most could do it.

 

can you put a scaffold up?

[Lowdesert]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The ball carriers head after colliding with the initial tacklers head moves and collides with RCG's shoulder, if you are advocating that defenders should stand off and not go into the collision zone 'just in case' then the game is going to change for the worse.

I didn't realise he had been suspended for two games (thanks for that info) but in all honesty if it comes over here what is happening in the NRL with this "clampdown" I would consider reviewing my lifelong allegiance to this sport.

No, not suggesting that Harry but he has half a metre of space.  If he drives his shoulder under the ball, wraps an arm around and collectively they push and the crush the ball carrier on the ground, they could’ve done the business without the lazy shoulder -which CG had no control of.

Hey, it isn’t a perfect world and serious injuries will crop up from time to time but a strong tackle/gang tackle can do damage in a fair way.

BTW, in the pro game, there are still times a player has to be ‘hit’.  Coaches just need to be smarter in my opinion.

[Lowdesert]

3 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

can you put a scaffold up?

I have, yes.  With a trained scaffolder, I admit.  4 lifts.

[Lowdesert]

4 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

can you put a scaffold up?

The point I am making is that in all walks of life get dementia.  Easy to pick a scenario without a rugby ball.

There’s just no need to bring dementia on so early.

[Harry Stottle]

7 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

No, not suggesting that Harry but he has half a metre of space.  If he drives his shoulder under the ball, wraps an arm around and collectively they push and the crush the ball carrier on the ground, they could’ve done the business without the lazy shoulder -which CG had no control of.

Hey, it isn’t a perfect world and serious injuries will crop up from time to time but a strong tackle/gang tackle can do damage in a fair way.

BTW, in the pro game, there are still times a player has to be ‘hit’.  Coaches just need to be smarter in my opinion.

I am eagerly awaiting a copy book tackle around the thighs and in the act of falling the tackled player's head contacts a knee or hip of another tackler within the zone, after all that would be contact with the head would it not and the second tacklers fault for being so close, wouldn't it? 

What I have described is such a daft scenario, but in my opinion no dafter than some of the rulings that have already been submitted.

[graveyard johnny]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

The point I am making is that in all walks of life get dementia.  Easy to pick a scenario without a rugby ball.

There’s just no need to bring dementia on so early.

good point- at the end of the day either the body or the mind  will live longer than the other in present day living conditions

[damp squib]

2 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

we were working on a retirement home the other year, it was mainly elderly old ladies - think most of them had dementia- i also think none of them had picked up a rugby ball in their lives apart from to throw it back over the garden fence- new rules =way way over the top - lets get some context

It is expected that a large percentage of elderly (80+) people will develop some form of dementia.

It is not normal for men in their 40s to develop it.

[fighting irish]

I'd like to open the debate on how the rules might sensibly be changed to reduce the risk of concussion and other facial and neck injuries. Something must be done, to address these issues, to avoid accusations that the game is irresponsible about player welfare and all that that entails with regard to grass roots participation and potential legal claims from players, retired prematurely by head injuries. I'm really eager to hear others opinions about the ideas I've opined below. 

Following, are my opening remarks.

I'd make it illegal (a high shot) to hit the pectoral muscles punishable by a penalty (no card). This will make the tacklers bend their backs (and/or knees) to stay legal  and i believel reduce the risk of sliding up and contacting the ball carriers head.

Then accidental contact with the head, would be a yellow card. A deliberate contact with the head would result in the tackler being shown the red.

Having said that, some responsibility for tacklers welfare, must fall on the ball carrier.

I'd say it should be legal for the ball carrier to turn his body leading with the shoulder and upper arm, to protect himself (and the ball) but illegal for him to raise his elbow or forearm to strike the tackler.

Raising a single elbow or forearm before contacting the tackler, should be a penalty. Also, raising both forearms either with forearms crossing horizontally, holding the ball in front of the chest, or wrists high and elbows low holding the ball in front of the chest would result in a penalty. Contacting the head of the tackler, with the elbow or forearm, would see a yellow card and if the head is struck with malice (leading with a raised elbow/forearm), a red card.

When tackling from behind it should be illegal to reach over the shoulder (to prevent accidental contact with the head or neck) ensuring the tackler wraps around the elbows, ribs, hips or thighs.

I believe that these measures would significantly reduce the risk of damaging contact and reduce the likelihood of any accusation that the game's rule makers are soft on thuggery.

It would also prevent the games haters, like Eddie Jones remarking that Rugby League is ''just about hurting people''. 

 

[The Rocket]

6 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

They are going to be attempting to stop the remaining 70% getting injuries (which is what I thought it was, 30% tackled, 70% tackler).  It seems that this has already been discussed at club level because rewarding leg tackles appears to be coming out as the Clubs (and experts) preferred choice.

https://thewest.com.au/sport/rugby-league/nrl-ready-to-assess-defenders-concussions-c-2920316

There is already work being done on this at Newcastle University.(Australia)

NRL 2021 concussion: Newcastle University research shows tacklers aiming high three times more likely to need HIA (smh.com.au)

" a new study, which reviewed more than 6000 tackles, has found otherwise. Neuropsychologist Andrew Gardner, an associate professor at University of Newcastle’s School of Medicine and Public Health , has personally coded and reviewed 6140 tackles from three NRL seasons as part of the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed or published."

A lot of interesting analysis in there if your interested in this debate. I vaguely recall another study coming out of Newcastle University on League, I assumed being a League town enables them to get funding for this type of research.

Really good to see this sort of tie-in between the game and reputable research organisations. It`s like being said here elsewhere, with a contact sport there will always be head-knocks, but by working this through with a proper data based analysis we may be able to minimise its occurrence. Getting rid of loose arms will be the `low-hanging fruit` so to speak, other areas of the tackle will be next.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RP London]

 

13 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

we were working on a retirement home the other year, it was mainly elderly old ladies - think most of them had dementia- i also think none of them had picked up a rugby ball in their lives apart from to throw it back over the garden fence- new rules =way way over the top - lets get some context

sadly those with early onset dementia dont normally get that far and die at home or in a hospice with their young family around them... 

Its not a funny story and it is not something we should be making light of. If there is something we can do about it then we should be doing that. even if it does cost the game a little bit of "impact". 

New rules always take a bit of penalising to get right (we normally cave in SL, before the players get a chance to learn or correct, look at the play the ball). If the refs hold strong then the tackle will move lower and all will be sorted.. you can still pick them up, you can still hit bloody hard, you just have to do it a bit lower.