Jump to content

Tackle technique & rules, re: concussion...


Recommended Posts

The other code have made a major announcement today, potentially game-changing: No tackles above the waist in the community game, this is open-age not just kids

I wonder if we'll have to follow suit? This move will certainly put us under pressure to do so, from a legal liability perspective if for no other reason. What do people think it might do to the game in terms of attack and defense strategy? Must create major changes I'd have thought

NB: Don't move this to cross-code, it's what RL will do that's interesting here...

 

rugbytackle.png

Edited by Hull Kingston Bronco
typo
  • Like 1

Apparently this site says I "won the day" here on 23rd Jan, 19th Jan, 9th Jan also 13th December, whatever any of that means. Anyway, 4 times in a few weeks? The forum must be going to the dogs - you people need to seriously up your game. Where's Dutoni when you need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm hugely in favour of measures to make the sport safer and protect against head injuries. And hugely against the view that it's 'soft' to punish high tackles.

Saying that, if we were to bring this change in at any level, the game fundamentally changes. Wrapping the ball and preventing offloads is a key part of defence and above waist height tackles are therefore essential.

Of course, player safety is paramount. There is a head injury risk to tackling low too, if you get your head in the wrong place. This change may lead to more of those kind of injuries.

I wonder if this change may not reduce head injuries but change the mechanism.

I therefore wouldn't support this change in rugby league.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I'm hugely in favour of measures to make the sport safer and protect against head injuries. And hugely against the view that it's 'soft' to punish high tackles.

Saying that, if we were to bring this change in at any level, the game fundamentally changes. Wrapping the ball and preventing offloads is a key part of defence and above waist height tackles are therefore essential.

Of course, player safety is paramount. There is a head injury risk to tackling low too, if you get your head in the wrong place. This change may lead to more of those kind of injuries.

I wonder if this change may not reduce head injuries but change the mechanism.

I therefore wouldn't support this change in rugby league.

you'll probably see an increase in the drop tackles, with ankle and knee ligament injuries increasing. torn acl's etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

you'll probably see an increase in the drop tackles, with ankle and knee ligament injuries increasing. torn acl's etc.

That's my view, I'm really not sure an increase in the volume of "waist and below" tackles is the safety move they think it will be. Much more risk for the defender. 

  • Like 1

Apparently this site says I "won the day" here on 23rd Jan, 19th Jan, 9th Jan also 13th December, whatever any of that means. Anyway, 4 times in a few weeks? The forum must be going to the dogs - you people need to seriously up your game. Where's Dutoni when you need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's never going to work as a spectacle and would change the entire nature of Rugby League. It will also simply just increase the number of concussions from contact to the attackers knee and hip and also from accidental clash of heads between team mates attempting low tackles, which in itself already causes many concussions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite simply, this would ruin RL below the professional level, and then to expect  juniors to then step up to professional level and having no experience in tackling higher than east height Will surely then risk even more injuries from lack of technique. Only way this would work would be banning passing after contact, its then touch Rugby and who wants that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be difficult to police in any code, it will in design put an end to group tackles. And how do you cope with attackers lowering their height. In union the players who pick up at rucks automatically drive low making it impossible to tackle them front on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s obvious that we will not be immune.  I think 55 amateur players in the other code are taking legal action.  If insurance firms become more and more risk adverse then the impact will be massive.

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

It's never going to work as a spectacle and would change the entire nature of Rugby League. It will also simply just increase the number of concussions from contact to the attackers knee and hip and also from accidental clash of heads between team mates attempting low tackles, which in itself already causes many concussions.

That was the first thought that occurred to me. I only suffered one concussion during my playing days and it was as a result of my forehead making direct contact with the knee of the ball carrier.

Not a huge sample size I'll admit, but I suspect most serious head impacts arise from the situations you describe.

  • Like 1

"I'm from a fishing family. Trawlermen are like pirates with biscuits." - Lucy Beaumont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

It's never going to work as a spectacle and would change the entire nature of Rugby League. It will also simply just increase the number of concussions from contact to the attackers knee and hip and also from accidental clash of heads between team mates attempting low tackles, which in itself already causes many concussions.

Make carrying the ball illegal so you can only kick it. Keep the same shape ball.

