Tackle height law change confirmed

[EagleEyePie]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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. 

I've just read that rugby union in their rule changes have 'encouraged ball carriers to avoid late dipping'. How that actually works in practice I don't know. In rugby league a lot of player rely on late footwork at the line - which often means dipping towards the foot they step off. Dipping into tackles is also a perfectly valid technique at present.

I don't object to rule changes because they are obviously requited for insurance purposes, but I'm concerned about how much pressure is going to be put on refs to make very difficult judgement calls. It's a lot easier to see a tackle that's above shoulder height than it is to spot one that is above armpit height (as the RFL's example video demonstrates. Some of their examples aren't actually above armpit height).

If they then try to limit players dipping into tackles to gain an unfair advantage that opens up another massive grey area of interpretation and I don't know how that could be effectively policed. Penalising ball carriers for dipping into tackles could descend into farce, but if you don't then players may regularly dip into tackles and negate the benefits of altering the limit on tackle height.

I'd be interested to know much time has been spent observing the game played under these interpretations. Surely there must have been a large number of trial games played under these new interpretations to test the practicality. It would be good to know the results in terms of the issues they presented for players and officials.

[JohnM]

8 hours ago, Midlands hobo said:

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.

Risk compensation theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation?wprov=sfla1

The problem with things like scrum caps, which offer no protection against head knocks, is that people do think they are protective and so take more risks than they should. The protection is illusory.  Even with proper protective helmets as in NFL, risk compensation seems to be in play.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200702-the-helmets-that-can-keep-your-brain-safe

[EggFace]

7 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Exactly.

Coaches, players and refs will adapt to changes - they always do. I don't mind there being changes per se. It's the disconnect between the new laws and the video examples that effectively leave me unsure of what is and isn't going to be allowed.

I did also find it slightly bizarre that the 'good' examples include an uncontrolled head slam and a defenders head clash where one defender is left struggling to get back up. As I say, who let this video be published?

Fans won't adapt to the changes so te RFL has just done a own goal....lets hope a backlash from the fans, players, coaches , owners, Twitter, Youtube and forums like this might make the RFL think again.

[Odsal Outlaw]

I wonder how much of this has been done in consultation with the IRL or NRL. If they don’t change do we then have internationals with different tackle heights? 

[Odsal Outlaw]

In terms of people saying they’ll walk away from the game etc. maybe in reality this won’t be the case. But I think people will lose a bit of interest.  I can’t imagine I’ll walk away from it, but I can imagine I’ll watch a bit less or be a bit less interested. 

[RigbyLuger]

2 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

In terms of people saying they’ll walk away from the game etc. maybe in reality this won’t be the case. But I think people will lose a bit of interest.  I can’t imagine I’ll walk away from it, but I can imagine I’ll watch a bit less or be a bit less interested. 

People say they'll walk away over anything the RFL do. If they were offered a night with the celebrity of their choice, provided by the RFL, they'd find a reason to moan.

[EggFace]

2 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

In terms of people saying they’ll walk away from the game etc. maybe in reality this won’t be the case. But I think people will lose a bit of interest.  I can’t imagine I’ll walk away from it, but I can imagine I’ll watch a bit less or be a bit less interested. 

I haven't had much interest in Super League for the past 10 years or so but still had hope but NRL is my fav and just hope Peter V'landy has something up his sleeve for this ######.

[Toby Chopra]

11 minutes ago, EggFace said:

Fans won't adapt to the changes so te RFL has just done a own goal....lets hope a backlash from the fans, players, coaches , owners, Twitter, Youtube and forums like this might make the RFL think again.

Most fans won't have a problem. They'll still be able to watch their teams play rugby league, there will still be tackling and contact. It will just, possibly, look a bit different. It's not like it's the first time tackle laws have changed.

I think people bind it up too much with their wider complaints about the game, or a more litigious culture. In reality, the sport will mostly carry on.

My prediction is that come this time next year, more people will be complaining about the gradings than the tackling. 

[wasginger]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

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

Being hit on my arris doesn't worry me at all. You should be more concerned about how many more people have the same viewpoint as myself, and where that would leave the clubs the clubs.  

[EggFace]

15 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Most fans won't have a problem. They'll still be able to watch their teams play rugby league, there will still be tackling and contact. It will just, possibly, look a bit different. It's not like it's the first time tackle laws have changed.

I think people bind it up too much with their wider complaints about the game, or a more litigious culture. In reality, the sport will mostly carry on.

My prediction is that come this time next year, more people will be complaining about the gradings than the tackling. 

Looking at the ilegal tackles in the video then the game will just be a blow fest like Rugby Union and we don't the ££££££ the international game to back us...less people coming through the gates is a concern.

Maybe a televised game where fans can vote like/dislike might be a better option.

[JohnM]

I reads to me as if the real emphasis is on young players learning and being coached in accordance with the new tacking rules so that as they progress through the ranks, they take safer tacking skills with them. Evolution rather than revolution. 

Those who think "the game's gone" might consider the protective changes that have taken place in amateur and pro boxing and other sports.

Edited December 8, 2023 by JohnM

[sam4731]

9 hours ago, Midlands hobo said:

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.

There are more deaths in boxing now than when it was bare knuckle.

[AB90]

Laws of the game been driven/dictated by Lawyers & Doctors who have likely never set foot on a rugby league field. What could possibly go wrong!

