Tackle technique & rules, re: concussion...

[DI Keith Fowler]

The thing that I fear from this is forcing players to go low when even it's not appropriate. Dependent on the situation a higher tackle is safer and more effective.

[Midlands hobo]

1 hour ago, tim2 said:

The attacker will not be allowed to bend down into the tackle, but it's still really hard for them not to literally fall over the line from close range when tackled round the legs. 

And basically impossible to hold the ball up over the line legally

[Wellsy4HullFC]

How far off are we from saying "F*** it, just wear helmets"?

[Man of Kent]

Couple of things. Why, if they are worried about the future of the professional game, has this been brought at amateur level?

Also, I can’t help thinking of Jonah Lomu swatting off legs tackles with his giant thighs & fend, and whether this is a case of trying to turn the clock back when the professionalism horse has bolted. 

[CasRugbyShirts]

I think there is some confusion about this.

Tackling at waist height means that the arms should wrap around the waist or below, not that the defender’s head has to be below the waist of the ball-carrier.

The new ruling will avoid impact above the waist - removing the risk of whiplash spinals, head-on-head collision and chest wall injury.  From a medical perspective, it makes the game much safer.  But from a medical perspective contact sport would be banned, so it’s all a balance...

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 minutes ago, CasRugbyShirts said:

  But from a medical perspective contact sport would be banned, so it’s all a balance...

Agreed 

No one goes into rugby without knowing the risks 

No one is forced to play 

[CasRugbyShirts]

5 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Agreed 

No one goes into rugby without knowing the risks 

No one is forced to play 

And here is the issue; although everyone knows there is some risk, there is some variation in terms of the risk threshold that players are willing to accept. One player might accept the risk of TBI, but that doesn’t mean that another player has the same perspective.

Edited January 20, 2023 by CasRugbyShirts

[Odsal Outlaw]

We could also view this as a huge opportunity for RL to expand. We could proactively push the contact nature of our sport and encourage the disillusioned RU community game over to League!

[iffleyox]

7 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Couple of things. Why, if they are worried about the future of the professional game, has this been brought at amateur level?

Also, I can’t help thinking of Jonah Lomu swatting off legs tackles with his giant thighs & fend, and whether this is a case of trying to turn the clock back when the professionalism horse has bolted. 

First question’s easy - they’re starting at amateur level because they unilaterally can. To do it at pro level would take agreement across all the world’s unions (because they’ve got to play each other) and they’re not there yet. 
 

the commentary is it’s a matter of time before the pro game follows, which means global.

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

How far off are we from saying "F*** it, just wear helmets"?

Given that helmets would make rugby less safe, and everyone knows this, a long, long, long  way away.

[iffleyox]

46 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Given that helmets would make rugby less safe, and everyone knows this, a long, long, long  way away.

Exactly - both codes would probably stop before helmets got introduced.

[Toby Chopra]

7 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

 

No one goes into rugby without knowing the risks 

 

People say this, but they don't know the risks in detail though.

Potential players know it's a rough game and they will banged about a bit, they know they might break a limb, or even "get" a concussion.

But no-one (in either code, at the entry level) tells them the percentage likelihood of any of those things occurring, per position, and what a club's record is on those things, even though the data exists.

They also aren't told in detail what the long-term effects of repeated concussions are, even though the medical evidence has been mounting up for years.

It's left up to the individual, and at youth age the parents, to seek this info out. But the clubs know, or at least the governing bodies do and could provide the clubs with all the info they need when a new player joins.

But imagine the impact on numbers if when a kid reaches contact age, their club gives the parents a full description of catastrophic brain injury and the likelihood of it occurring. Some might be reassured, but many would be put off, as they already are.

It isn't sustainable any more to not talk about it, but the unvarnished truth will also probably be too much for many parents or amateur adults. So the long term trend is clear - outside of professional tiers, both rugbys, American football etc, will become a lower contact games, and in time that will bleed through to the top tiers, if only because the transition between the two contact styles would be too much if pro tiers stayed the same.       

[gingerjon]

Incidentally, and allowing for PR bias, this has been trialled in NZ and the feedback from actual participants - as opposed to ex-players, anonymous veterans on the net etc - was overwhelmingly positive. Looks like around 4/5 of those taking part said the game was more enjoyable to play as a result.

EDIT

Should make clear: trialled in rugby union

Edited January 21, 2023 by gingerjon

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

People say this, but they don't know the risks in detail though.

Potential players know it's a rough game and they will banged about a bit, they know they might break a limb, or even "get" a concussion.

