Tackle height law change confirmed

[StandOffHalf]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Looks like? So it's not just a case of lowering the impact by 4"

You are also presuming that, it certainly isn't mentioned, and thats the point isn't it?

That video has a cheery tone that doesn't flesh out or explain at all the finer points to a rather seismic change.

A very strange tone to present things in, with JJB as the cheerful face of pressing on.

[Damien]

The thing with the tackler lowering the head beneath the armpit, if that is the case, is that it could well also lead to all kinds of issues and could well increase the risk of concussion to the tackling player. It will inevitably lead to the tackler leading with the head more to try and clamp the ball which could well increase the chances of head clashes with other defenders, the attacking player and elbows etc. Even concepts like using bumpers are quite different in Rugby League compared to Union.

We already know that the tackler is more likely to suffer concussions than the attacker and the sport should be careful that they don't exacerbate the situation.

[Odsal Outlaw]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Can I ask the people against these changes why they are so against it. What massive change do they think will happen by reducing the tackle height by 4”. 

I don’t think it is just lowering the tackle height by 4”, but to answer your question I think it’s another step to the slow sanitisation of a sport which overtime will lose some of the physical elements that make it so exciting.
 

In the same way that I think the game is worse off for banning the shoulder charge (when what they should have done is just penalise the ones that weren’t executed properly).  If we you only listened to experts then you probably wouldn’t play at all. 

[Odsal Outlaw]

Double post

Edited December 10, 2023 by Odsal Outlaw

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

Just playing devil's advocate, but if players lower their tackle height in accordance with the new rules, and then sustain concussions as a consequence of increased numbers of friendly fire head-on-head contacts with teammates, or from hip-to-head or knee-to-head contacts, will the RFL then be open to future legal action from players who could argue that they were forced by the governing body to change their technique? It's not as though there aren't research articles out there highlighting the risk of lowering tackle height. Is this change potentially going to cause the RFL a different headache (pun intended) further down the road?

[Click]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Just playing devil's advocate, but if players lower their tackle height in accordance with the new rules, and then sustain concussions as a consequence of increased numbers of friendly fire head-on-head contacts with teammates, or from hip-to-head or knee-to-head contacts, will the RFL then be open to future legal action from players who could argue that they were forced by the governing body to change their technique? It's not as though there aren't research articles out there highlighting the risk of lowering tackle height. Is this change potentially going to cause the RFL a different headache (pun intended) further down the road?

I would hope that this new rule introduction would have a caveat attached that they would be monitoring amount of HIA's, the causes, etc. and if they see a marked increase they would look to do something different. 

[OriginalMrC]

1 hour ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Just playing devil's advocate, but if players lower their tackle height in accordance with the new rules, and then sustain concussions as a consequence of increased numbers of friendly fire head-on-head contacts with teammates, or from hip-to-head or knee-to-head contacts, will the RFL then be open to future legal action from players who could argue that they were forced by the governing body to change their technique? It's not as though there aren't research articles out there highlighting the risk of lowering tackle height. Is this change potentially going to cause the RFL a different headache (pun intended) further down the road?

I think this argument could be put forward re: the RU announcement where they said all tackles would be below the waist. In RL they are asking people to tackle below the armpit. Admittedly I haven't played for years but the vast majority of tackles made were below the armpit. These changes are not as drastic as people think they are. 

[Archie Gordon]

Hmmm. I'm sure that on the list of new laws introduced, playing in your own year/age group was for u6s and u7s only. Just looked again now and it is for all year/age groups.

That's us done for 2024 then as we won't get enough players, volunteers or oppo together to play any games at all.

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

 

[Harry Stottle]

Exclusive: Terry O’Connor concerned about major law changes – ‘We’ve got to be very careful in how we want the game to look’

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-terry-oconnor-concerned-about-major-law-changes-weve-got-to-be-very-careful-in-how-we-want-the-game-to-look

[The Blues Ox]

32 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Hmmm. I'm sure that on the list of new laws introduced, playing in your own year/age group was for u6s and u7s only. Just looked again now and it is for all year/age groups.

That's us done for 2024 then as we won't get enough players, volunteers or oppo together to play any games at all.

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

 

Yeah huge ramifications for a lot of teams especially in the girls side of things where they had been playing 2 years together up until the last couple of seasons, forcing teams to play only their own age group when there isn't enough players to go around could be a disaster for the growth of the sport.

