Tackle height law change confirmed

[The Masked Poster]

7 hours ago, gingerjon said:

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.

Well, we do agree that there are wider issues at play that will/are affecting the popularity of the game.

But I still don't think you can brush this aside as old people yearning for yesterday. If the game changes too much, it will definitely not be the same game.

Which is kind of obvious but it is sort of like, If in 10 years time,  soccer had outlawed any physical contact whatsoever....it would definitely be a different game than today. Whether it remained popular (which it probably would) is a different argument. 

[The Masked Poster]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

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".

Maybe you are onto something there? Let's see what develops. 

[EggFace]

3 hours ago, JohnM said:

Equally, people have a right to praise it. 

Not many then.

[EggFace]

1 hour ago, frank said:

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

Like getting a knee or your teamates skull to the head.

if it makes a better game for fans and safty for players be great but as I said that video is horseshit .

[EggFace]

6 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

That qualifies you for the Callum Walker trophy for December.

Explain

[Click]

2 hours ago, EggFace said:

Explain

I assume it's because that is usually his type of article.

[The Future is League]

13 hours 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". 

We was told at school to tackle them around the legs sideways as they cant run without their legs.

[The Future is League]

3 hours ago, EggFace said:

Like getting a knee or your teamates skull to the head.

if it makes a better game for fans and safty for players be great but as I said that video is horseshit .

Not if you tackle their legs from the side.

 

[JohnM]

7 hours ago, EggFace said:

Not many then.

The silent majority on this forum famed world-wide as a mouthpiece for the game's shouty malcontent

[Odsal Outlaw]

We need Fred from Betfred to think this is a bad idea and reduce his sponsorship. That may make the RFL reconsider as he literally sponsors everything.

I wonder if this is also the slippery slipper of the two codes coming back together as the two games increasingly become sanitised and risk averse their rules may become more and more alike.

[Cerulean]

5 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Not if you tackle their legs from the side.

 

We were taught to tackle around the thighs, from the front, with the head to one side. Any second man needed would tackle around the chest. The coaching manuals of the 60s and 70, were full of such illustrations. You were taught, as a tackler, to “ride” the tackle and soften the impact on yourself, though the tougher players would drive forward to put the man “on his backside”. There was never any suggestion of wrestling, or delaying the PTB, or holding up the tackle to involve a third man: the ball carrier was put down as efficiently as possible. There’s plenty of video from the time which displays this.

We have allowed, encouraged, and expected the game to evolve from one primarily of evasion to one of impact, where players are recruited, coached, selected, on their ability to dominate in an impact situation. We are now seeing the consequences.

[gingerjon]

20 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

We have allowed, encouraged, and expected the game to evolve from one primarily of evasion to one of impact, where players are recruited, coached, selected, on their ability to dominate in an impact situation. We are now seeing the consequences.

That's a really good way of explaining a significant part of the shift in how the game has come to be played.

[JohnM]

50 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

We need Fred from Betfred to think this is a bad idea and reduce his sponsorship. That may make the RFL reconsider as he literally sponsors everything.

I wonder if this is also the slippery slipper of the two codes coming back together as the two games increasingly become sanitised and risk averse their rules may become more and more alike.

No need to reconsider anything. 

[Dunbar]

23 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

We have allowed, encouraged, and expected the game to evolve from one primarily of evasion to one of impact, where players are recruited, coached, selected, on their ability to dominate in an impact situation. We are now seeing the consequences.

I am always torn in these discussions because it is the physical challenge, the impact and the need to dominate the opposition that has always been my favourite part of Rugby League, both as a fan and a player.

Of course I enjoy the skilful halfback play and the athletic outside backs, but it is one forward pack going toe to toe with their opponents that has really enthralled me over the years.

But I am optimistic that we can still see these forward challenges - maybe even better without the wrestle.

[Harry Stottle]

34 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

We have allowed, encouraged, and expected the game to evolve from one primarily of evasion to one of impact, where players are recruited, coached, selected, on their ability to dominate in an impact situation. We are now seeing the consequences.

