Tackle technique & rules, re: concussion...

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

They have already been posted if you back a page or two.

I have read all of those and none of them provide evidence that the waist (or the navel as the RFU are now saying) is the correct safe height for the tackle.  In fact one of the links you shared stated that this may be too low as it will move the head closer to the other high risk collision areas (such as the hip) rather than the upper body.

Of the 4 studies cited by the RFU, the one they are basing their decision on is the French trial.  But this trial also included a ban on two person tackles and outlawing a ball carrier bending into the tackle at point of contact.  Neither of which is in the RFU proposals as far as I can see.

[EggFace]

Got this issue is as confusing as Rugby Union itself.

[Dunbar]

To summarise.  The RFU have stated that the community game will now only allow tackling from the waist and below (or the navel as they have used in their recent release).

There is plenty of evidence that shows head collisions are the most common cause for HIA and attempting to keep players heads apart is a noble cause.

Th tackle height has been determined following a successful trial in France but that trial had a couple of key differences. 

1) only a single tackler was allowed

2) the ball carriers are no longer allowed to drop down and charge into a tackler and so must stay upright 

Both of these  two (as far as I know) are not in the RFU guidelines and the absence of both increase the risk of head collisions.  Head on head by tacklers if two tacklers are going around the waist and head on head between ball carrier and tackler if the ball carrier is allowed to bend into the tackle.  In fact, this latter risk was the reason why the last UK trial to lower the tackle height was abandoned because it resulted in more HIA's.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Dunbar

[Wakefield Ram]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

To summarise.  The RFU have stated that the community game will now only allow tackling from the waist and below (or the navel as they have used in their recent release).

There is plenty of evidence that shows head collisions are the most common cause for HIA and attempting to keep players heads apart is a noble cause.

Th tackle height has been determined following a successful trial in France but that trial had a couple of key differences. 

1) only a single tackler was allowed

2) the ball carriers are no longer allowed to drop down and charge into a tackler and so must stay upright 

Both of these  two (as far as I know) are not in the RFU guidelines and the absence of both increase the risk of head collisions.  Head on head by tacklers if two tacklers are going around the waist and head on head between ball carrier and tackler if the ball carrier is allowed to bend into the tackle.  In fact, this latter risk was the reason why the last UK trial to lower the tackle height was abandoned because it resulted in more HIA's.

Could you post the evidence to show the last UK trial to lower the tackle height increased the number of concussions.

[Dunbar]

34 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Could you post the evidence to show the last UK trial to lower the tackle height increased the number of concussions.

I am sure there is an official press release somewhere but there are plenty of reports about it.

The BBC one

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/47000468.amp

'BBC rugby union correspondent Chris Jones: I understand the trial saw approximately a 67% increase in concussions'

[Dunbar]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I am sure there is an official press release somewhere but there are plenty of reports about it.

The BBC one

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/47000468.amp

'BBC rugby union correspondent Chris Jones: I understand the trial saw approximately a 67% increase in concussions'

Just to follow up on this.   I can't see the full detailed report, but as the trial was paused Nigel Melville, the RFU interim chief executive said: “We need to analyse the data in more detail, but our preliminary analysis has shown all of these incidents [concussions] occurred when a bent at the waist tackler was attempting to tackle a bent at the waist ball carrier following a short pass from the scrum-half. This is an area that the trial was not specifically looking to influence as the primary focus was to reduce the risk of concussion where ball carrier and tackler were both upright. We will be analysing this particular situation in more detail."

the main rationale for this new law is to keep the heads of the ball carrier and tackler apart.  So, if you are forcing the tackler lower then you can't have the carrier low as well as they will clash heads.  This is why the French change with the ball carrier banned from entering the tackle low was effective.  The ball carrier was high and the tackler low.

But the French change is not being introduced here and they also involved just a single tackler allowed.

It seems crazy to me that if you are going to implement the change that has been successful elsewhere, don't leave out key parts of it and put yourself in a position similar to one where your own trial failed.

[gingerjon]

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

But this trial also included a ban on two person tackles and outlawing a ball carrier bending into the tackle at point of contact.  Neither of which is in the RFU proposals as far as I can see.

