Tackle technique & rules, re: concussion...

[Dunbar]

10 hours ago, EggFace said:

NFL on Rugby Tackling.

 

They are describing the tackle that Rugby Union wants to return to.

It is ironic that the tackle they describe as the traditional NFL style tackle is the one that rugby predominantly uses now (League especially)... front on, chest on chest and arms secured.  This is of course due to the League requirement to secure the ball so it is not offloaded... something that is not a thing in NFL.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Dunbar

[RP London]

15 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

As someone who refs RU, it looks like waist will be below the sternum. Some people's waists are bigger than others. But the overall point of the article is clear, lowering the tackle line reduced concussions.

as someone coaching the junior ages there was a long hard debate on Sunday between the coaches (some of whom are open age players still). There was definitely a murmur of not being sure if some of them will continue to play next year. There was also quite a lot around the confidence in kids and that there is a natural reaction to stand up especially early when being taught to tackle or the infuriating shirt grabbing. These can get coached out over time but is a confidence thing with new starters.. are they now forced out of the game? add to that the natural reaction when close to the line is to dip the shoulder, natural, have we got to coach that out of kids as well as teaching them correct and safe tackle technique? there are definitely coaches questioning next season too (which has major consequences).. we will be looking to free up 2 months at least at the beginning of the season to re teach all of this, thats 2 months no matches etc.. that should keep the kids coming back!

There are 2 of us that are ex league players and both of us were saying that we cannot see how this is workable with 2 men tackles, or a player standing still at a lineout which used to result in a maul, that cannot happen as contact will be above the waste, so do we see cannonball style tackles into the knees.. 

The line that we have been given through the RFU to the coaches is waist.. not an interpretation of where the waist is (though this may come) but waist (which is the line above the hips). Almost all of us were saying that it may solve concussion to the attacking player but that it will heighten the likelihood of concussion to the defender (2 tacklers etc) and pose serious lower leg issues and knee issues for attackers. 

one thing we did say was it will be interesting to see if there are more players at the League team we have in the summer that we started last year, and the general feeling is that there will be. 

[Man of Kent]

'Rugeley RFC, one of the Staffordshire clubs, has signed up to play rugby league in the Midlands merit league over the summer, so concerned were they by the scale of the law change in union and the fear of a player drain.'

New tackle law: Staffordshire clubs demand decision is overturned

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

On 22/01/2023 at 22:56, EggFace said:

NFL on Rugby Tackling.

 

That’s a cool find, thanks 

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

'Rugeley RFC, one of the Staffordshire clubs, has signed up to play rugby league in the Midlands merit league over the summer, so concerned were they by the scale of the law change in union and the fear of a player drain.'

New tackle law: Staffordshire clubs demand decision is overturned

Hopefully more follow, for the sake of both codes might I add

[Dunbar]

On 23/01/2023 at 10:18, RP London said:

Almost all of us were saying that it may solve concussion to the attacking player but that it will heighten the likelihood of concussion to the defender (2 tacklers etc) and pose serious lower leg issues and knee issues for attackers. 

Thanks for your post on this, is was very interesting. 

This is a point that I am particularly interested in.  When I think back on all head injuries I have seen in the last few years, regularly the most horrific looking incidents with serious outcomes are when two tacklers clash heads.  It is high speed and high impact and leads to very nasty incidents. 

When we had one tackler low and one high this may have been reduced but if laws suggest all tacklers are waist height and lower then surely this heightens the risk of head clashes for tacklers.

(p.s. this is an observation from League games, it may not be as big an issue in Union as the 10 metre defensive line in League means tackles are almost always at speed)

[Man of Kent]

I was watching some old RU highlights on YouTube just to check out the old Heinz brigade’s ‘They always tackled around the legs in my day’ comments about the new rule.

Absolute eyewash, there were tonnes of wrapping/smothering tackles. It showed me it’s instinctive, natural and perfectly safe to tackle the ball carrier above waist height (but not head height). 

Hope we don’t go down this route, it’s against natural justice and will ruin it. 

[Wakefield Ram]

Interesting that people will think that most parents would rather their children play a code of rugby where their children are far more likely to be concussed. 

