Jump to content

Tackle height law change confirmed

Leyther_Matt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Leyther_Matt

Leyther_Matt

Posted
Posted

Amazed I’ve got the dubious privilege of sharing this. Can only assume I’m the first one to pick themselves up off the floor. Couldn’t have picked three worse examples of ‘illegal’ tackles if they tried.

Given the farcical nature of the academy trials last year, I’d love to know how bad it would have needed to be to be considered a failure! 

 

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 442
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

dkw
dkw

I still dont understand how any findings into this thinks high tackles is the main problem for concussion. Every ex pro or semi pro ive spoken to about it believe the majority they can ever remember w

iffleyox
iffleyox

The issue is the brain hitting the inside of the head. The only ‘head protection’ is going to have to be between the brain and the skull…

Roy Haggerty
Roy Haggerty

This is so grim. Reminds me of having to deal with panicky incompetent HR staff over health and safety precautions at work 20 years ago. The key is making reasonable adjustments to reduce risk, not to

Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed

Posted
Posted

Rising insurance costs and increasing legal claims means this is inevitable.

  • Like 2

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
Bull Mania

Bull Mania

Posted
Posted

I know the "rugby leagues dead" line gets trotted out a lot, but I really do fear what impact this will have. Was it an average of 50+ penalties in the trial games. That's simply unworkable as an entertainment sport. 

That's not to say we shouldn't work hard to protect players. I like the maximum games and minimum off-season, probably could have gone further here. But this rule isn't the right one IMO Unfortunately anyone who has a concern that this isn't the right way to go, gets shut down by some journos saying "safety is paramount, if you disagree with the rule you enjoy seeing players getting dementia" 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Griff

Griff

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

I like the maximum games and minimum off-season, probably could have gone further here. But this rule isn't the right one IMO Unfortunately anyone who has a concern that this isn't the right way to go, gets shut down by some journos saying "safety is paramount, if you disagree with the rule you enjoy seeing players getting dementia" 

I keep saying we play too many games at professional level.  But all I hear is "more games, more games".

  • Like 3

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dkw

dkw

Posted
Posted

I still dont understand how any findings into this thinks high tackles is the main problem for concussion. Every ex pro or semi pro ive spoken to about it believe the majority they can ever remember were from either tacklers getting their heads in the wrong position, accidental head clashes (with opponents heads, knees, elbows etc) or from heads hitting the ground hard.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Amazed I’ve got the dubious privilege of sharing this. Can only assume I’m the first one to pick themselves up off the floor. Couldn’t have picked three worse examples of ‘illegal’ tackles if they tried.

Given the farcical nature of the academy trials last year, I’d love to know how bad it would have needed to be to be considered a failure! 

 

All three were the upright tackles, 'chest on chest' where the space is shared between the tackler and ball carriers head and so head clash is a risk.

But they don't align to the laws they are sharing.  I cannot see anything illegal with the initial contact in these tackles, contact is chest high and so legal.

If they want to ban upright tackles then they should have gone ahead and done that.  At least it would be less ambiguous. 

Edited by Dunbar
  • Like 5

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dovster

Dovster

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Griff said:

They're better than nothing.

You would think that by now there would be a better head protection helmet.

These rules are going to make it very hard for big man on small man tackles before you get into falling or ducking in the tackles.

A nightmare for the referees and spectators alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wiltshire Warrior Dragon

Wiltshire Warrior Dragon

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Dovster said:

I presume scrum hats or other head protection has been tried and found unsuitable. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Dovster said:

What protection do they offer?

Historically, in the days of tight binding for contested scrums, I understood they were to counter the development of 'cauliflower ears'.

Incidentally - and as we often moan on here about poor media coverage - these law changes are currently featuring prominently on BBC Radio 5 Live sport bulletins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OriginalMrC

OriginalMrC

Posted
Posted

Some strange responses here to what appear to be well thought out and sensible on evidence based proposals. This is in contrast to how it was handled by RU. The tackles on show are there to demonstrate what could be deemed illegal when the new rules come in. I've always considered upright tackles round the shoulders to be something the game needs to look at due to chances of injury and because it slows the game down. 

I don't think these rules are anything to worry about and since they are based on medical advice I don't see what choice the RFL have. Looking on the plus side I can see this speeding the game up and creating more try scoring opportunities. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Some strange responses here to what appear to be well thought out and sensible on evidence based proposals. This is in contrast to how it was handled by RU. The tackles on show are there to demonstrate what could be deemed illegal when the new rules come in. I've always considered upright tackles round the shoulders to be something the game needs to look at due to chances of injury and because it slows the game down. 

I don't think these rules are anything to worry about and since they are based on medical advice I don't see what choice the RFL have. Looking on the plus side I can see this speeding the game up and creating more try scoring opportunities. 

 

I think most of the replies are about the examples, not the laws.

The law says you cannot tackle / make initial contact above the arm pit.

Freeze the video at 1 minute 11 seconds and there is a tackle where the arm of the tackler is clearly below the armpit of the ball carrier and it is descibed as illegal.  Why?

Edited by Dunbar
  • Like 4

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Midlands hobo

Midlands hobo

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Griff said:

They're better than nothing.

Debatable. I read a study, in the early days of union professionalism the legalisation of padding cause a massive rise in injuries. Simply put players with padding took bigger risks as they felt safer.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EggFace

EggFace

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bull Mania said:

I know the "rugby leagues dead" line gets trotted out a lot, but I really do fear what impact this will have. Was it an average of 50+ penalties in the trial games. That's simply unworkable as an entertainment sport. 

That's not to say we shouldn't work hard to protect players. I like the maximum games and minimum off-season, probably could have gone further here. But this rule isn't the right one IMO Unfortunately anyone who has a concern that this isn't the right way to go, gets shut down by some journos saying "safety is paramount, if you disagree with the rule you enjoy seeing players getting dementia" 

I thought it doesn't apply to the pro/semi pro game ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iffleyox

iffleyox

Posted
Posted
Just now, EggFace said:

I thought it doesn't apply to the pro/semi pro game ?

It’s the same in RU - the pro game will almost inevitably follow. Like boiling a frog. 
 

it will become very, very difficult to hold the professional game apart from this for more than a couple of years.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.