They haven't said outlaw but they have said discourage (or rather encouraged to not bend etc).

How you discourage without amending the rules, I'm not sure.

"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. " 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

They haven't said outlaw but they have said discourage (or rather encouraged to not bend etc).

How you discourage without amending the rules, I'm not sure.

"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. " 

Agreed.  If you are going to follow the French changes and enjoy the same successes then make all the changes necessary rather than a half way house which has serious potential for failure. 

It will change the game dramatically but the feedback is that it changes the game for the good so why stop halfway.

What I suspect will happen is that the RFU will go to the tackle at sternum and below that New Zealand are introducing as it is less controversial. 

[Wakefield Ram]

50 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Agreed.  If you are going to follow the French changes and enjoy the same successes then make all the changes necessary rather than a half way house which has serious potential for failure. 

It will change the game dramatically but the feedback is that it changes the game for the good so why stop halfway.

What I suspect will happen is that the RFU will go to the tackle at sternum and below that New Zealand are introducing as it is less controversial. 

I suspect you are right. As gingerjon says there's been some discussion around changing laws to account for late dip. But what's a "late dip"? And the research says there's not much difference between sternum and waist level. Given how RU forwards tend to drive low, hard to see how that would work 

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I suspect you are right. As gingerjon says there's been some discussion around changing laws to account for late dip. But what's a "late dip"? And the research says there's not much difference between sternum and waist level. Given how RU forwards tend to drive low, hard to see how that would work 

This is where Rugby League would be far easier to change than Union.

Stipulate that the tackler has to bend their back, lead with the shoulder, wrap the arms, avoid upright tackles leading with the chest and keep all tackles to sternum and below.  The ball carriers in League tend to run upright so removing the chest on chest tackles keep the players heads out of the same space.

But in Union, the ball carrier also bends his back and leads with his head as he wants the body angle to find the floor and recycle the ball.  This leads to the rutting staggs head on head charges which stopped the last trial short (particularly drives one off the ruck).

It's a harder nut to crack for sure.  But they are trying harder than us to solve the problem.

[RP London]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

They haven't said outlaw but they have said discourage (or rather encouraged to not bend etc).

How you discourage without amending the rules, I'm not sure.

"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. " 

They'll be requiring the ref to go and tap the player on the shoulder afterwards (while tackling player is lying on the ground concussed) and say

"Do you mind awfully not doing that again as I believe that may have been the reason for little johnny seeing stars. I would very much appreciate your help in this matter as this may prevent further injury".

"Yes of course ref" he will reply "and may I just ask, as it would be useful to know, that if I were to forget or naturally do this action again what the punishment will be?"

The Ref would have no choice but to respond with "Oh, this is a gentlemans sport and I am just hoping that by having this small discussion with you that you will do your utmost so that this will not happen again. There will be no punishment to follow as I am assured by your willingness to listen that you will do your best, and that, after all, is all I can ask of you"..

To which the player will casually reply with "Right ho. I will, thank you for pointing this out to me so that I can become a better person and player and make sure that I keep the opposition safe".. then wandering off and thinking "if any other little scrote tries to tackle me near the tryline i'm still sticking my shoulder straight between his eyes and bulldozing him over".. 

i mean what can possible go wrong!

[fighting irish]

I think a below the (nipple line) pectoral muscle limit is the best compromise we can hope for.

I want to stress at this stage, that I'm not advocating such a change, merely discussing it as a possibility.

To insist that the waist is the limit, increases (considerably) the danger of head on head collision, if more than one tackler attempts to make or assist their team-mates in a tackle, simply because the ''target area'' is so much smaller than it is now. Putting two fast moving heads into this reduced space (where elbows, hips and knees are also moving at high speed) is asking for trouble.

Only allowing one tackler into the collision is farcical when, for example, a rampaging 17 stone prop forward is only opposed by an 11 stone scrum half. 

Dis-allowing the ball carrier from dipping into the tackle is nonsensical (especially) when near the try line because the player has to dip in order to ground the ball. It is also a natural, instinctive reaction to protect oneself from the imminent impact.