Those of us who have bemoaned the number of interchanges that are allowed in the course of a game have been saying this for a long time. The game was a far better spectacle when 'fatigue' was a natural part of the process, not this bringing on fresh players at regular intervals because the 10 to 15 minute 'impact' player is knackered.

[Odsal Outlaw]

21 minutes ago, JohnM said:

No need to reconsider anything. 

Why do you say that?

[EagleEyePie]

22 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am always torn in these discussions because it is the physical challenge, the impact and the need to dominate the opposition that has always been my favourite part of Rugby League, both as a fan and a player.

Of course I enjoy the skilful halfback play and the athletic outside backs, but it is one forward pack going toe to toe with their opponents that has really enthralled me over the years.

But I am optimistic that we can still see these forward challenges - maybe even better without the wrestle.

I'm not sure the rule changes necessarily mean there will be less 'wrestling' in the tackle. If anything surely it's going to limit impact (due to the risks involved) and make technique more important. It's hard to know for sure how teams would adjust to the new interpretations but surely the changes made to speed up the ruck put a greater emphasis on 'wrestling'. as it's in the defenders best interests to keep the player from going to ground until they are in an advantageous position.

With the tackle height change it's still possible to wrap up the ball but it might mean players have to develop ways of hitting below armpit height initially and then moving to clamp the ball or control the ball carrying arm.

I could be wrong. I think the changes should definitely prevent the subtle techniques and manipulations that happen on the floor but when it comes to 'wrestling' in the tackle I'd imagine there'd be a greater emphasis and a lot more focus on controlling and manipulating the body position of the ball carrier because 'impact' will automatically carry a greater risk with the new interpretations on contact with the head.

[Wakefield Ram]

I struggle to understand why anyone thinks that trying to reduce the number of players suffering brain damage in later life is "spoiling the game". Similar laws have been in place in RU for a few years now.

I reffed an U18 s RU match yesterday which was a very tough, hard fought contest. I gave one penalty for a high tackle which was a shoulder grab. No one watching that game would have described it as soft.

I played amateur RL in 80s/90s and tackling low was quite common. 

The game is quite different now. One man hit ups running into 2/3/4 players dominate the game, the tacklers mostly go in high, head and neck contact is common, players are bigger and faster helped by multiple substitutions meaning the biggest players only have to be able to play half a game and the 10m offside was brought in to encourage attacking play. It has done the exact opposite and just increased the size of the collisions.

The players most at risk are full-time professionals. The NFL limits contact training to once a week, they've introduced padded helmets as well. RL should limit contact training.

What does tackling players round the head and neck add to the game?

Would you be happy if your son/daughter ended up with dementia and died in their 40/50s? 

Similar laws has been in RU a few seasons now. I've yet to hear any player complain that they haven't been hit round the head and want to go back to allowing high tackling. 

Or we can knowingly allow more young men like James Graham and Lachlan Coote to suffer brain damage so as not to spoil our fun. 

You can't remove all risk from the game. But the game has a duty to reduce the risk of players being brain damaged.

 

[Dunbar]

24 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I'm not sure the rule changes necessarily mean there will be less 'wrestling' in the tackle. If anything surely it's going to limit impact (due to the risks involved) and make technique more important. It's hard to know for sure how teams would adjust to the new interpretations but surely the changes made to speed up the ruck put a greater emphasis on 'wrestling'. as it's in the defenders best interests to keep the player from going to ground until they are in an advantageous position.

With the tackle height change it's still possible to wrap up the ball but it might mean players have to develop ways of hitting below armpit height initially and then moving to clamp the ball or control the ball carrying arm.

I could be wrong. I think the changes should definitely prevent the subtle techniques and manipulations that happen on the floor but when it comes to 'wrestling' in the tackle I'd imagine there'd be a greater emphasis and a lot more focus on controlling and manipulating the body position of the ball carrier because 'impact' will automatically carry a greater risk with the new interpretations on contact with the head.

