Tackle height law change confirmed

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, gazza77 said:

It should please all those on the terraces at Post Office Road who I hear year in, year out shouting "tackle round the legs". 

For a season my ticket at Broncos had me within earshot of someone who, for every tackle of every game, was demanding, "Rip his head off."

Which was very uncouth.

[The Blues Ox]

Just now, Midlands hobo said:

At what level exactly does this start? Championship?

One of the big issues with the RU sternum tackle was it was below premiership and there was a genuine concern that loaning players to lower leagues either dual reg type or in many cases for some match practice coming off injury could end up red carded and banned. 

It seems pro and semi pro will be in 2025 but Ive not seen anything mentioned about the womans game as some of those teams could now be classed as semi pro.

[EggFace]

28 minutes ago, JohnM said:

And your point is what, exactly? 

Did you watch the video ? as 1.10 illegal tackle is under the armpit just the grounding of the player looked a bit bad.

1.23 under the armpit but the tacklers head was too near opponents head.

1.34 is legal but looked very dangerous for defenders as looked like head collision.

1.42 tackles are under the armpit.

 

[Roy Haggerty]

11 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Thanks for your detailed and helpful response.  However, is it correc to say that the changes were down to the experts you characterise. I can't imagine that there weren't other inputs into this.

In addition, I think that SL players at least can adapt to the tackling rule very quickly. They have until the start of the 25 season to do so, and it's their coaches job to train them accordingly.  

I'd be interested, too, to hear of the training that refs will undergo to police the new rule.

experts whose sole concern is minimising risk, but a decision which must take that expertise into account while balancing the need to maintain a ruleset which will encourage sufficient participation and viewing.

I'm certain the changes did originate with experts. That's my concern, tbh. Basically, organisations tend to be really bad at dealing with risk. Managers are fearful that they'll be blamed for anything which goes wrong, and so they tend to take an extreme risk-averse stance, and that means that they can throw their own judgement out of the window when it comes to expert advice.

So, for example, this group will have reported that lowering tackle height would probably (no expert worth their salt would ever say "definitely" in a case like this), reduce head impacts by X variable.

A management team using their judgment would say "the experts say this is the probably specific risk outcome of the different policy, so we should consider that alongside the risks to participation/spectator numbers, and evaluate the whole against costs of pursuing the new option." 

A risk-averse/panicking management team will respond "the experts say this is better, so we have to do it".

It seems clear to me from the statements emerging from the RFL (and people who have clearly been briefed by the RFL) that they're doing the latter. In my experience, this is the more common response in most organisations. Especially if someone uses the word "safety".

The problem with that is that once you go that way, then you are in a lot of trouble, because you've made it *even harder* to exercise judgment in the future by setting a precedent that you will/must always unquestioningly accept expert advice on risk, without considering impact on other factors. Because an expert group will do what it's been told to do, and simply tell you about risks. The expert group here won't have been asked to consider the impact of these changes on participation/spectators, just on risks of head contacts. And I don't think you actually have to be a neuroscientist to understand that in every single instance, fewer collisions and slower collisions are better than more and faster, when it comes to limiting head contact. So every time they're asked to look at something, they are undoubtedly going to report that. And if the RFL is going to react as it has here, by saying "the experts say this is better, so we must do it", then we really will be issuing velcro tags in due course!

There's nothing wrong with having an expert group offering advice on what the likely outcomes of different methods are. But that's not the same thing as having to immediately accept one of those outcomes with no reference to its impact on the wider sport. But if the reports of the impact of this measure on the trial games last year are even remotely accurate, then it's very difficult to argue that the RFL have taken any other factor into account other than the findings of the group. 

[Midlands hobo]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

It seems pro and semi pro will be in 2025 but Ive not seen anything mentioned about the womans game as some of those teams could now be classed as semi pro.

If this is indeed the future I'd make the whole woman's game included straight away before any more teams move to semi pro.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

For a season my ticket at Broncos had me within earshot of someone who, for every tackle of every game, was demanding, "Rip his head off."

Which was very uncouth.

That's what you get when you take Mrs Ginger to games.

[The Masked Poster]

4 hours 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.

For one thing, what do you mean "a statistical zero"? Is that a different sort of zero to the regular one? 

And for another, given that these changes have not impacted the game at a higher level yet, how on earth can you confidently suggest that nobody will be turned off by them? Because you have thousands of posts on here? That counts for nothing out in the real world. 

[Damien]

In my experience of playing and watching the game I think these changes are more about image and the need to be seen doing something rather than changes that will have any meaningful difference. I certainly think that the game should look to reduce contact to the head, and has been way too lax in this area for too long, but these changes only address a small part of the wider issue. It is the noticable part the game gets criticised for, criticism that has often been justified.

When I played the worst hits I got, which I suspect caused some form of concussion, where from cracking tackles to the body where my head rocked back or hit the ground heavily. Then additionally accidental clashes with the knees or elbows of the person I was trying to tackle or fellow teammates. Overwhelmingly in watching the professional game, and from the people I know within it who were concussed, most concussions occur in this latter category. These changes do nothing to address any of these causes and indeed will arguably increase the chances of these incidents occurrring.

[The Masked Poster]

4 hours ago, Roy Haggerty said:

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. 