The article links say the French players enjoyed the game more, more passing, more offloads - it was a RU trial. 

When RU clamped down on high tackles a few seasons ago, there was plenty of "the game's going soft" talk though that was mostly from coaches and older people who weren't playing any more. I've not heard any complaints from players. 

But I doubt RL will do anything as they've done nothing to prevent concussions despite impending legal action and mounting evidence of players suffering long term brain injury. 

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/st-helens-legend-james-graham-gives-harrowing-insight-into-brain-damage-as-well-as-some-positive-news-60410/

[Midlands hobo]

8 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

 

But I doubt RL will do anything as they've done nothing to prevent concussions

What have the RFU done? Offset the reduction in risk to attackers with increased risk to tacklers. Actual differences to be determined.

Contact sports contain by their basic make up a high degree of risk. Why not move to tag rugby and do away with the risk almost completely?

[RP London]

9 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Interesting that people will think that most parents would rather their children play a code of rugby where their children are far more likely to be concussed. 

The article links say the French players enjoyed the game more, more passing, more offloads - it was a RU trial. 

When RU clamped down on high tackles a few seasons ago, there was plenty of "the game's going soft" talk though that was mostly from coaches and older people who weren't playing any more. I've not heard any complaints from players. 

But I doubt RL will do anything as they've done nothing to prevent concussions despite impending legal action and mounting evidence of players suffering long term brain injury. 

https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/st-helens-legend-james-graham-gives-harrowing-insight-into-brain-damage-as-well-as-some-positive-news-60410/

Yes the French trial lead to better rugby to play (arguably) and that is a good thing, but lets not get around the fact that that can happen with better coaching and more expansive coaching. Plus its a very short trial in the grand scheme of things. we know full well that after a year or so coaches work out how to smother these tactics.. even last sunday I was chatting to our DoR and he was saying about a swarm defence to stop the offloads and just getting behind the ball (both of us with a league background so very similar to how a league defence would work with a heavy offload side). 

it wont take long to work out how to counteract it. 

The extra injury worry is my main issue though. The RFU (as does the RFL) needs to simply punish harder the infringement to show they are serious (new rule or old rule). People talk about Owen Farrell for example (even though he hasn't been in front of the judiciary for 2 years until now) but if his offence was deemed high then 8 weeks down to 4 for pleading guilty down to 3 while going on a course is not going to deter him or make him change.. 8 weeks minimum, 12 weeks, 6 months etc make it stick make it really hurt... then that "slip" or slightly iffy style or whatever that player is doing wrong will change. Next time he is up its doubled.. someone may end up missing a season but so be it. The argument is always "we want to see our best players" yes we do, but that is the same for the opposition who you may well injure and put out for months, maybe even lose their career ..  also i would quite like to see our best players still alive and fully functioning in 20 years time. 

For me its gone too far.. and from the headlines this morning the RFU may be looking at this. Make it sternum down and heavily enforce it and they may be onto something but strictly waist down (the information i was given had no leeway as you suggested earlier) i just cannot see working and can see it causing more issues. 

[RP London]

12 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Thanks for your post on this, is was very interesting. 

This is a point that I am particularly interested in.  When I think back on all head injuries I have seen in the last few years, regularly the most horrific looking incidents with serious outcomes are when two tacklers clash heads.  It is high speed and high impact and leads to very nasty incidents. 

When we had one tackler low and one high this may have been reduced but if laws suggest all tacklers are waist height and lower then surely this heightens the risk of head clashes for tacklers.

(p.s. this is an observation from League games, it may not be as big an issue in Union as the 10 metre defensive line in League means tackles are almost always at speed)

it is, seen it a few times both at the senior team and the juniors. They can be really quite nasty, even though the defensive line isnt moving at speed they are hitting with force as they cannot rely on momentum as much. They can be really quite sickening blows too. 

There are a lot of natural moments where going low are going to be dangerous.. and yet that is what they are forcing, that tweak to be around the mid-drif would be a big difference. No one is asking for carte blanche to smack people around the head, and no player that I have seen doesnt think more should be done to help in this area but the general consensus is that the suggestion is just too far and is actually adding danger to the game (from players and coaches).

