Tackle height law change confirmed

[Barry Badrinath]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

Yeah those example are frankly nonsense and to me look in line with these new rules. They are fine if we are talking about armpit height.

tbh the salford leigh tackle on mulhern,, they've marked it as a good tackle, i was wincing expecting the tacklers to crack their heads as they came together behind the ball carrier, as we've seen before, the old friendly fire clash of heads

[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 try and eliminate all possible risk, however unlikely. Clearly, the RFL are in an absolute panic about the court case and potential future court cases. 

Consent also matters. You could make a case for maximum mitigation in the junior game. But for adults, explaining the risk, the attempted mitigations and allowing them to make an informed choice is vital.

I only ever played amateur level. Even back in the 1990s I was, as an amateur, well aware of the risks of a collision sport. I received two concussions (both as tackler, which is far more dangerous than carrying the ball tbh). The idea that I’d sue the sport for not ‘protecting’ me from a sport I chose to play is just barmy to me. I’ve every sympathy for ex players who’ve suffered injury, but I’ve no sympathy at all for their attempting to sue the sport for those injuries. We’re all adults, we all know what the sport is. Nobody forced us to play it.

RL has always been a fantastic sport cursed with dreadful administrators. In this case, they’re fearfully adopting a panicky, unreasonable risk-averse approach to a sport in which risk *can not be eliminated*. It infantilises players, and I fear that their inability to raise their eyes from the lawsuit is preventing them from considering the future of the game as a whole.

 

 

[The Blues Ox]

3 hours ago, Dovster said:

What protection do they offer?

reduce the risk of cuts, bruises, and like one poster mentions, cauliflower ears.

3 hours ago, Griff said:

They're better than nothing.

They really aren't when it comes to concussion.

One interesting thing about these new rules and not sure that it has been mentioned, its going to be pretty hard to wrap the ball up from this point given the contact points in the video. On the rules themselves I fully expect to see an increase in the number of recorded concussions at amateur and junior level following these changes. 

I also know a number of prop forwards from the 80's/90's that would be loving the fact that the defenders would now have to dip in front of them. Looks like its a good time to work on nose re-alignments.

Edited December 8, 2023 by The Blues Ox

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Again, the video is remarkable in the examples that it has shown.

Apart from some of the tackles tagged as illegal when they don't seem to hjave broken the new law, look at the example of a legal tackle at 1:34.  It clearly shows the risk of two tacklers clashing heads and for me looks like the most obvious tackle in the whole video that would have resulted in a HIA.

I know its a bit simplistic but me and some mates were talking about it a few weeks ago, all ex players and the biggest worry we have is now you get multiple players tackling low, rather than one high one low, so all its doing is heightening the chances of tacklers clashing heads. The whole thing makes no sense to me.

[Midlands hobo]

So having hada think,

Lower tackle height means picking a side to out your head to avoid getting knocked out or worst case cervical fractures.

10m gap means higher speed running so a ball carrier changing direction leaves the tackler more likely to get the head in the wrong part as they cannot react quick enough. Currently with body up tackling this is almost irrelevant.

Danger fewer head to head knocks traded for more neck injuries. I can see the defensive line being reduced to 5m to slow the attackers to protect defenders 

 

Just thought a bonus could be return of the shoulder charge if your hitting to the torso. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Midlands hobo

[Dunbar]

19 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

On the rules themselves I fully expect to see an increase in the number of recorded concussions at amateur and junior level following these changes.

This is the critical factor for me.  I know that pro and amateur are a little different but the major studies we have are really only available for the professional game.

This study showed the risk of concussion for the tackler and tackled player and the type of tackle.

https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-021-00377-9

Results: “The propensity for tacklers to sustain a head injury was 0.99 HIAs per 1000 tackles, 1.74-fold greater than for the ball carrier (0.57 HIAs per 1000 tackles). There was a 3.2-fold higher risk for an HIA when the tackler was upright compared to bent-at-the-waist. The greatest risk of a tackler HIA occurred when head contact was very low (knee, boot) or high (head and elbow). HIAs were most common following head-to-head impacts. The lowest propensity for tackler HIA was found when the tackler’s head was in proximity with the ball carrier’s torso.”