Limiting tackle height to the solar plexus (pectoral line) whilst still allowing ball carrier to dip and multiple tacklers into the contact is the best compromise we can hope for.  

Coaches would have to prepare players (perhaps) by saying first man in goes high (new high) and second man in goes low, to reduce the danger of team-mates poleaxing each other.

I'd like to re-iterate, that in my opinion, making wholesale changes to the way the game has been played, and enjoyed by spectators, for over a hundred years would have to bring unambiguous ''significant benefits'', in terms of reducing the risk of concussive head injury or otherwise we risk destroying the game we know and love.

Small guestimated (and hoped for) reductions in the risk of head injury (which may not be capable of accurate evaluation for many years) is an insufficient argument to sanction the destruction of the game as we know it.   

Edited January 30, 2023 by fighting irish

[Damien]

A huge step in the right direction from the NRL and I think mandatory stand down periods after any concussion are the way to go. I remember in the 90s when we had a mandatory 2 week stand down after concussion in the UK and I think it is something we should go back to:

A couple of hours later, the NRL announced the biggest shake-up to its handling of the existential concussion threat, mandating players diagnosed with a brain injury be stood down for 11 days, missing at least one match.

The move brings the NRL into line with World Rugby and the AFL, which have previously ordered players to be sidelined after suffering a concussion.

Immediately the question was asked: does the new measure go far enough?

Rugby league is a game grappling with its brutal, gladiatorial past, its troubling present and its uncertain future. Its popularity has been built on decades of physical combat and a warrior-like mentality, which holds to the belief that a small weakness shown by one person in a defensive line can compromise an entire team.

Players and coaches need saving from themselves, and the NRL knows it.

NRL 2023: Players and coaches need saving from themselves (smh.com.au)

[Bedford Roughyed]

 

[Futtocks]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/apr/04/rugby-league-brain-injuries-former-players-legal-fight-rfl?CMP=share_btn_tw 

[The Blues Ox]

I like Andy, but I think this is a really poor take.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

I like Andy, but I think this is a really poor take.

Thats a terrible tweet. 

[RP London]

what's the most worrying when reading the BBC article are comments by the likes of Alix Popham that 90% of his issues were from training, yet we still want to, seemingly, just change the rules (though I understand they need to be changed but not as dramatically as some). Also the fact that the "Rugby Family" both union and league seems to have simply let them down post career.. there is little funding to help them or support (by the sounds of it) and when they are offering ideas of how to change things for the better for the current crop they are being ignored. 

 

[gingerjon]

58 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I like Andy, but I think this is a really poor take.

He's also wrong that all the players would have made a living out of the game. The report makes it sound like BARLA are also in the dock.

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

 

Even the RFL deemed it an inconvenience last season when they backed down on harsher punishments, all because some fans and ex players moaned because their clubs players were sent off and suspended. 

[JohnM]

Kevin Brown was interviewed on the legal action by Naga Munchetty late this morning on Radio 5. For anyone interested, you can probably hear it on BBC Sounds.

[The Blues Ox]

50 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

He's also wrong that all the players would have made a living out of the game. The report makes it sound like BARLA are also in the dock.

Even the higher end of those 100 players probably made a pittance.

[The Blues Ox]

Some of the comments on Twitter......Silverwood now claiming the players knew the risks. You are wrong, they didn't know the risks at all. Seen some players speaking up as well but for the moment its the ones who you worry for anyone who listens to their opinions. Also at the moment they are ok because they get to follow protocols where as back in the day you used to get knocked out and you would be back on 5 minutes later if you were ok to get to your feet and in some cases were probably forced to go back on. Is that knowing the risks?

Would you let your sons/daughters play if you knew there was an increased risk of longterm brain injury/damage, I think parents back then may think twice if they knew what we know now. The fake tough guy stuff on Twitter is a bit embarassing.

[Wakefield Ram]

It's hard to understand why as a minimum there isn't a limit on contact training. The NFL - no-ones idea of a soft sport - limit contact training to one session a week. 

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

It's hard to understand why as a minimum there isn't a limit on contact training. The NFL - no-ones idea of a soft sport - limit contact training to one session a week. 

Quickest win they could have for "taking it seriously"