[del capo]

38 minutes ago, EggFace said:

Fans won't adapt to the changes so te RFL has just done a own goal....lets hope a backlash from the fans, players, coaches , owners, Twitter, Youtube and forums like this might make the RFL think again.

Whistle in the wind.

There is absolutely no chance of the RFL ( or RU for that matter ) backtracking.The scientific evidence  is becoming ever clearer and this is about as measured a response as we can get away with. Otherwise it is in brutal terms  really ' Game over ' and  that's not just  a moan from  the 'Bring back the biff , we've all gone soft ' brigade.

The Academy trials were chaos to start with, after which I understand the games settled down much more. RU has been playing with their own new rules across all levels since July and they too have started to settle.

We will never remove injuries. We are a combat sport. But it would be negligent not to tweek our rules in an effort to protect our participants more. And thereby retain the support of the Government, the Insurance Industry and our many major and local sponsors at all levels of the game without whom, as I have just said, it really is 'Game Over '

Lawyers for individual claimants under the class action are looking for millions in some cases. The NFL settled for a billion dollars. Rugby cannot afford not to amend its ways.

There are no alternatives. Even the mighty NRL know it.........

 

[Midlands hobo]

5 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

There are more deaths in boxing now than when it was bare knuckle.

Yet doesn't appear yet to be in MMA or Thai boxing. Perhaps the gloves blunted the impact just enough to stop some knockouts. How often do you see a fighter dazed yet make the 8 count and carry on. In RL they'd be sat for 15 and probably miss a few weeks but in boxing they can carry on sometimes for 30 more mins

[del capo]

6 minutes ago, AB90 said:

Laws of the game been driven/dictated by Lawyers & Doctors who have likely never set foot on a rugby league field. What could possibly go wrong!

I think you might be a bit off the mark with that one.

One of the toughest full backs of either code was  a certain  doctor J P R Williams and the  resident District Judge at Preston Court was the super league linesman ( a Hull guy ) at this year's Grand Final !

[Zilla Budgie]

I predict mayhem with players having to adapt to this new ruling. I'm not against it because obviously it's about looking after the safety of the players'. We'll just have to see what happens, it's going to be a 'penalty fest' early doors I imagine. 

[JohnM]

17 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

There are more deaths in boxing now than when it was bare knuckle.

Are there as many "punch drunk" boxers now as there used to be. Not "numbers" but "rates" together with sources. In any case, boxing is looking at the issues, too.

BBC News - Boxers at greater risk of early onset dementia, study finds

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59415741

 

[JohnM]

Get used to it.

There are still those who doubt the value of car seat belts.

You may recall the fuss when motorcycle helmets were made compulsory.

It took years before helmets were accepted in pro cycling.

It seems as if every new measure to improve the safety of participants is met by a chorus of criticism,  disapproval even, from a certain segment of society.

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by JohnM

[RL Tragic]

Genuine question . 

1: how am I meant to stop someone offloading. 
 

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

8 hours ago, Midlands hobo said:

Anyone ever wonder why boxing dropped head guards. The things apparently in place for safety 

It's easy to find out why. Go have a look.

[JohnM]

Shows just how difficult a topic. I realsie this therad is not about boxing, but clearly this illustrates the seriousness of the issues. 

What almost everyone can agree on is that foam padding does little to protect against concussions and knockout blows. ( which is why scrum caps only protect against ear and skin damage) Punch hard enough, and you overwhelm the foam’s ability to absorb energy. “The headgear becomes less useful and then not useful,” says Blaine Hoshizaki, a head injury researcher at the University of Ottawa.

These subconcussive blows, which don’t have any immediately obvious symptoms, could also lead to chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, over time. “With concussions, you can see it and you can diagnose it,” says Hoshizaki. “The challenge is the ones you don’t see, don’t feel. This is I think the scary part.” Headgear could mitigate some of these blows

However unsettled the science of boxing headgear may be, pros have a good reason to not use headgear. “They’re trying to promote their brand,” says Bir. “Their face is their brand.”

Why Olympic Boxers Aren’t Wearing Headgear Anymore | WIRED

[EggFace]

1 hour ago, del capo said:

Whistle in the wind.

There is absolutely no chance of the RFL ( or RU for that matter ) backtracking.The scientific evidence  is becoming ever clearer and this is about as measured a response as we can get away with. Otherwise it is in brutal terms  really ' Game over ' and  that's not just  a moan from  the 'Bring back the biff , we've all gone soft ' brigade.

The Academy trials were chaos to start with, after which I understand the games settled down much more. RU has been playing with their own new rules across all levels since July and they too have started to settle.

We will never remove injuries. We are a combat sport. But it would be negligent not to tweek our rules in an effort to protect our participants more. And thereby retain the support of the Government, the Insurance Industry and our many major and local sponsors at all levels of the game without whom, as I have just said, it really is 'Game Over '

Lawyers for individual claimants under the class action are looking for millions in some cases. The NFL settled for a billion dollars. Rugby cannot afford not to amend its ways.

There are no alternatives. Even the mighty NRL know it.........

 

Then we will die...and I think the mighty NRL with the massive Tv deal won't take this ######.

Rugby Union is ed with the whole 2023 TMO ...Sam Can tackle is the norm in NRL.....Super League is on a death bed and who makes a University RFL boss.

[EggFace]

Twitter comments RFL should notice.

[Coggo]

Below the armpit is fine, indeed, necessary.