It would also make wheelchair rugby a bit difficult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waist  high seems too low and as others have said it may cause more problems than it solves. I can certainly see down the line a height limit dropping to below the arm pit and maybe teams forced to include a marker or line incorporated into their kit to make it easier for the ref to judge. I don’t think it will be anytime soon unless we are legally forced to do it. Not after the toddler tantrums we saw last year when the RFL tried to clamp down on high tackles. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

This will be difficult to police in any code, it will in design put an end to group tackles. ...

This was one of my first thoughts. Tackles around the waist and below are essentially 1-on-1s. Effectively outlawing n-on-1 tackles is a massive change to bring in.

Presumably this has been trialled. It would be interesting to see a game.

I am a bit worried about whether we'll continue to see juniors come to league from a union background - parents will inevitably see us as the unsafe code if we don't follow suit (and I don't think we should). A problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say armpit/chest level makes more sense, with anything higher being an automatic sin-bin or red card if deemed reckless. 

If we do nothing about tackling, the game will be destroyed by legal challenges (in the court case sense).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

"I am the avenging angel; I come with wings unfurled, I come with claws extended from halfway round the world. I am the God Almighty, I am the howling wind. I care not for your family; I care not for your kin. I come in search of terror, though terror is my own; I come in search of vengeance for crimes and crimes unknown. I care not for your children, I care not for your wives, I care not for your country, I care not for your lives." - (c) Jim Boyes - "The Avenging Angel"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, tim2 said:

If we do nothing about tackling, the game will be destroyed by legal challenges (in the court case sense).

But in the same breath, these proposed rule changes could result in different mechanisms for concussion, and consequently legal challenges based on the fact they changed the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question the changes for all the same reasons that others mention above, but the RFU claim they have the data to back up their decision. Once you have the data, it's almost impossible not to respond to it or you will be liable for knowing negligence. 

We will be compelled to follow suit, unless we can show there's something intrinsically different about rugby league that produces quantifiably different outcomes. 

Has RL done its own 'smart mouth guard' trials? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Once you have the data, it's almost impossible not to respond to it or you will be liable for knowing negligence. 

I think that’s the crucial part.  If you have data and ignore it (or hide it), you will get taken to the cleaners in court (see the NFL).

  • Like 1

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This part is interesting. Most of the 'blame' is usually put on the tackler even when the actions of the ball carrier can have an effect.

"A greater focus on the actions of the ball carrier  

  • Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should 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. 

  • Match officials will focus on the actions of the ball carrier as well as the tackler when head contact occurs." 

The%20Warriors%2060.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vambo said:

This part is interesting. Most of the 'blame' is usually put on the tackler even when the actions of the ball carrier can have an effect.

"A greater focus on the actions of the ball carrier  

  • Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should 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. 

  • Match officials will focus on the actions of the ball carrier as well as the tackler when head contact occurs." 

So penalties all round then, and K&C goes further down the list of interest level ratings, not that it ever achieved more than mid-table at best.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The other code have made a major announcement today, potentially game-changing: No tackles above the waist in the community game, this is open-age not just kids

I wonder if we'll have to follow suit? This move will certainly put us under pressure to do so, from a legal liability perspective if for no other reason. What do people think it might do to the game in terms of attack and defense strategy? Must create major changes I'd have thought

NB: Don't move this to cross-code, it's what RL will do that's interesting here...

 

rugbytackle.png

Agreed keep it here not cross code 

This has been an open secret for years in union ..... worryingly for everything into  game - both codes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've done it over here 2 seasons ago in union , no tackle above the waist, no simultaneous tackles, no running straight at a player. It's only in the amateur game. Lots of yellow and red cards shown. Players still getting injured, especially in the ruck when cleaning out. Crazy, dangerous game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The always-insightful Mark Evans (ex Quins and Melbourne Storm CEO) has reminded people that when trialled this did actually increase concussions, as many of us on here suspected it could. Hopefully the RFL will take a considered approach. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Apparently this site says I "won the day" here on 23rd Jan, 19th Jan, 9th Jan also 13th December, whatever any of that means. Anyway, 4 times in a few weeks? The forum must be going to the dogs - you people need to seriously up your game. Where's Dutoni when you need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

I question the changes for all the same reasons that others mention above, but the RFU claim they have the data to back up their decision. Once you have the data, it's almost impossible not to respond to it or you will be liable for knowing negligence. 

If that’s the case, then it begs the question why it isn’t applied across the whole game, as surely it now opens them up to potential future legal action from professional athletes. 

 

14 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

Has RL done its own 'smart mouth guard' trials? 

Yes they have. Unaware of the findings 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.