Well, precisely. Given enough alterations, the game most definitely could change and become unrecognisable from what people knew as RL, even 10 years ago. 

Changing the game to minimise injuries is laudable and in theory a good thing. Except that if the result is a game where players aren't sure if what they are doing will result in a penalty or sending off, this will impact spectators enjoyment. The end result could be the same, a poorer game (in every sense of the word) 

Who knows, maybe the days of rough contact sports like Rugby are actually numbered anyway? I had thought by now that people might be tiring of the money fest that is the Premier League but if anything, it seems to be ramping it up and getting even bigger. 

[EggFace]

1 minute ago, The Masked Poster said:

Well, precisely. Given enough alterations, the game most definitely could change and become unrecognisable from what people knew as RL, even 10 years ago. 

Changing the game to minimise injuries is laudable and in theory a good thing. Except that if the result is a game where players aren't sure if what they are doing will result in a penalty or sending off, this will impact spectators enjoyment. The end result could be the same, a poorer game (in every sense of the word) 

Who knows, maybe the days of rough contact sports like Rugby are actually numbered anyway? I had thought by now that people might be tiring of the money fest that is the Premier League but if anything, it seems to be ramping it up and getting even bigger. 

It's getting boring now as my are is just Football. Football and Football....Union used to have a decent presence but with the game become a real snore fest esp with over officiating in the international game.

More young people will not bother with both codes of Rugby and Football will rise even more

[welshmagpie]

5 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

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.

You then have an immediate reference point for coaches, players and match officials. Great idea. 

[JohnM]

5 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

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.

They may well have done that in detail for coaches, refs, etc. If so, it might be good to have seen the video of that, used to train players etc. 

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, EggFace said:

Did you watch the video ? as 1.10 illegal tackle is under the armpit just the grounding of the player looked a bit bad.

1.23 under the armpit but the tacklers head was too near opponents head.

1.34 is legal but looked very dangerous for defenders as looked like head collision.

1.42 tackles are under the armpit.

 

Yes, I looked at these again.  Overall, my take was that these were specific illustrations  of "initial contact below the armpit" specifically for the fans. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by JohnM

[EggFace]

Just went through all comments on the Twitter X and not one postive comment on the new laws.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:

For one thing, what do you mean "a statistical zero"? Is that a different sort of zero to the regular one? 

And for another, given that these changes have not impacted the game at a higher level yet, how on earth can you confidently suggest that nobody will be turned off by them? Because you have thousands of posts on here? That counts for nothing out in the real world. 

A statistical zero, in my understanding, is when the number is so small that it cannot be calculated or visible in sampling. So not an actual zero in the sense that there may be a small actual number but not one that shows up in the data.

I can be pretty confident because the game has changed, introduced new rules, altered fairly significant aspects of game play on a regular basis ... and yet the actual walk-aways/stay aways seem to have more to do with things other than the set-up of the game on the pitch.

[Dave W]

1 hour ago, EggFace said:

Just went through all comments on the Twitter X and not one postive comment on the new laws.

Tbh, you could go through any thread of comments on Twitter and it'll be negative, whatever the subject: Politics/Sport/Doctor Who/Christmas. Whatever - you name it.

That's what it's become - people complaining about things constantly. It's tiring. 

[Griff]

Having browsed the 44 Brain Health Sub Committee Changes, I must say that I like the irony of introducing minimum off season and non-contact training periods at the same time as sticking a week onto each end of the season.

[Archie Gordon]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

They may well have done that in detail for coaches, refs, etc. If so, it might be good to have seen the video of that, used to train players etc. 

That is coming soon, they say.

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, EggFace said:

Just went through all comments on the Twitter X and not one postive comment on the new laws.

That qualifies you for the Callum Walker trophy for December.

[Griff]

49 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

That is coming soon, they say.

Loads of stuff coming.  Referrals to Tackle School, more subs, concussion spotters plus stuff that'll happen behind the scenes.

https://www.rugby-league.com/new-for-2024

Edited December 9, 2023 by Griff

[EggFace]

1 hour ago, Dave W said:

Tbh, you could go through any thread of comments on Twitter and it'll be negative, whatever the subject: Politics/Sport/Doctor Who/Christmas. Whatever - you name it.

That's what it's become - people complaining about things constantly. It's tiring. 

People have a right to complain after watching that poor video with JJB and Gemma.

[Dunbar]

12 hours ago, JohnM said:

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/

If you were to poll the (let's say) more mature Rugby League supporters about what they find frustrating about the modern game, I dare say wrestling would come fairly close to the top of the list.

Well now it looks like the first contact cannot wrap the man and ball up top now and a tackler has to bend his back and hit with the shoulder.

More collision, less wrestling and quicker rucks (with proper play the balls).  Maybe this isn't the "game's gone, I'm not watching it any more". 

Maybe it is "the game's back".

[JohnM]

If you were to poll the (let's say) more mature Rugby League supporters about what they find frustrating about the modern game, I dare say wrestling would come fairly close to the top of the list.

Exactly. And no "maybe" about it. It's the wrestle that is spoiling the game. Welcome back proper tackling.

Edited December 9, 2023 by JohnM

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, EggFace said:

People have a right to complain after watching that poor video with JJB and Gemma.

Equally, people have a right to praise it. 

[frank]

These rule changes will do a lot to reduce head injuries.