[Dunbar]

I can't quite work out what the implications of this one are (the final part, not the first).

12.Enforce law on contact with head and neck via sanction on-field through Match Officials. Including head-to-head contact including mitigation

Does the 'including mitigation' mean that not all head to head contact will be punished as there are sometimes mitigating circumstances or does it mean all all head to head contact will be punished, even those with mitigating circumstances?

[EagleEyePie]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Exclusive: Terry O’Connor concerned about major law changes – ‘We’ve got to be very careful in how we want the game to look’

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-terry-oconnor-concerned-about-major-law-changes-weve-got-to-be-very-careful-in-how-we-want-the-game-to-look

He does have a point when it comes to match/minute limits on players. It all depends on what the limit will be set at and how they go about it. There's the potential for it to massively compromise sporting integrity though.

If they just set a fixed limit then how do they avoid unfairly penalising clubs that are successful in the Challenge Cup? Imagine the disadvantage for a club if they played a World Club Challenge, reached the Challenge Cup final and then went all the way to the Grand Final.

Add in injuries during the season and you could potentially get to a situation where you only have limited available players and having to choose between playing some in every remaining game to stay competitive and have a shot at reaching the Grand Final but knowing if no player returns from injury you couldn't play them in the playoffs. Or they'd have to leave those players out of games and use academy players which surely carries its own player welfare issues.

You could have the farcical scenario of a club playing a Grand Final knowing 4 of their players are 40 minutes from the limit, suffering injuries during the game and then having to play 10-20 minutes of a final with less than 13 players because you can't interchange players who have reached their limit.

And then of course there's the issue of international call ups. No club is going to release their players for a mid-season international if it means it impact their game limit. Every player is going to prioritise ensuring they could be available for a final at the end of the year over playing a mid-season international. And what happens if a player reaches their game limit and is then selected for an international?

Apparently the limits are going to be lower for players under the age of 22, so what impact will that have on player development? Why risk having an outstanding 20 year old forward in your team when you know you're going to have to carefully manage their game time for another 2 years. It's just easier to sign an older player.

Obviously there's a potential benefit here. If you introduce a limit of game time there's incentive to reduce the number of fixtures in a season. I'm fairly certain that this is the intention of the limit because they know clubs wouldn't voluntarily reduce the number of games so you essentially force them into a compromise - minute managing and potential chaos or limit the number of matches.

The downside is it will mean clubs making less money through matchdays per year and it's probably the fans (higher prices) and players (lower wages) that would suffer if we end up cutting 5 games from the season.

Edited December 11, 2023 by EagleEyePie

[Lowdesert]

14 hours ago, Click said:

I would hope that this new rule introduction would have a caveat attached that they would be monitoring amount of HIA's, the causes, etc. and if they see a marked increase they would look to do something different. 

That would tie in with the proposed monitoring and calculation of the players game time on the field, which I don’t think has been mentioned to date?  Anyway, here it is and apologies if already posted!

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/explainer-how-the-rfls-new-rules-on-match-limits-capping-players-game-time-will-work-from-2024

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

He does have a point when it comes to match/minute limits on players. It all depends on what the limit will be set at and how they go about it. There's the potential for it to massively compromise sporting integrity though.

If they just set a fixed limit then how do they avoid unfairly penalising clubs that are successful in the Challenge Cup? Imagine the disadvantage for a club if they played a World Club Challenge, reached the Challenge Cup final and then went all the way to the Grand Final.

Add in injuries during the season and you could potentially get to a situation where you only have limited available players and having to choose between playing some in every remaining game to stay competitive and have a shot at reaching the Grand Final but knowing if no player returns from injury you couldn't play them in the playoffs. Or they'd have to leave those players out of games and use academy players which surely carries its own player welfare issues.

You could have the farcical scenario of a club playing a Grand Final knowing 4 of their players are 40 minutes from the limit, suffering injuries during the game and then having to play 10-20 minutes of a final with less than 13 players because you can't interchange players who have reached their limit.

And then of course there's the issue of international call ups. No club is going to release their players for a mid-season international if it means it impact their game limit. Every player is going to prioritise ensuring they could be available for a final at the end of the year over playing a mid-season international. And what happens if a player reaches their game limit and is then selected for an international?

