Tackle height law change confirmed

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

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.

What will it mean to a contract a young player like Nsemba can command or could command?

Are clubs going to recognise such a young player is actually in all sense and purpose now 'part time' for the club? 

There are plenty of ramifications with these restrictions that will come to light as the rulings sink in and are deliberated.

Further to this on this topic just this afternoon, I bumped into an old mate who played at amateur level from early age levels till late 30's he is now early 70's, we have both had a lifetime in the sport and we reflected sarcastically how has this game lasted so long without all these so essential new rules that are going to be implemented, both of us could only recall one player personally to us both - incidently the same one, a pro - who had any issues with head injuries.

From the tens of thousands that have played this game since 1895, it is a very low number that have succumbed to later life complications to which for any who have I feel totally sorry for, but is this game really so statistically dangerous to take part in, that it demands such radical changes from what has brought us to this point after near 130 years of existance?

I can't help but really believe it is nothing but the 'cause and litigation' ambulance chasing society that is so prevalent in today's world that has promoted these rulings.

Just my opinion.

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Further to this on this topic just this afternoon, I bumped into an old mate who played at amateur level from early age levels till late 30's he is now early 70's, we have both had a lifetime in the sport and we reflected sarcastically how has this game lasted so long without all these so essential new rules that are going to be implemented, both of us could only recall one player personally to us both - incidently the same one, a pro - who had any issues with head injuries..

One?

Maybe your own memory's failing you, Harry.

[Lowdesert]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What will it mean to a contract a young player like Nsemba can command or could command?

Are clubs going to recognise such a young player is actually in all sense and purpose now 'part time' for the club? 

There are plenty of ramifications with these restrictions that will come to light as the rulings sink in and are deliberated.

Further to this on this topic just this afternoon, I bumped into an old mate who played at amateur level from early age levels till late 30's he is now early 70's, we have both had a lifetime in the sport and we reflected sarcastically how has this game lasted so long without all these so essential new rules that are going to be implemented, both of us could only recall one player personally to us both - incidently the same one, a pro - who had any issues with head injuries.

From the tens of thousands that have played this game since 1895, it is a very low number that have succumbed to later life complications to which for any who have I feel totally sorry for, but is this game really so statistically dangerous to take part in, that it demands such radical changes from what has brought us to this point after near 130 years of existance?

I can't help but really believe it is nothing but the 'cause and litigation' ambulance chasing society that is so prevalent in today's world that has promoted these rulings.

Just my opinion.

TBF thousands wouldn’t have known, since the games inception, and it is only relatively recently that the uk has become more litigious.  
 

 

[Lowdesert]

3 hours ago, phiggins said:

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. 

The link says that it will be for clubs to monitor themselves. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

One?

Maybe your own memory's failing you, Harry.

Read again I said:-

Both of us could only remember one player personally to us both.

My memory is fine on this Griff, how's your eyesight?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

TBF thousands wouldn’t have known, since the games inception, and it is only relatively recently that the uk has become more litigious.  
 

 

Yes but this is what I am saying, I can go back to the 60's and I have known many who have played the game, but can't recall save for the one I mention to have suffered LD, how many do you know personally?

Obviously, it has only recently become litigious, this is the way the modern world has become, like the guys in the States who tried to sue Macdonalds over their addiction to burgers claiming it made them fat, yes that is far left field but it highlights lawyers mentality.

[Griff]

30 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Read again I said:-

Both of us could only remember one player personally to us both.

My memory is fine on this Griff, how's your eyesight?

So you're only talking about players you personally know?

Or players you personally remember?

Could be either. Could be something else. Who knows?

[EggFace]

So if we going to go all soft on Contact team sports then can we first make alcohol illegal and more importantly ban WAR.

[EagleEyePie]

This thread is very informative. It's a shame that Twitter (no, I'll never call it 'X') isn't the best for presenting this information and it would be useful if it could be expanded into an article to properly explain these points without a character limit.

Also doesn't gloss over the fact that, while the highest instance of concussion is obviously ball carriers being tackled around the head, the second biggest risk is defenders tackling around the hip area, and that low tackles carry twice the concussion risk of tackling between shoulder and abdomen.

[zylya]

On 10/12/2023 at 18:54, 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?

