Tackle height law change confirmed

[StandOffHalf]

16 hours 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 those examples look like fine, legal tackles to me.

[welshmagpie]

It’s all part of the sport evolving into a product for the future. I feel there’s been a great deal of overreaction on social media especially from players of the game (I am one!)

We couldn’t carry on as we were, it would have caught us out eventually and the repercussions for the whole sport may well have been costly. 
 

It will take a while to suss out what rugby league looks like and to ensure it remains an attractive and entertaining product but that’s the same with most things that embrace change. Someone earlier on in the thread compared RL in 2023 to RL in the 1983 - massive difference. We’ll say the same about 2043. 
 

I’m interested to see how it goes and believe that skill sets will evolve around these rules. 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, welshmagpie said:

It’s all part of the sport evolving into a product for the future. I feel there’s been a great deal of overreaction on social media especially from players of the game (I am one!)

We couldn’t carry on as we were, it would have caught us out eventually and the repercussions for the whole sport may well have been costly. 
 

It will take a while to suss out what rugby league looks like and to ensure it remains an attractive and entertaining product but that’s the same with most things that embrace change. Someone earlier on in the thread compared RL in 2023 to RL in the 1983 - massive difference. We’ll say the same about 2043. 
 

I’m interested to see how it goes and believe that skill sets will evolve around these rules. 

This completely ignores what many peoples complaints are around the changes though. Most have complained on this thread about the complete misalignment between the actual law changes and the message put out by the RFL and the supposed illegal tackle examples, which are all actually legal under the rule changes. 

[JohnM]

From Facebook -Gary Carter

Rugby league players will be limited in the amount of time they can be on the field as the sport tackles the big brain issue.

Stars will also only be allowed to tackle under the height of an opponent's armpit in future and independent concussion spotters will be at top flight games in 2024.  Stars? 

Excellent summing up from Long 

https://www.totalrl.com/oldham-boss-sean-long-hails-new-tackle-height-law-in-rugby-league-as-he-makes-ruck-admission/

Edited December 9, 2023 by JohnM

[Harry Stottle]

17 hours ago, iffleyox said:

latest science is the brain isn’t fully developed on average until the mid to late twenties. So in the future might it be possible that people could successfully argue that they didn’t know what they were signing before they were 25?

That's a very fine line you are walking Foxy.

The age of Criminal Responsibillity in the UK is 10 years old, from 10 to 17 they can be arrested for commiting a crime, young people at 18 are treated as adult by the law.

So do you ever reckon - with your get out clause - that it could be argued people could successfully argue that they did not know what they were doing and performing a criminal act before the age of 25 because their brain wasn’t fully developed?

 

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, gingerjon said:

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

But it could be the straw to break the camel's back.

What better excuse than, they are playing a different game up their. 

[iffleyox]

25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That's a very fine line you are walking Foxy.

The age of Criminal Responsibillity in the UK is 10 years old, from 10 to 17 they can be arrested for commiting a crime, young people at 18 are treated as adult by the law.

So do you ever reckon - with your get out clause - that it could be argued people could successfully argue that they did not know what they were doing and performing a criminal act before the age of 25 because their brain wasn’t fully developed?

 

Basically yes in theory. The law already treats U18s differently as you note, there is pressure to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 (it’s 12 in Scotland by the way). Things change. 18 used to be 21, for example. 
 

I could definitely see a future position where understanding of science led to change in sentencing (they’d obviously still have committed a crime) - otherwise we’d be in the bizarre position where law and reality were obviously divergent based on the science. Which would be unsustainable.

 

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, JohnM said:

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

 

Apparently, if you literally just take something along the lines of, concussions directly relating to in-fight incidents, then bare-knuckled boxing can, statistically, be safer than gloved boxing.

If you take number of injuries up to and including broken hands, eye sockets, long-term injuries (etc etc) then it isn't - because obviously it isn't.

[Harry Stottle]

Just thinking about this Torso tackling technique in how will it fit in with the new "Reckless Endangerment" suggestions one of which reads:-

Indicators for the charge/law breach are the tackler -

• In the opinion of the Referee, the player is not looking at the ball carrier when going into or on contact and approach to contact is out of control (e.g., eyes to floor)

Now I don't know how anyone else would approach bending at the waist to effect tackle around an opponent's midriff area, but on approach I would be looking at the target area then in the last couple of strides my head would simultaneously follow the rest of my body in a face downward motion with my eyes looking at the floor, according to the Reckless Endangerment indicators this constitutes a foul.