So, what we should see here is the reduction of HIA with upright tacklers (the shared head space resulting in head clashes).  But as we move the tackle down, we introduce the other danger areas of head on head contact between tacklers as we will see more players targeting the same area.

Time will tell on success.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Dunbar

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

I know its a bit simplistic but me and some mates were talking about it a few weeks ago, all ex players and the biggest worry we have is now you get multiple players tackling low, rather than one high one low, so all its doing is heightening the chances of tacklers clashing heads. The whole thing makes no sense to me.

I have just posted the same concern above.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Dunbar

[Midlands hobo]

27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is the critical factor for me.  I know that pro and amateur are a little different but the major studies we have are really only available for the professional game.

This study showed the risk of concussion for the tackler and tackles player and the type of tackle.

https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-021-00377-9

Results: “The propensity for tacklers to sustain a head injury was 0.99 HIAs per 1000 tackles, 1.74-fold greater than for the ball carrier (0.57 HIAs per 1000 tackles). There was a 3.2-fold higher risk for an HIA when the tackler was upright compared to bent-at-the-waist. The greatest risk of a tackler HIA occurred when head contact was very low (knee, boot) or high (head and elbow). HIAs were most common following head-to-head impacts. The lowest propensity for tackler HIA was found when the tackler’s head was in proximity with the ball carrier’s torso.”

So, what we should see here is the reduction of HIA with upright tacklers (the shared head space resulting in head clashes).  But as we move the tackle down, we introduce the other danger areas of head on head contact between tacklers as we will see more players targeting the same area.

Time will tell on success.

Interesting that the full article doesn't appear to show first contact above the armpit only both tacklers upright. It also states that if one of the two or both is in a bent position the risk drops but doesn't go into much explanation as to why. 

I'd suggest both players being in a bent position means they are not running at full speed and the reduced power in the contact could account for some of the risk.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Midlands hobo said:

Interesting that the full article doesn't appear to show first contact above the armpit only both tacklers upright. It also states that if one of the two or both is in a bent position the risk drops but doesn't go into much explanation as to why. 

I'd suggest both players being in a bent position means they are not running at full speed and the reduced power in the contact could account for some of the risk.

Both players bent at the waist is a massive issue in Union, less so in League.

In League, the biggest risk is upright tackles with head collisions.  This is followed by low tackles with knees on heads and then heads catching elbows and hips.  Heads around the midriff is the safest contact area.

But that is the tackler and tackled player. 

The great unknown for us is moving tacklers lower meaning we have moved from the tackler and tackled player sharing the same head space and causing head clashes to having more head clashes for tacklers as multiple players are targetting the same area.

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, Roy Haggerty said:

...

Consent also matters. You could make a case for maximum mitigation in the junior game. But for adults, explaining the risk, the attempted mitigations and allowing them to make an informed choice is vital.

I only ever played amateur level. Even back in the 1990s I was, as an amateur, well aware of the risks of a collision sport. I received two concussions (both as tackler, which is far more dangerous than carrying the ball tbh). The idea that I’d sue the sport for not ‘protecting’ me from a sport I chose to play is just barmy to me. I’ve every sympathy for ex players who’ve suffered injury, but I’ve no sympathy at all for their attempting to sue the sport for those injuries. We’re all adults, we all know what the sport is. Nobody forced us to play it.

...

You must have played with a different set of lads to me (in the 1980/90s). Did we know you could break a bone, get knocked out, etc.? Of course. Did anyone ever talk about the cumulative effect of head knocks and concussions? Not once. CTE would have meant absolutely nothing to anyone.

CTE probably means nothing to many players even today.

To be clear, I don't think the ex-players bringing a case against the RFL have much of a chance but the idea that they (and we) understood the risks in a well-rounded and quantifiable way is not true because I don't think anyone did.

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

You must have played with a different set of lads to me (in the 1980/90s). Did we know you could break a bone, get knocked out, etc.? Of course. Did anyone ever talk about the cumulative effect of head knocks and concussions? Not once. CTE would have meant absolutely nothing to anyone.

CTE probably means nothing to many players even today.

To be clear, I don't think the ex-players bringing a case against the RFL have much of a chance but the idea that they (and we) understood the risks in a well-rounded and quantifiable way is not true because I don't think anyone did.