IANAL, but given that the game already carries an element of risk, I imagine that any good-faith effort to reduce the likelihood of head injuries would not count against the RFL, especially if the research done post-change highlighted this and they reverted. The current lawsuit alleges that Rugby League (via its governing bodies) didn't take action to protect players from concussion and repeated concussive events. If they can point to the research they've carried out and the changes they've made because of it and then, if they're wrong, revert the change in good time then I don't believe that they would be specifically liable in that instance.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

5 minutes ago, zylya said:

IANAL, but given that the game already carries an element of risk, I imagine that any good-faith effort to reduce the likelihood of head injuries would not count against the RFL, especially if the research done post-change highlighted this and they reverted. The current lawsuit alleges that Rugby League (via its governing bodies) didn't take action to protect players from concussion and repeated concussive events. If they can point to the research they've carried out and the changes they've made because of it and then, if they're wrong, revert the change in good time then I don't believe that they would be specifically liable in that instance.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not familiar with the acronyms that the kids are using these days. What does "I anal" mean?

[zylya]

2 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Thanks for the reply. I'm not familiar with the acronyms that the kids are using these days. What does "I anal" mean?

I am not a lawyer

[frank]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes but this is what I am saying, I can go back to the 60's and I have known many who have played the game, but can't recall save for the one I mention to have suffered LD, how many do you know personally?

Obviously, it has only recently become litigious, this is the way the modern world has become, like the guys in the States who tried to sue Macdonalds over their addiction to burgers claiming it made them fat, yes that is far left field but it highlights lawyers mentality.

With all this publicity in regard to head injuries,  something has to change for the game to survive. Lots of parents won't let their youngsters play Rugby League today under the present set up due to head knocks and who can blame them.

These new rules are set to make the game less dangerous.

My elder brother who played for Batley, Yorks and Gt Britain suffered from Dimenentia most probably caused through the number of head knocks he received.

Give the new rules a fair go Harry before knocking them.

[The Masked Poster]

6 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Thanks for the reply. I'm not familiar with the acronyms that the kids are using these days. What does "I anal" mean?

I didn’t know either….but for gods sake, don’t google it! 

[Harry Stottle]

On 10/12/2023 at 18:54, 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?

This what I wrote a few days ago, evidence shows that there is every bit as much risk getting head injuries from friendly fire, as the method they are bringing in, my question was  once this is realised what is the next step, as I said the snowball has been set in motion where will it end.

[Griff]

6 hours ago, frank said:

With all this publicity in regard to head injuries,  something has to change for the game to survive. Lots of parents won't let their youngsters play Rugby League today under the present set up due to head knocks and who can blame them.

These new rules are set to make the game less dangerous.

My elder brother who played for Batley, Yorks and Gt Britain suffered from Dimenentia most probably caused through the number of head knocks he received.

Give the new rules a fair go Harry before knocking them.

Well said, frank.  I've known a fair few players in my time but when I narrow it down to folk I'm still in touch with and then folk approaching or past, say 60, there's probably about forty.  Three of them have some sort of brain injury issue which is far too many for my liking.   I think Harry underestimates the problem.   

Tommy suggests that this is about doing something rather than doing the right thing.  Personally, I'd rather do something and it turn out to have been ineffective than do nothing and wonder whether I could've helped.  I've not noticed what Tommy's plan is -  I've probably missed it.

[The Blues Ox]

10 hours ago, EagleEyePie said:

This thread is very informative. It's a shame that Twitter (no, I'll never call it 'X') isn't the best for presenting this information and it would be useful if it could be expanded into an article to properly explain these points without a character limit.

Also doesn't gloss over the fact that, while the highest instance of concussion is obviously ball carriers being tackled around the head, the second biggest risk is defenders tackling around the hip area, and that low tackles carry twice the concussion risk of tackling between shoulder and abdomen.

Information overload in that thread but does make an interesting read. I find a few things of concern in it, yes its clear that as a ball carrier your biggest risk of concussion is by being belted round the head but its 0.9 concussions on average of 1000 events. How many high tackles do we see during a game? Its really not that many. You then have a 0.5/0.4/0.4 risk per 1000 from the waist down in 3 areas for the tackler and you see a hell of a lot more of that type of tackle in a game and now we are going to increase this. I think the way they have arranged this data is stacked towards supporting the law change rather than it been raw data that shows the bigger picture.

Also a sample size of 7000 tackles for the above data is just ridiculously small and its hard to make many conclussions from that small a sample. Is that maybe about 15 games worth, maybe even less? Even the trial saw an increase in tackler concussions but they then mention about sample size which again you can't have it both ways when reading the data.