On a junior side I really do think it will lead to problems with kids who have confidence issues of diving at a players feet/knees (frankly it is a nutty thing to do) etc. Those kids will mostly shirt grab for a while but they are still playing while the coaches are working on that.. if you are basically saying those kids cannot play then there is a huge pool that will just walk away. Some will end up being really good players (our Under 15s the best 2 players that have just been at Yorkshire Trials were both shirt grabbers early on and had to build their confidence up) some will just be club men, some will not play senior rugby but be spectators or the club board etc.. all are vital and all could be lost to the game for a rule that just hasnt been 100% thought through IMHO

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, RP London said:

For me its gone too far.. and from the headlines this morning the RFU may be looking at this. Make it sternum down and heavily enforce it and they may be onto something but strictly waist down (the information i was given had no leeway as you suggested earlier) i just cannot see working and can see it causing more issues. 

I couldn't sleep last night and so I read through all the links that @Wakefield Ramposted.

There is plenty of analysis good analysis and well thought through conclusions.  But it is stated very clearly that the safest tackle for both ball carrier and tackler is around the wasit to sternum height while avoiding an upright tackle which means heads are sharing a common space.

Yes, the lower tackles (waist down) are safer than the highest tackles but I can't fathom why the RFU are eliminating the tackles that are proven to be the safest.  Unless this is because they expect tackles to stray up and thet can be lenient with waist tackles straying up to the sternum but not sternum tackles straying up to the head.  But this brings the spectre of referee interpretation and chaos lives there.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Dunbar

[Wakefield Ram]

1 hour ago, Midlands hobo said:

What have the RFU done? Offset the reduction in risk to attackers with increased risk to tacklers. Actual differences to be determined.

Contact sports contain by their basic make up a high degree of risk. Why not move to tag rugby and do away with the risk almost completely?

They clamped down on high tackles. Pretty much a yellow card for any contact  head and neck and hit with any force and it's a red. RL tried to follow suit but caved in after a few weeks because it was "spoiling the game" But agree they've haven't limited contact training like the NFL have. 

27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I couldn't sleep last night and so I read through all the links that @Wakefield Ramposted.

There is plenty of analysis good analysis and well thought through conclusions.  But it is stated very clearly that the safest tackle for both ball carrier and tackler is around the wasit to sternum height while avoiding an upright tackle which means heads are sharing a common space.

Yes, the lower tackles (waist down) are safer than the highest tackles but I can't fathom why the RFU are eliminating the tackles that are proven to be the safest.  Unless this is because they expect tackles to stray up and thet can be lenient with waist tackles straying up to the sternum but not sternum tackles straying up to the head.  But this brings the spectre of referee interpretation and chaos lives there.

Waist level tackles are allowed, understand your interpretation of the article, but waist tackles aren't being outlawed. But it's going to be very hard to play and ref but players will adapt.

But looks like the NRL might be taking some action

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-to-consider-limit-on-contact-training-as-concussion-crackdown-continues-20210518-p57sze.html

Edited January 25, 2023 by Wakefield Ram

[RP London]

37 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I couldn't sleep last night and so I read through all the links that @Wakefield Ramposted.

There is plenty of analysis good analysis and well thought through conclusions.  But it is stated very clearly that the safest tackle for both ball carrier and tackler is around the wasit to sternum height while avoiding an upright tackle which means heads are sharing a common space.

Yes, the lower tackles (waist down) are safer than the highest tackles but I can't fathom why the RFU are eliminating the tackles that are proven to be the safest.  Unless this is because they expect tackles to stray up and thet can be lenient with waist tackles straying up to the sternum but not sternum tackles straying up to the head.  But this brings the spectre of referee interpretation and chaos lives there.

Totally agree with you. Everything I have seen says the same too.

Whatever they do its the stick that is going to be important.. players and coaches will always try to get away with bending/breaking the rules for their own gain. If the RFU are already building in that wriggle room then they are opening themselves up to real issues. Make the sternum the line and enforce it, and heavily enforce it. Dont say waist but actually a bit above is ok!