Apparently the limits are going to be lower for players under the age of 22, so what impact will that have on player development? Why risk having an outstanding 20 year old forward in your team when you know you're going to have to carefully manage their game time for another 2 years. It's just easier to sign an older player.

Obviously there's a potential benefit here. If you introduce a limit of game time there's incentive to reduce the number of fixtures in a season. I'm fairly certain that this is the intention of the limit because they know clubs wouldn't voluntarily reduce the number of games so you essentially force them into a compromise - minute managing and potential chaos or limit the number of matches.

The downside is it will mean clubs making less money through matchdays per year and it's probably the fans (higher prices) and players (lower wages) that would suffer if we end up cutting 5 games from the season.

So when you read it in full, see link in last post by Lowdesert it gives special compensation for certain matches like a GF and *International Games.

This has got me thinking though, if I go for a walk down town 7 days a week I am increasing the chances I have of breathing in too many carbon emissions and getting run over, I may also be tempted to spend more money than if I was sitting at home, not to mention saving on shoe leather! I had better limit it to 4 times a week, just to be on the safe side.

Seriously amongst all the crock of sh-ite that is coming out these days this has to be right up there at the top. I am totally happy that I have lived through an era in that I may have seen the best that this game can offer, the thought of what it will develop into - if it has any longevity, that is - is mind boggling.

* International Games, I don't know why they have put the dispensation for cumulative minutes played for international games, as I said earlier in this thread, the Southern Hemisphere will never follow the RFL with their new tackling interpretations, nor will there be any form off hybrid sanctioned by the IRL, and the RFL would surely not revert back to the 'old  tackling rules' for International fixtures would they?

RIP International RL between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres,  and no one dare say it will be the fault of the NRL.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Dunbar]

19 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

as I said earlier in this thread, the Southern Hemisphere will never follow the RFL with their new tackling interpretations

I don't understand why you would think this.

Rugby League in the UK benefits somewhat by being under the radar.  Rugby League in Australia has a front and back page profile and if change is coming there will be massive pressure to adopt safer practices. 

In fact, the NRL's national safe play code already outlaws tackles above the armpit at under-15s level and younger so at age group level they are already enforcing the tackle changes we are bringing in next year.

One or two high profile cases of former players challenging the NRL will force change.  I am not for or againt this, just saying it is pretty much inevitable. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I don't understand why you would think this.

Rugby League in the UK benefits somewhat by being under the radar.  Rugby League in Australia has a front and back page profile and if change is coming there will be massive pressure to adopt safer practices. 

In fact, the NRL's national safe play code already outlaws tackles above the armpit at under-15s level and younger so at age group level they are already enforcing the tackle changes we are bringing in next year.

One or two high profile cases of former players challenging the NRL will force change.  I am not for or againt this, just saying it is pretty much inevitable. 

What happened a couple or three years ago when players in the NRL were being binned for head contacts that were mostly unfounded and not the fault of the tackling player.

The coaches, the players, the media and most importantly the fans complained vociferously against the rulings and the NRL backed down.

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What happened a couple or three years ago when players in the NRL were being binned for head contacts that were mostly unfounded and not the fault of the tackling player.

The coaches, the players, the media and most importantly the fans complained vociferously against the rulings and the NRL backed down.

Same as happened here then.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Same as happened here then.

No not really, Aus seemed get rid of situations where the attacker put his head into the contact area, but not here, only last season one high profile ref in a televised game was heard to say, "I know he slipped and it was not your fault, but there was still head contact, penalty against you" what's that all about?

[Griff]

3 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

Obviously there's a potential benefit here. If you introduce a limit of game time there's incentive to reduce the number of fixtures in a season.

Good.  Though I'm not confident it'll happen.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

No not really, Aus seemed get rid of situations where the attacker put his head into the contact area, but not here, only last season one high profile ref in a televised game was heard to say, "I know he slipped and it was not your fault, but there was still head contact, penalty against you" what's that all about?

I will answer your question as I think it is relevant to the question I asked earlier about mitigation. 

But before I do that, I just want you to clarify for me. You say that the Aussies have reversed a previous clampdown on head contact due to pushback from players, fans, pundits etc.  Is it really your stance that this same thing has not happened over here?