The part in bold is interesting for me as the video in the first post clearly showed examples of hitting and wrapping below armpit and it was described as an illegal tackle.

I am pretty sure an aim is to reduce the upright tackling and without the upright tackle, I think wrestling will be much reduced.  Certainly before the players go to ground. How much wrestling is allowed on the floor will be down to how strict the ref's are under the new interpretations. 

[Harry Stottle]

If as some state instead of reducing head injuries these changes could actually increase the 'accidental' ones that we see occasionally now to them being much more prominent.

Basically the RFL is making a statement with these changes that the elimination of head injuries is the No1 priority at this time, If the prediction comes true that we do get more, what will be the next step I wonder.

The snowball has already been set in motion, where will it end?

[Harry Stottle]

42 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I'm not sure the rule changes necessarily mean there will be less 'wrestling' in the tackle. If anything surely it's going to limit impact (due to the risks involved) and make technique more important. It's hard to know for sure how teams would adjust to the new interpretations but surely the changes made to speed up the ruck put a greater emphasis on 'wrestling'. as it's in the defenders best interests to keep the player from going to ground until they are in an advantageous position.

With the tackle height change it's still possible to wrap up the ball but it might mean players have to develop ways of hitting below armpit height initially and then moving to clamp the ball or control the ball carrying arm.

I could be wrong. I think the changes should definitely prevent the subtle techniques and manipulations that happen on the floor but when it comes to 'wrestling' in the tackle I'd imagine there'd be a greater emphasis and a lot more focus on controlling and manipulating the body position of the ball carrier because 'impact' will automatically carry a greater risk with the new interpretations on contact with the head.

Cue 'Madge' McGuire, back to Wigan as Matty Peets assistant?

[Dunbar]

24 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I struggle to understand why anyone thinks that trying to reduce the number of players suffering brain damage in later life is "spoiling the game". Similar laws have been in place in RU for a few years now.

I reffed an U18 s RU match yesterday which was a very tough, hard fought contest. I gave one penalty for a high tackle which was a shoulder grab. No one watching that game would have described it as soft.

I played amateur RL in 80s/90s and tackling low was quite common. 

The game is quite different now. One man hit ups running into 2/3/4 players dominate the game, the tacklers mostly go in high, head and neck contact is common, players are bigger and faster helped by multiple substitutions meaning the biggest players only have to be able to play half a game and the 10m offside was brought in to encourage attacking play. It has done the exact opposite and just increased the size of the collisions.

The players most at risk are full-time professionals. The NFL limits contact training to once a week, they've introduced padded helmets as well. RL should limit contact training.

What does tackling players round the head and neck add to the game?

Would you be happy if your son/daughter ended up with dementia and died in their 40/50s? 

Similar laws has been in RU a few seasons now. I've yet to hear any player complain that they haven't been hit round the head and want to go back to allowing high tackling. 

Or we can knowingly allow more young men like James Graham and Lachlan Coote to suffer brain damage so as not to spoil our fun. 

You can't remove all risk from the game. But the game has a duty to reduce the risk of players being brain damaged.

 

There are very few people saying we shouldn't take action.  As far as I can see, the discussion, which is entirely sensible and considered for me, is based around 2 points.

The video offered up was very poor as it provided examples of illegal tackles that didn't actually seem to break the new laws as stated.

Upright tackles are by far the biggest source of HIA - for both the ball carrier and (even more so) the tackler. This is mostly due to head clashes rather than actual tackles around the head.  The big unknown is how moving tackles lower will effect HIA's.  We know that head clashes between tacklers going lower is a source of HIA and if we see more of these tackles, will we also see proportionally more HIA's? That is just a mathematical question we need to see play out.

These seem to me to be eminently sensible questions that can be raised without trivialised the impact of head injury and its long term effects. 