They have to see the game too and understand it isnt just about the single tackler, unless you are going to stop double tackles which is whole other argument, so where is the 2nd person supposed to go. The single tackle point is fine but if the second person cannot go higher then you are going to be "encouraging injuries" surely. 

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Waist level tackles are allowed, understand your interpretation of the article, but waist tackles aren't being outlawed. But it's going to be very hard to play and ref but players will adapt.

We seem to be getting stuck on this point again.  I am not saying that waist tackles are being banned - the new law says tackles are legal from the waist and below.  But let's be driven by the evidence.

Here is a direct article from your link.*

"And it doesn’t matter if you replace head-to-head with head-to-knee or head-to-hip impacts, overall risk should fall. Your best option is to swap those bad head-to-head contacts for head-to-upper body and upper leg contacts."

The author is quite clearly saying in the piece that the two places where the fewest HIA occur is the head to upper leg and head to upper body (sternum height).

I don't understand why the RFU have gone all the way to banning tackles from waist and below when tackles above the waist are evidentially safer than tackles around the hips.

The only thing I can assume is that they believe that this will lead to players straying above the sternum but is it not better to enforce the safest tackles and clamp down hard on the illegal tackles than go for something which is less safe and drastically alters the way the game is played.

* not the direct article linked but a link from within which goes into more detail on the safety zones of the tackle areas.

[RP London]

34 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

They clamped down on high tackles. Pretty much a yellow card for any contact  head and neck and hit with any force and it's a red. RL tried to follow suit but caved in after a few weeks because it was "spoiling the game" But agree they've haven't limited contact training like the NFL have. 

Waist level tackles are allowed, understand your interpretation of the article, but waist tackles aren't being outlawed. But it's going to be very hard to play and ref but players will adapt.

But looks like the NRL might be taking some action

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-to-consider-limit-on-contact-training-as-concussion-crackdown-continues-20210518-p57sze.html

waist tackle is the limit therefore you cannot hit the squishy bit above the waist so the waist is the limit, the bit above the waist is the part that is the safest and that, so far, has been outlawed. I expect this will change, IMO from what i have read you are already interpreting it where as the rule was Waist and below, the waist is not a large area, the waist is the line of the hip... And the fact we are having this "disagreement" shows one of many issues of this law change.. find a line that cannot be interpreted and is just fact.. If you as a ref may see my stomach as part of my waist, or my waist as higher than someone else (because it isn't a well defined area) then we have a potential problem.. Sternum is better but just put a line on the shirt at a point on a shirt that works and anything above is a card (or whatever).. the Ref then doesn't get questioned which surely makes everyone's life easier. 

When talking about what the different sports are doing I think there is also the off field stuff.. watching RU I am often suprised by players failing an HIA and then playing the next week, even by their published return to play protocols this shouldnt be allowed. Jonny Sexton springs to mind a few years ago.. they said it was a failed HIA they then said it was an ankle injury that forced him off, but they used the HIA sub initially to do this etc.. its a mess  and its a very poor look.. RL does seem to do this much better IMHO.. the onfield stuff not so much (reds and yellows i totally agree) but I do believe the off field return to play is better. There is a long way to go on both though. 

 

Edited January 25, 2023 by RP London

[Adelaide Tiger]

I am not being flippant but I am puzzled about the following.

If a player carries the ball at chest height but can only be tackled at the waist or below then how does the defending team get the ball?

Also would it be possible for the attacking team to keep the ball above waist height and keep passing the ball to supporting players therefore denying the defending team the opportunity to get the ball.

Or have I missed something?

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I am not being flippant but I am puzzled about the following.

If a player carries the ball at chest height but can only be tackled at the waist or below then how does the defending team get the ball?

Also would it be possible for the attacking team to keep the ball above waist height and keep passing the ball to supporting players therefore denying the defending team the opportunity to get the ball.

Or have I missed something?

This is getting into the detail of Union play but I think it is relevant as these changes will impact how the game is played (and would change League as well if similar policies were implemented).

As you say, tackles above the waist being outlawed have implications in game play.

- As you say, offloads will be far more prevalent as players cannot make contact above the waist and wrap the ball.