But no-one (in either code, at the entry level) tells them the percentage likelihood of any of those things occurring, per position, and what a club's record is on those things, even though the data exists.

They also aren't told in detail what the long-term effects of repeated concussions are, even though the medical evidence has been mounting up for years.

It's left up to the individual, and at youth age the parents, to seek this info out. But the clubs know, or at least the governing bodies do and could provide the clubs with all the info they need when a new player joins.

But imagine the impact on numbers if when a kid reaches contact age, their club gives the parents a full description of catastrophic brain injury and the likelihood of it occurring. Some might be reassured, but many would be put off, as they already are.

It isn't sustainable any more to not talk about it, but the unvarnished truth will also probably be too much for many parents or amateur adults. So the long term trend is clear - outside of professional tiers, both rugbys, American football etc, will become a lower contact games, and in time that will bleed through to the top tiers, if only because the transition between the two contact styles would be too much if pro tiers stayed the same.       

Yep all good points

I've said before that I have two pre teen kids myself who I won't allow to play the game (either code). It's the head risks for me (plus not wanting them to have that constant banged up/bruised feeling that pervades when you play). It's soccer and netball for them 

I still enjoy playing third team rugby in my late forties. With the new rules I think I'm done though....I simply can't see myself making leg tackles constantly in a game 

How many other veterns will feel the same? How will this impact thier engagement with the wider game? I think playing the game (either previously or still ) is a big driver for engagement ....we will lose that if RL follows 

Maybe Masters rugby league tackling rules at social level? 

 

 

 

[Man of Kent]

1 hour ago, iffleyox said:

First question’s easy - they’re starting at amateur level because they unilaterally can. To do it at pro level would take agreement across all the world’s unions (because they’ve got to play each other) and they’re not there yet. 
 

the commentary is it’s a matter of time before the pro game follows, which means global.

Ah, OK. 
 

How do you think this would affect the pro game - and, keeping it on topic - rugby league?

I’m trying to imagine a set of six in the opposition 20 with no tackles above the waist…….try every time, no? 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

It's soccer and netball for them 

Assume they are girls then?

You might want to look into the incredibly high incidence of ligament damage in netball.

[Archie Gordon]

19 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Incidentally, and allowing for PR bias, this has been trialled in NZ and the feedback from actual participants - as opposed to ex-players, anonymous veterans on the net etc - was overwhelmingly positive. Looks like around 4/5 of those taking part said the game was more enjoyable to play as a result.

EDIT

Should make clear: trialled in rugby union

The NZ trial is interesting. I've just read that they are introducing waist and below for first contact but allowing a second defender to lock the ball. I think that gets around some of the complaints that it's an unworkable law change.

[Toby Chopra]

40 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Yep all good points

I've said before that I have two pre teen kids myself who I won't allow to play the game (either code). It's the head risks for me (plus not wanting them to have that constant banged up/bruised feeling that pervades when you play). It's soccer and netball for them 

I still enjoy playing third team rugby in my late forties. With the new rules I think I'm done though....I simply can't see myself making leg tackles constantly in a game 

How many other veterns will feel the same? How will this impact thier engagement with the wider game? I think playing the game (either previously or still ) is a big driver for engagement ....we will lose that if RL follows 

Maybe Masters rugby league tackling rules at social level? 

 

 

 

Certainly agree with all that. I'm the same age and play a bit of touch rugby and tag American football - and the interesting thing is all the relevant sports slow down so much when you reach our age, even in the non-contact versions. Surely the data on serious injury must be different? 

We have to protect the youngsters - I'm sure we've all seen the teens in the gym bulking up, and protein packing in ways that never happened in our youths, just for school rugby. But it's not one-size fits all. 

I like your masters suggestion. Or maybe they (we) need to 'grandfather' the old tacking rules for current adult community players so the social basis of sports isn't disrupted too much, but start bringing through a new generation who won't have known anything different. A decade or so from now all the sports will look different, but without the disruptive big bang that this union plan seems to be.           

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

The second rebellion has begun!!

 

 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Incidentally, and allowing for PR bias, this has been trialled in NZ and the feedback from actual participants - as opposed to ex-players, anonymous veterans on the net etc - was overwhelmingly positive. Looks like around 4/5 of those taking part said the game was more enjoyable to play as a result.

EDIT

Should make clear: trialled in rugby union

Always useful to get a source link in these so we can see for ourselves. 