I also played amateur Rugby League in the 80's and 90's.  And yes, the risks of broken bones were well known but the (cumulative) head knocks not so much.

I think the key phrase is nobody knew, and a sport like Rugby League which had limited resources even at the highest level was not one I would expect to put at the forefront on the thinking. They are doing good work in research now it seems.  The timeline on when the governing body 'should' have known the risks and potentially didn't put into place mitigation is the key issue.

I wouldn't sue the sport as I chose to play and I believe in choice and consequences of choice.  Again, it is important to stress, I believe I played when the consequences were not well known.  But I am fortunate in my financial circumstances and maybe that matters as well.

I am in two minds on ex players bringing legal action. On the one side I don't like the damage they are potentially doing to the sport financially, but on the other maybe they are helping to make it safer.

What i cannot be doing with is the few players who are bringing action while simultaneously still glorifying the foul play they were part of and/or saying that the modern game has gone soft.  That is just maddeningly hypocritical.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Dunbar

[RigbyLuger]

27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What i cannot be doing with is the few players who are bringing action while simultaneously still glorifying the foul play they were part of and/or saying that the modern game has gone soft.  That is just maddeningly hypocritical.

We all know who you are referring to, and I'm surprised he still does that when surely it undermines his case. Hope his arm has finally healed.

[EggFace]

3 hours ago, WN83 said:

Got to make sure tacklers are going in lower, you know where there is a greater chance of them catching a hip or an elbow to their head

 

I think it'll take a couple of days of calming down before some rational thought can come through because currently I can't help but think the game is on a one way street to nowhere. I get the governing body are in a tough spot but this feels OTT. Also, I presume this is just a measure in the UK? We were playing to different rules than in the Southern Hemisphere already but it'll pretty much be a different sport if these changes aren't implemented across the board. 

If these rules make the game more stop and start plus increasing the number of penalties then maybe RFL can join the RFU ( not the type of merger I was wanting).

[Roy Haggerty]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

You must have played with a different set of lads to me (in the 1980/90s). Did we know you could break a bone, get knocked out, etc.? Of course. Did anyone ever talk about the cumulative effect of head knocks and concussions? Not once. CTE would have meant absolutely nothing to anyone.

CTE probably means nothing to many players even today.

To be clear, I don't think the ex-players bringing a case against the RFL have much of a chance but the idea that they (and we) understood the risks in a well-rounded and quantifiable way is not true because I don't think anyone did.

I think you didn’t need the latest info on CTE to know it was a dangerous sport. One lad I played with broke his neck. After one of my concussions I remember a doctor being very concerned and basically suggesting I take up something less physical. 
 

So I might not have known exactly what the risks were, but I certainly knew that in every game there was a risk of all sorts of injuries up to and including paralysis, and I still played because I loved it and was willing to take that risk. 
 

Tbh, if I was a younger man, even knowing the cte issue, I’d still play it. Its not the risk which stops me now, it’s being 53 and knackered. 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Roy Haggerty

[Toby Chopra]

5 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

This is such a shame to see the direction the sport is heading in. Safety is important, but let’s also recognise that we sign up to play a sport with a level of risk. If someone gets hit on the head then send the offender off, but don’t start sanitising the game. 

I remember when the shoulder charge was banned - also a poor decision.

I wonder if boxing will force punches only below the armpit?

The problem is saying the sport has "a level of risk" is too vague.

We now know what the players we love to watch are signing up for is a heightened risk of brain damage and life long injury.

Either the sport says that up front - like boxing has effectively done - or it takes action to reduce that risk.

If we choose the boxing angle of being up front about it, the risk is that the full contact game in the UK slowly dies at a youth level. That's what I'm witnessing in union down here in Sussex. 

So the alternative is to try and change the sport so we can faithfully say to people it's reasonably safe to pursue a career in it. 

I'm not an expert. I don't know whether these tackle rules will have the desired effect. I'm seriously doubtful about the ability of the RFL managing this properly, and what the NRL does is crucial.

But I also totally can see why they're doing something because the alternative of burying their heads in the sand and being destroyed in the courts is potentially even worse.

[gingerjon]

26 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The problem is saying the sport has "a level of risk" is too vague.