- How does a maul form - either in open play or from a lineout.  At the moment this is when a ball carrier is held up - but that typically is through contact above the waist.  Mauls may become a thing of the past.

- if players are tackled lower, do they go to ground quicker?  Will that bring back rucking which is pretty much dead now as teams (at the top level anyway) play through the phases and the defense tends to be patient.  But this change feels like phases could go on for ever with teams rarely losing possession.  Something would have to change.

[RP London]

17 minutes ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

I am not being flippant but I am puzzled about the following.

If a player carries the ball at chest height but can only be tackled at the waist or below then how does the defending team get the ball?

Also would it be possible for the attacking team to keep the ball above waist height and keep passing the ball to supporting players therefore denying the defending team the opportunity to get the ball.

Or have I missed something?

nope you are right.. they cannot wrap the ball up so it should create a more offloading game as the ball cannot be wrapped up. however, as with anything defence coaches will be on this like a shot and will just structure the line to stop this. 

A tackled player will still go to ground and therefore the ruck will stay important and that is where the contest for the ball will be... however, how the f*** you can ruck when you arent allowed to make contact above the waist is another thing that I cannot wrap my head around as a coach.. and something I have been asked and cannot answer... if you are allowed to frankly wipe someone out at the ruck still then it is just bizarre.. 

none of this will stop the whiplash of hitting the floor or the head bouncing off the floor etc.. (which will become more as the number of tackles to ground will increase compared to those being held up for a maul)

What happens at a lineout will now be interesting.. no "hugging" so smack the back of a stationary players knees really really hard to make them buckle.. that will work well!

[Man of Kent]

If this goes ahead I would buy shares in whoever makes Vaseline...

[Wakefield Ram]

Waist is the part above the hips and below the ribs.

Interesting that a major concern here is that this will mean more offloads and dare I say it more open rugby. I am old enough to remember the idea behind increasing offside line at ptb from 5m to 10m was to encourage more open play. It actually has had the opposite effect.

And my final point is this. Lowering the tackle line will reduce concussions and the incidence of players getting brain injuries. The game I retired from in mid-90s is a very different one from the one played now in terms of player size, speed and frequency of the impacts. The players launching legal actions now are the first wave of pro players who started in 90s. There will be plenty more to come. There's been an improvement recently with return to play protocols, but that's post-injury treatment, not prevention.

Btw thanks to all for what has been an interesting and respectful debate. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Wakefield Ram

[Midlands hobo]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

Jonny Sexton springs to mind a few years ago.. they said it was a failed HIA they then said it was an ankle injury that forced him off, but they used the HIA sub initially to do this etc.

 

Blood gate was of course the most famous of these 'work arounds' 

However I knew a high level ref who was questioned by a barrister for calling uncontested scrums when the reserve front row went off 'injured with cramp I believe it was'. Just after they had lost a player and would have been short in the scrum.

They were trying to sue the ref for calling uncontested and removing the advantage. The EST was (c.2003) that each place finish in the table was something like £20k in sponsorship next year.

[Midlands hobo]

Besides it's impossible to tackle most RU props waist high as you cannot wrap your arms around them.

[Dunbar]

18 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Interesting that a major concern here is that this will mean more offloads and dare I say it more open rugby. I am old enough to remember the idea behind increasing offside line at ptb from 5m to 10m was to encourage more open play. It actually has had the opposite effect.

This may also have the opposite effect.  If you told a Union coach that the defence is not able to hit above the waist and therefore the shift in the dominance of the physical collision moves towards the ball carrier and away from the tackler then they would surely say that a forward game of drives and ball recycling will be the way to play.  I can see this change meaning the wingers may never see the ball.

[DI Keith Fowler]

I think both codes governing bodies are in a bit of a bind when it comes to rule changes.

We know that we're seeing people with brain injuries most likely caused by the game, these however were caused 20 or so years back. We're changing things right now but we're not going to see what those changes do until some time in the future.

It's possible, not probable but possible, in RL that the clampdown on high shots has reduced the risk to current players massively. However we're still going to see a number of players diagnosed year or year because those are already baked in from where the game was years back, and naturally we'll react to those players coming forward by changing things further.