 

[Ragingbull]

55 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

That's a very fine line you are walking Foxy.

The age of Criminal Responsibillity in the UK is 10 years old, from 10 to 17 they can be arrested for commiting a crime, young people at 18 are treated as adult by the law.

So do you ever reckon - with your get out clause - that it could be argued people could successfully argue that they did not know what they were doing and performing a criminal act before the age of 25 because their brain wasn’t fully developed?

 

Spot on. He was taliking absolute nonsense

[PREPOSTEROUS]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Just thinking about this Torso tackling technique in how will it fit in with the new "Reckless Endangerment" suggestions one of which reads:-

Indicators for the charge/law breach are the tackler -

• In the opinion of the Referee, the player is not looking at the ball carrier when going into or on contact and approach to contact is out of control (e.g., eyes to floor)

Now I don't know how anyone else would approach bending at the waist to effect tackle around an opponent's midriff area, but on approach I would be looking at the target area then in the last couple of strides my head would simultaneously follow the rest of my body in a face downward motion with my eyes looking at the floor, according to the Reckless Endangerment indicators this constitutes a foul.

 

You'll likely get stepped if you're looking down, or get your head in the wrong position whilst effecting the tackle. Fundamentally I think it's trying to stop a defender launching themselves off the ground superman style and clattering in the lower limbs of the opponents. Kind of like the two footed tackle in football. As soon as you've left the ground you have no control over it.

[welshmagpie]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

This completely ignores what many peoples complaints are around the changes though. Most have complained on this thread about the complete misalignment between the actual law changes and the message put out by the RFL and the supposed illegal tackle examples, which are all actually legal under the rule changes. 

That’s a fair point and one I agree massively with. If the video and examples used were better put together and selected the reaction would be infinitely better.

Typical RFL

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

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

It may not get to next year, if player's, coaches, fans etc put pressure on the governing body as they did in Aus a couple of years ago when this group of people complained bitterly that the tackle infringements that were brought about was spoiling the game, and those rules were nowhere near as radical as these are that the RFL is implementing. 

The Southern Hemisphere will in no way shape or form adopt these rules, nor do I think that any form of 'hybrid' rule will be adopted by the International Board, we will have nothing to chastise them for when the International game is over between the hemisphere's it will be of our own making.

Personally I know which version of the game I would prefer to watch.

[EagleEyePie]

16 minutes ago, welshmagpie said:

That’s a fair point and one I agree massively with. If the video and examples used were better put together and selected the reaction would be infinitely better.

Typical RFL

I don't know why they didn't just have a live demonstration using players or ex-players and then an official to explain what they are looking for. That way they can also simulate what might occur if a player dips or falls into a tackle or various other scenarios at a speed and clarity that's easy to see. The official could talk people through it.

[The Masked Poster]

I think some people are just accusing others of overreacting or tantrums for the sake of it. Firstly we all want players to be protected and not suffer unnecessary injury or pain, that’s a given. 

But in a game like RL, injuries and so forth are inevitable, that’s just how it is. Yeah, you can change rules etc, as they have done over the years but there does come a time when the game will have changed so much it’s hardly recognisable. Whether these rules will be that point is yet to be seen but it might be.

As for stopping watching the game, very few people have a strop and quit watching there and then. What happens, as with me, is that over time you gradually lose interest and watching a game on Friday night is no longer a “must do” thing but a “maybe” thing and eventually a “not bothered” thing.
 

So if the new laws do change the nature of the game that much that there’s more whistling than RU, the vast majority of people won’t be on here declaring it, they’ll just be walking away. Not in some form of protest, just in a “it’s not for me anymore, shrugging shoulders” way. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, iffleyox said:

Basically yes in theory. The law already treats U18s differently as you note, there is pressure to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 (it’s 12 in Scotland by the way). Things change. 18 used to be 21, for example. 
 

I could definitely see a future position where understanding of science led to change in sentencing (they’d obviously still have committed a crime) - otherwise we’d be in the bizarre position where law and reality were obviously divergent based on the science. Which would be unsustainable.