We now know what the players we love to watch are signing up for is a heightened risk of brain damage and life long injury.

Either the sport says that up front - like boxing has effectively done - or it takes action to reduce that risk.

If we choose the boxing angle of being up front about it, the risk is that the full contact game in the UK slowly dies at a youth level. That's what I'm witnessing in union down here in Sussex. 

So the alternative is to try and change the sport so we can faithfully say to people it's reasonably safe to pursue a career in it. 

I'm not an expert. I don't know whether these tackle rules will have the desired effect. I'm seriously doubtful about the ability of the RFL managing this properly, and what the NRL does is crucial.

But I also totally can see why they're doing something because the alternative of burying their heads in the sand and being destroyed in the courts is potentially even worse.

But even boxing has far more mitigations in place than it did in the past and is constantly having to review those.

[wasginger]

I think we should should alter the length of a game. Perhaps play 60 minutes but in 4 quarters, oh sorry there's already a game using that format.  I'm too long in the tooth to accept these changes. I'd like to ask those ex-players who are claiming against the sport. When you started to play this game, did you love playing the game ? and what damage did you cause to opposition players ? those ex-players played at a professional level and were paid for doing so. They knew exactly what could happen once they'd crossed that white line. I like many others played amateur and loved playing the game, and all that entailed regarding injuries, and don't tell me a professional rugby players career is short, and it's hard for them to adjust to ordinary life. Try working full-time and working overtime, then going training or playing. Sorry for the rant, but for me the game of Rugby League come 2025 will be dead. As thus, so will my interest in the game.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, wasginger said:

As thus, so will my interest in the game.

Don't let the door hit you in the bum on the way out.

[GeordieSaint]

There goes the international game…

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

There goes the international game…

We don't need to blame anything happening in December 2023 for that.

[northamptoncougar]

Can you hold the ball up now depending on where it’s held by the attacked?

Can you hand off into someone’s chest / shoulder?

That video makes me sad as to the state of the RFL if it was signed off. JJB himself should hang his head in shame too. 

[LeeF]

 

[EagleEyePie]

If you're a ball carrier you just have to dip low into the tackle. The legal tackle area will be massively reduced to the point where you're likely to win a penalty, if not you're probably hitting the ground quickly front first, so with the change to the rules in the ruck it means as soon as you hit the floor the tacklers have to release. 

[gnidir]

I am a bit tired of this nonsense.

Its all born out of fear from being sued, but basically, there have been controls in place to prevent head injuries since 1895.

It has never been legal to attack an opponents head. There are deterring factors in place.

If a player chooses to break the rules, then outside of accidental contact, they are punished. I half remember talk of players suing players in the mid 2000s as a scare tactic.

For all the scare mongering thrown out there by these people outside of the game, it has only served to make the perception of our game as dangerous. You notice there is only data at the extreme end of the spectrum thrown in the press, but for example, if you look at the average number of tackles across the game in a season, and compare that to injuries, you would see a very small number. Furthermore, a footballer would on average have more contacts with the head in a game than any rugby player (From heading the ball).

After years of nonsense measure put in place through fear, I was pleasantly surprised to read this a couple of weeks back:

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/head-knocks-and-rugby-study-reveals-real-impact-on-head-forces-at-community-and-elite-level/RZVO7S6UABFVFEWTM3YK3BWKNU/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/head-knocks-and-rugby-study-reveals-real-impact-on-head-forces-at-community-and-elite-level/RZVO7S6UABFVFEWTM3YK3BWKNU/

 

I had hoped it might be at the start of the end for much of this nonsense. If we are really concerned about player safety, lets do something meaningful, instead of sole focus on the things that might get us sued.

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

If you're a ball carrier you just have to dip low into the tackle. The legal tackle area will be massively reduced to the point where you're likely to win a penalty, if not you're probably hitting the ground quickly front first, so with the change to the rules in the ruck it means as soon as you hit the floor the tacklers have to release. 

This is the key thing with law changes.

Coaches who look to take advantage of any changes will adjust their players technique, with or without the ball.

If a coach instructs their players to change head down, then how are the defenders supposed to adjust their tackling to avoid contact 'above' the arm pits?

For me, the existing laws were enough to show care for the players.  They just needed to be enforced consistently.