RFL trialling new laws to reduce head contact

[Jughead]

https://mobile.twitter.com/johnnyddavidson/status/1649397618018009088

 

[Bedford Roughyed]

[Bedford Roughyed]

[Bedford Roughyed]

Trialling and gathering evidence seems like a good idea to me.

[Chrispmartha]

Saw this on Twitter, followed by hundreds of 'games gone' posts as if it is being implemented in this weeks SL fixtures or something.

Trialling things is entirely sensible and a good idea.

[phiggins]

Makes perfect sense to trial things like this. 

With the tackle height, generally, if your initial contact is above the armpit, you're either going to slide up and give a penalty away anyway, or not complete the tackle. So I don't think there'll be much difference there anyway.

For the kick off, will be interesting to see if that leads to a difference. It might not effect the distance on the kick, and therefore the impact of the collision, but teams might regularly restart a set after scoring in their own in goal area. 

But that will all be assessed, which is the whole point.

[Damien]

I agree with the armpit tackle height below armpit and its something I've advocated before. There is no reason for a tackle to be higher than that and it improves the margin for error before contact with the head.

I'm not a fan of the kick off idea. It seems to be following the NFL where they made changes a few years ago to reduce return impact from kick off.

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

 

I'm not a fan of the kick off idea. It seems to be following the NFL where they made changes a few years ago to reduce return impact from kick off.

Yep. If kick returns are an issue, you’d have to question drop outs as well 

[tim2]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

Yep. If kick returns are an issue, you’d have to question drop outs as well 

Some of the biggest hits are in regular play when a team is fired up and has high line speed with multiple tacklers. Full backs and wingers are pretty good at avoiding big impacts on kick returns.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I'm not a fan of the kick off idea. It seems to be following the NFL where they made changes a few years ago to reduce return impact from kick off.

The NFL change has mostly just meant that 90+% of kick-offs end up with a touchback. 

It wouldn't surprise me if shorter kick-offs become more common (maybe Leeds knew something the rest didn't )

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The NFL change has mostly just meant that 90+% of kick-offs end up with a touchback. 

It wouldn't surprise me if shorter kick-offs become more common (maybe Leeds knew something the rest didn't )

Yes, it's killed the kick returns. Obviously RL rules are different but it will become much easier for the kick off team to either pin a team on their own line or regain possession.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I agree with the armpit tackle height below armpit and its something I've advocated before. There is no reason for a tackle to be higher than that and it improves the margin for error before contact with the head.

I'm not a fan of the kick off idea. It seems to be following the NFL where they made changes a few years ago to reduce return impact from kick off.

The 2nd one will be interesting to see. This could have a big impact on the field position following a kick off. We could see the receiving team trapped in their 10m far more on tackle one. 

Interested to see the outcomes here. 

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The NFL change has mostly just meant that 90+% of kick-offs end up with a touchback. 

It wouldn't surprise me if shorter kick-offs become more common (maybe Leeds knew something the rest didn't )

Yes, landing a short kickoff between the 20 and 30m lines seems far more attractive than 10m further up. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Yes, landing a short kickoff between the 20 and 30m lines seems far more attractive than 10m further up. 

Even trying to drill the ball out over the sideline does too.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Even trying to drill the ball out over the sideline does too.

Yeah, it may turn out to be an interesting change from a variety point of view. 

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, it may turn out to be an interesting change from a variety point of view. 

I do think if teams kick as normal, for distance with the ball landing around the try line, it won't have the desired effect. 10 metres isn't going to make any difference because the attacker running on to the ball will still reach full speed before the defenders get to him and the defenders will also still have reached full speed. I can't see how that collision will be different. 

[sam4731]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The NFL change has mostly just meant that 90+% of kick-offs end up with a touchback. 

It wouldn't surprise me if shorter kick-offs become more common (maybe Leeds knew something the rest didn't )

It would be interesting to see how many kick offs clear the in goal at first, as kick offs seem to be a fine tuned skill, with many landing in the in goal. Might take a while to learn the new strength of kick needed.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

I do think if teams kick as normal, for distance with the ball landing around the try line, it won't have the desired effect. 10 metres isn't going to make any difference because the attacker running on to the ball will still reach full speed before the defenders get to him and the defenders will also still have reached full speed. I can't see how that collision will be different. 