[Double Knock On]

There are a number of excellent points made on this topic from a variety of views. However, what is not discussed is that the changes are largely aimed at knocking down a "Strawman" (head to head contact)

Reducing the tackle height may reduce the number of "head to head" contacts (These are grossly, & I mean grossly, over-estimated in the Beckett's studies- look at their figures and then watch an game and slo-mo the tackles and see if you come up with their figures)

Reducing  "head to head" contacts will probably reduce the number of concussions. Are individual concussions the cause of CTE (long term brain disorders)? - No

Will wearing IMG measure Peak g force- yes, cumulative g force-yes, Peak Angular Velocity-probably yes.

Will any of these measures help in diagnosing brain trauma? -No 

The science as it is at the moment suggests that CTE is caused by cumulative rotational forces on the brain. These can be measured by chemical markers such as certain proteins in the blood, micro RNA etc.. As far as I understand it they can also be measured by Rezon headbands (it is also my understanding that the authors of the RFL report were not interesting in working with Rezon and the researchers at Loughborough and ICL(?) to further understand the immediate effect on the brain)

No one knows "how much is too much". A figure of 2g is assumed to be "everyday occurrences involved in such as sitting and walking", above 50g is "bad" (if I remember correctly). RU has had figures over 70g for individual tackles. However, that does not alter the fact that no one knows if 100 x 2g is worse than 1 x 70g without actually measuring the impact on the brain either concurrently, immediately afterwards or at regular intervals

The lower tackle height may also increase the g force in the tackle, as rather than standing and locking the ball the first tackler may now adopt a more squat position and drive through the ball carrier and lift the leg to dump the attacking player in his/her back

As for those who say "we used to tackle around thigh etc.," that was under the 5m rule. With the 10m it would lead to scores of 50 -40, as was in the Aussie Super League in 1997 during the "split" when the ruck in that competition was artificially quick 

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Double Knock On said:

There are a number of excellent points made on this topic from a variety of views. However, what is not discussed is that the changes are largely aimed at knocking down a "Strawman" (head to head contact)

Reducing the tackle height may reduce the number of "head to head" contacts (These are grossly, & I mean grossly, over-estimated in the Beckett's studies- look at their figures and then watch an game and slo-mo the tackles and see if you come up with their figures)

Reducing  "head to head" contacts will probably reduce the number of concussions. Are individual concussions the cause of CTE (long term brain disorders)? - No

Will wearing IMG measure Peak g force- yes, cumulative g force-yes, Peak Angular Velocity-probably yes.

Will any of these measures help in diagnosing brain trauma? -No 

The science as it is at the moment suggests that CTE is caused by cumulative rotational forces on the brain. These can be measured by chemical markers such as certain proteins in the blood, micro RNA etc.. As far as I understand it they can also be measured by Rezon headbands (it is also my understanding that the authors of the RFL report were not interesting in working with Rezon and the researchers at Loughborough and ICL(?) to further understand the immediate effect on the brain)

No one knows "how much is too much". A figure of 2g is assumed to be "everyday occurrences involved in such as sitting and walking", above 50g is "bad" (if I remember correctly). RU has had figures over 70g for individual tackles. However, that does not alter the fact that no one knows if 100 x 2g is worse than 1 x 70g without actually measuring the impact on the brain either concurrently, immediately afterwards or at regular intervals

The lower tackle height may also increase the g force in the tackle, as rather than standing and locking the ball the first tackler may now adopt a more squat position and drive through the ball carrier and lift the leg to dump the attacking player in his/her back

As for those who say "we used to tackle around thigh etc.," that was under the 5m rule. With the 10m it would lead to scores of 50 -40, as was in the Aussie Super League in 1997 during the "split" when the ruck in that competition was artificially quick 

Well that certainly puts another question mark on the subject, thanks for that insight.

[Damien]

7 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Not if you tackle their legs from the side.

 

I've seen plenty of concussions as a result of two defending players tackling from the side and clashing heads. It's certainly not risk free.