I have googled it and found that the trial had first tackler required to target the belly area below the sternum, with the second tackler still able to tackle below the shoulders in accordance with current rugby laws. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/34921514/new-zealand-rugby-extends-belly-tackling-trial-community-rugby%3fplatform=amp

Is this the case with the RFU proposals or is all contact above the waist to be banned?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

But no-one (in either code, at the entry level) tells them the percentage likelihood of any of those things occurring, per position,

We were discussing this yesterday over a pint, whilst we can all say that if just one person can suffer later life consequence of multiple knocks to the head is one too many we wondered across the 3 sports both handling codes and football (with its ball heading concerns) from their outset as organised games 150+ years ago (moderate guess) from the millions that have played the sports what really would be the actual percentage of those that that have suffered in later life as a direct result of participating in these sports. I suspect that the figure would be very low.

PS and in football they used a ball that was probably 10 times heavier than it is today.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

We were discussing this yesterday over a pint, whilst we can all say that if just one person can suffer later life consequence of multiple knocks to the head is one too many we wondered across the 3 sports both handling codes and football (with its ball heading concerns) from their outset as organised games 150+ years ago (moderate guess) from the millions that have played the sports what really would be the actual percentage of those that that have suffered in later life as a direct result of participating in these sports. I suspect that the figure would be very low.

PS and in football they used a ball that was probably 10 times heavier than it is today.

Me and my mates have had a similar chat, as you are aware we're all around 24/25 so perhaps its the folly of youth talking.

Essentially we came to the conclusion that it is a balance of risk and rewards. We all basically agreed that if we got dementia in our 80s or even our 70s from the effects of playing school and club rugby for 10 years, then weighed up against what the sport had given us it was worth it. Again, folly of youth maybe, but we equally said if we were shown evidence that masses of players who played at our level (ie not professionals) were developing MND or similar in their late 30s/40s then we wouldn't do it again.

Playing rugby has seen me visit 4 continents (with my best mates), train with England coaches, train with super league players, meet and socialise with loads of people I otherwise wouldn't have, and made the lasting friendships I still hold dearest, for starters. That stacks up pretty substantially when I compare with my peers who didn't have that experience. 

This whole suit is mainly relevant at the pro game level, perhaps there is something in that. 

[gingerjon]

39 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

We were discussing this yesterday over a pint, whilst we can all say that if just one person can suffer later life consequence of multiple knocks to the head is one too many we wondered across the 3 sports both handling codes and football (with its ball heading concerns) from their outset as organised games 150+ years ago (moderate guess) from the millions that have played the sports what really would be the actual percentage of those that that have suffered in later life as a direct result of participating in these sports. I suspect that the figure would be very low.

PS and in football they used a ball that was probably 10 times heavier than it is today.

You would find that, at community level, the health benefits of so many people participating in sport outweigh the negative impact of the significant injuries that affect only some participants.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Is this the case with the RFU proposals or is all contact above the waist to be banned?

All the details of what has been agreed is here: https://www.englandrugby.com/news/article/rfu-council-approves-lowering-of-the-tackle-height-across-community-rugby-in-england-2023

The new laws and guidelines are not available yet so no one actually knows the answer to that question - save for the people at the RFU (not World Rugby, I note) who are drafting those laws and guidelines.

[Harry Stottle]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Me and my mates have had a similar chat, as you are aware we're all around 24/25 so perhaps its the folly of youth talking.

Essentially we came to the conclusion that it is a balance of risk and rewards. We all basically agreed that if we got dementia in our 80s or even our 70s from the effects of playing school and club rugby for 10 years, then weighed up against what the sport had given us it was worth it. Again, folly of youth maybe, but we equally said if we were shown evidence that masses of players who played at our level (ie not professionals) were developing MND or similar in their late 30s/40s then we wouldn't do it again.

Playing rugby has seen me visit 4 continents (with my best mates), train with England coaches, train with super league players, meet and socialise with loads of people I otherwise wouldn't have, and made the lasting friendships I still hold dearest, for starters. That stacks up pretty substantially when I compare with my peers who didn't have that experience. 

This whole suit is mainly relevant at the pro game level, perhaps there is something in that. 

There were 6 of us all in our mid 60's to 70's Tommy, so we could be excused for the folly of being in advanced years, but along with that comes expierence and albeit we individually favoured the different sporting disciplines we mentioned in which we have spent many years of involvement and like yourself have met and had the camaraderie of lots of people we struggled to bring to mind anyone who actually officially suffered from their active involvement with their chosen sports, save for the high profile cases that have recently been reported over the last few years.