I might also be reading it wrong where it references RU and shows data from their trial which then shows an overall increase in concussions over the period in which they trialled the lower tackle height, again though sample size is way too small to read too much in to.

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Griff said:

So you're only talking about players you personally know?

Or players you personally remember?

Could be either. Could be something else. Who knows?

I could have said, additionally there are thousands I also know of but not personally since I have been involved in this game, and the rate of later life complications from head injuries must virtually register, so how dangerous would say this sport is?

[The Blues Ox]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

This what I wrote a few days ago, evidence shows that there is every bit as much risk getting head injuries from friendly fire, as the method they are bringing in, my question was  once this is realised what is the next step, as I said the snowball has been set in motion where will it end.

https://twitter.com/23Benjones/status/1734313457267462225/photo/1

The data in this table has to be a huge worry and will get worse with the new laws.

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, frank said:

With all this publicity in regard to head injuries,  something has to change for the game to survive. Lots of parents won't let their youngsters play Rugby League today under the present set up due to head knocks and who can blame them.

These new rules are set to make the game less dangerous.

My elder brother who played for Batley, Yorks and Gt Britain suffered from Dimenentia most probably caused through the number of head knocks he received.

Give the new rules a fair go Harry before knocking them.

Thanks for the reply Frank, and I sympathise for your brother but he is one of the unfortunate few statistics of the thousands that have played this sport, but the fact remains and you say "probably caused through a number of head knocks"  but that is a broad spectrum unless every 'bang" was monitored we will never know what caused it, and the same can be said off all those who have registered a complaint, so do these rules go far enough, if not and we still have a number of head injuries what next, ban the game completely?

Of all the player's from all down the years to have suffered is a very small number, but it gets sensationalised when it happens, it is like flying in an aircraft there are millions upon millions who fly every year but when a crash is experienced somewhere on the planet it is massive news, the number of fatalities is reported but it never says in reality that flying is still the safest form of transport we have.

[Griff]

21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I could have said, additionally there are thousands I also know of but not personally since I have been involved in this game, and the rate of later life complications from head injuries must virtually register, so how dangerous would say this sport is?

I said already.  Five minutes before your post.

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

I said already.  Five minutes before your post.

I was doing a couple of other replays Griff, yes I have now seen your post.

[Double Knock On]

The problem with Prof Jones X/Twitter feed is that it is largely about concussions

This is a "Straw Man" that has been erected to be knocked down. As I stated in my previous post, the main problem is not concussions but the accumulative effect of sub-concussions.

The rule changes do not address this issue and are, therefore largely window dressing  

[redjonn]

On 10/12/2023 at 14:09, Tommygilf said:

There's a certain rage against the machine here. 

Coaches figured out years (decades?) ago that fancy penalty moves and set plays don't win competitions, rock solid defences do. A lot of the things that set teams up to win tournaments are the boring things - eating well, training efficiently, organised defence etc.

It's a consequence of professionalism in sport, the things that make you more likely to win, or less likely to lose, are invested in more.

The characteristics of the game of the past was often dictated by a distinct lack of professionalism. "Tackling" was appaling. The size of players too was often incomparable to now. "Training" and "nutrition" were often a joke. 

That genie is out of the bottle now, even amateur lads are at the higher levels hitting the gym 4 plus times a week as well as on field training. Its going nowhere in the top flight.

So what then? Reduce the number of players on the pitch? It would certainly impact the ability to defend an RL pitch. But the same people harking back to a "golden age" would likely complain it wasn't "proper rugby", despite it being the only way to return to an open running style game.

Taking on your throw away comment regards reducing number of players...

Given the more time playing the higher the risk... would not an option be to reduce the length of a game, particularly given that the more more tired/exhausted a player is the more likely the risk increases....

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Given the more time playing the higher the risk... would not an option be to reduce the length of a game, particularly given that the more more tired/exhausted a player is the more likely the risk increases....

Obviously as we have seen from this and other posts that Tommy has made the game has only been started playing properly in his lifetime, about 25 years and so only probably less than 20years in his experience.

But can I just throw a spanner in the works of your comment above, years ago, we didn't have substitutes, so players had to play long minutes about 80, there were proper contested scrums which had many head clashes - usually on purpose when the packs were coming together, there were unlimited tackles and most of it forward contact - which the 'culmative minute' brigade recognise as the players most at risk, and fatigue factor is so very much reduced these days with the army of interchanges at a coaches disposal.

What time duration or the length of a game would you suggest john?