[phiggins]

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

That would tie in with the proposed monitoring and calculation of the players game time on the field, which I don’t think has been mentioned to date?  Anyway, here it is and apologies if already posted!

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/explainer-how-the-rfls-new-rules-on-match-limits-capping-players-game-time-will-work-from-2024

It will be a tricky one to monitor. What happens when players that play both in and out of the pack? Not unheard of for hookers and loose forwards to play in the halves (Joe Shorrocks had a spell at 6 last year for example), and centres and second rows quite commonly interchange. 

[sheddingswasus]

On 10/12/2023 at 13:28, Damien said:

Many aren't arguing with that though and I strongly suspect the majority would agree with it. This is conflating getting rid of high tackles and thuggery with these moves. They are not the same.

But they generally are. We all know the same suspects who go in high. It’s not accidental. They are deliberate actions to take an opponent out of the  game. 

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

But they generally are. We all know the same suspects who go in high. It’s not accidental. They are deliberate actions to take an opponent out of the  game. 

Do you think the examples of illegal tackles in the video from the RFl were an attempt to take an opponent out of the game?

[EagleEyePie]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

So when you read it in full, see link in last post by Lowdesert it gives special compensation for certain matches like a GF and *International Games.

This has got me thinking though, if I go for a walk down town 7 days a week I am increasing the chances I have of breathing in too many carbon emissions and getting run over, I may also be tempted to spend more money than if I was sitting at home, not to mention saving on shoe leather! I had better limit it to 4 times a week, just to be on the safe side.

Seriously amongst all the crock of sh-ite that is coming out these days this has to be right up there at the top. I am totally happy that I have lived through an era in that I may have seen the best that this game can offer, the thought of what it will develop into - if it has any longevity, that is - is mind boggling.

* International Games, I don't know why they have put the dispensation for cumulative minutes played for international games, as I said earlier in this thread, the Southern Hemisphere will never follow the RFL with their new tackling interpretations, nor will there be any form off hybrid sanctioned by the IRL, and the RFL would surely not revert back to the 'old  tackling rules' for International fixtures would they?

RIP International RL between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres,  and no one dare say it will be the fault of the NRL.

That link does clear up some of the questions, though doesn't necessarily solve all of the issues. Key games like finals not counting is a good thing, but you're still punished for success if you reach the Challenge Cup semi final and the playoff semi final in a single year because you're then having to miss games.

If a player alternates between the forwards and backs how are their minutes calculated. I'm assuming the limit must be flexible so that if an outside back plays some minutes in the pack their limit is essentially reduced in proportion. What would happen if a player was named at hooker, played at hooker in offence but defended in the stand off position, which Rob Burrow and Luke Robinson used to do when they played 9, with a back defending in the middle of the field. If a centre defends in the second row channel are they classed as a back row or a centre? What's to stop players being  named in one position but effectively playing in another?

There are also other potential issues. For example, these rules basically have no impact if you sign a player from the NRL for 1 year. You're allowed to exceed the limit if you make up for it the following year but if you're only on a 1 year contract before returning to the NRL you can play every minute of every game as a forward without issue. You could argue that's gaming the system.

Also, if you're a young forward like Junior Nsemba at Wigan, where's the incentive to remain in Super League when you know for the next 3 years you'll never be able to make your preferred position your own without the club also needing another player of the same standard for the same position. Why not just go to the NRL and play every week (maybe for a feeder club, but you're playing regularly). Likewise, is it worth Wigan keeping such a promising young player when you know you'll need another player of that quality to cover the minutes for the next 3 years. Why not just sign a player over the age of 22 who you can get more minutes out of.

I should point out I'm in favour of the limits from a player welfare perspective, but I think we've got to be careful when we consider the effects it might have. A reduction in the number of games in a season seems like the obvious option but there's no appetite for that. Could the limits on playing time force more young players out of the competition.

Edited December 11, 2023 by EagleEyePie

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I will answer your question as I think it is relevant to the question I asked earlier about mitigation. 

But before I do that, I just want you to clarify for me. You say that the Aussies have reversed a previous clampdown on head contact due to pushback from players, fans, pundits etc.  Is it really your stance that this same thing has not happened over here?

Not to the same effect I Don't believe when watching both leagues, are our ref's more strict on the ruling can be pondered.