I agree, I wonder if they are hoping for more variety. 

If they want to stop those huge kick off collisions, they are going to have to go down the route of tap restarts, and the same for dropouts as well really. 

[Jughead]

I don’t think it’s anything to do with seeking variety that they’re trialling this. I think it’s an interesting byproduct of the trial that might turn out to be a good thing. I’d be interested to see how they’ve got the results that lead to the trial. 

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I don’t think it’s anything to do with seeking variety that they’re trialling this. I think it’s an interesting byproduct of the trial that might turn out to be a good thing. I’d be interested to see how they’ve got the results that lead to the trial. 

I suspect youre right, but when coming up with these suggestions surely you consider what the outcomes will be. More short kickoffs reduces the high impact collisions. 

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree, I wonder if they are hoping for more variety. 

If they want to stop those huge kick off collisions, they are going to have to go down the route of tap restarts, and the same for dropouts as well really. 

I am all for changes to the tackle height to armpit level, stricter enforcement of punishments for high tackles and better protocols around HIA and concussion with things like mandatory stand down periods and neutral assessors.

I am less in favour of the kick off change, and similar changes, because a collision is the fundamental nature of RL and any collision based sport. Its akin to saying a boxer can only punch with his weaker hand because a punch is dangerous. RL is what it is and yes we can mitigate the risks as much as possible and make people aware of those risks but there are some things I don't think we should change. Practically all sports carry a fair amount of risk inherent to the game and I don't think RL should see itself as any different in that regard.

I am open minded about the trial, and yes it may work, but this is more a general comment around this line of thinking.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

I am all for changes to the tackle height to armpit level, stricter enforcement of punishments for high tackles and better protocols around HIA and concussion with things like mandatory stand down periods and neutral assessors.

I am less in favour of the kick off change, and similar changes, because a collision is the fundamental nature of RL and any collision based sport. Its akin to saying a boxer can only punch with his weaker hand because a punch is dangerous. RL is what it is and yes we can mitigate the risks as much as possible and make people aware of those risks but there are some things I don't think we should change. Practically all sports carry a fair amount of risk inherent to the game and I don't think RL should see itself as any different in that regard.

I am open minded about the trial, and yes it may work, but this is more a general comment around this line of thinking.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of changing fundamentals here, but I like the approach to testing. I remember hating the corner flag change initially, and now it's a great change. Be interesting to watch. 

[fighting irish]

On 21/04/2023 at 21:54, Dave T said:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of changing fundamentals here, but I like the approach to testing. I remember hating the corner flag change initially, and now it's a great change. Be interesting to watch. 

I welcome the testing with reservations, it shows a commitment to managing (and reducing) the risks to players responsibly.

My personal preference would be that we make the changes (for testing) one at a time, so that any benefits accrued can be unequivocally attributed to the change and ensure that the conclusions are unsullied (not confused) by two or more changes.

I'm more in favour of the armpit limit (I've suggested the nipple line in the past) but unsure of the benefit of shortening the kick-off field length.

One of the by-products of the change may be, that by pinning the (previous) scoring team closer to their own goal line, will result in reducing the (sometimes embarrassing) margins in one-sided games.

My chief concern (about the trial) is how you collect and analyse data, which actually verifies the wisdom of the change.

Unless we can make some objective claims about the benefits of any changes, then the trial is pointless.

This is something I'm really interested in and eager to know more about so, what records will the experimenters collect? How will they compare them to the original (unchanged) game and how long will the trial run to ensure that the sample sizes are sufficient to provide statistically reliable/meaningful results?

 

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by fighting irish

[The Art of Hand and Foot]

The ten yard advantage will certainly make the short kick off more advantageous. Even a high hanging kick off will allow for kicking team to grab the initiative. Could change tactics and hence strategies. 

[Harry Stottle]

Will player's be penalised if they promote and put their head into the contact area which is deemed by the official to be lower than their armpits to their normal standing height?

If not cue new coaching methods to gain free kicks, especially when a team is in possesion trying to clear their own line.