 

Really, you do not believe that different people have varying stages of development and you would benchmark them at an age range, instead of mental ability? Now that would be unsustainable.

[JohnM]

Did I hear JJB correctly?   INITIAL contact must be below the armpit.

 

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

the vast majority of people won’t be on here declaring it, they’ll just be walking away

The number of people walking away from the game as a result of these changes will be a statistical zero whether they declare it on here or not.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Really, you do not believe that different people have varying stages of development and you would benchmark them at an age range, instead of mental ability? Now that would be unsustainable.

Its literally how we do things now H? 

[Pie tries]

21 hours ago, Griff said:

They're better than nothing.

In many ways they are not…

[Roy Haggerty]

4 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I think some people are just accusing others of overreacting or tantrums for the sake of it. Firstly we all want players to be protected and not suffer unnecessary injury or pain, that’s a given. 

But in a game like RL, injuries and so forth are inevitable, that’s just how it is. Yeah, you can change rules etc, as they have done over the years but there does come a time when the game will have changed so much it’s hardly recognisable. Whether these rules will be that point is yet to be seen but it might be.

As for stopping watching the game, very few people have a strop and quit watching there and then. What happens, as with me, is that over time you gradually lose interest and watching a game on Friday night is no longer a “must do” thing but a “maybe” thing and eventually a “not bothered” thing.
 

So if the new laws do change the nature of the game that much that there’s more whistling than RU, the vast majority of people won’t be on here declaring it, they’ll just be walking away. Not in some form of protest, just in a “it’s not for me anymore, shrugging shoulders” way. 

Good post. Obviously we’ve still got next season in the pro game before these changes. That gives a whole year to see what the impact is on amateur games. 
 

If this results in a significant collapse of player or spectator involvement at amateur clubs, or makes every game a 50-penalty disaster ending at ten a side, then you’d hope that even the RFL would be forced to reconsider. If it doesn’t, and the game still resembles a watchable RL, then the grumbles will subside.

 

My concern is that I don’t think the RFL are capable of differentiating between reasonably mitigating risk, and unreasonably seeking to eliminate risk. In their panic over potential and existing lawsuits, they appear to be going for every mitigation suggestion, no matter how serious or trivial its impact, rather than making a reasonable judgement based on balancing risks and mitigation and then allowing players to consent to any remaining risks.

 

RL only exists as a sport because people want to watch it and want to play it. Its all very well saying ‘we need to make changes to save the game’, but if those changes significantly reduce the number of people who want to watch or play, then all you’ve done is kill the game in a different, quicker way. 

[JohnM]

So why would JJB be appearing in a video to explain the new rules if the examples shown are incorrect? I mean, what does he know about rugby league?

Years Team Pld T G FG P 1999–2019 Leeds Rhinos 421 78 1 0 314 Representative Years Team Pld T G FG P 2005–12 England 14 3 0 0 12 2007 Great Britain 1 0 0 0 0
Coaching information
Club Years Team Gms W D L W% 2022 Leeds Rhinos 5 2 1 3 40

[Harry Stottle]

50 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

You'll likely get stepped if you're looking down, or get your head in the wrong position whilst effecting the tackle. Fundamentally I think it's trying to stop a defender launching themselves off the ground superman style and clattering in the lower limbs of the opponents. Kind of like the two footed tackle in football. As soon as you've left the ground you have no control over it.

Disagree, and some of the best tackles I have ever seen effected has been as you put it 'superman' style, especially from a fullback/winger coming across the field and launching himself airborne hitting the attacker hugging the sidelines at a body position anywhere from the waist down, also the desperation when an attacker is faster and getting close to the line and the defender can do little else but dive out full length and tap the attackers ankle, remember that effectively won the WC for Aus in '17 when Josh Duggan could do little else in bringing down Kallum Watkins.

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its literally how we do things now H? 

Yep that is why 25 is far to old as defining the age of responsibility as Foxy suggests being in line with 'scentific' findings, the judicial laws of the country are the correct age ranges for me.

[Impartial Observer]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The number of people walking away from the game as a result of these changes will be a statistical zero whether they declare it on here or not.

It will be exactly the same number who walked away from union when they changed their tackle height