Tackle height law change confirmed

[EagleEyePie]

2 hours ago, Double Knock On said:

Having said all this. Most people, including the Beckett's researchers, are still obsessing re tackle height and reducing "head to head contacts" leading to "one off" concussion events. This is a "straw man" and easily knocked down. Lower tackle height, fewer concussions equals safer game mantra.

CTE is linked to the accumulation of micro "sub-concussion" events. The effect of these cannot be measured by IMGs, they just give you an arbitrary "load" 

Your post seems to be suggesting that concussions aren't a problem that needs addressing but micro sub-concussions are. They are both issues. Just because concussion isn't believed to be the main driver of CTE doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue with serious consequences. Players careers are literally ended by repeated concussions and that's something the sport should be trying to avoid. CTE isn't the only adverse health risk that's an issue.

While sub-concussion events might not be able to be measured by iMG's the evidence suggests sub-concussive head impacts cause an increase in risk of CTE so why would reducing all head impacts not make a difference?

Also, reducing sub-concussive impacts is also covered by the game time limits being implemented. The cumulative effect of hits (not just concussions) is the main drive behind that rule change. So the aim is to make the game safer on numerous fronts.

[Wakefield Ram]

This is a long read but especially read 4.5 how a prolonged trial in French RU led to a decline in concussions as the game became more open, more offloads, more passing .........a bit like RL used to be before 5 drives and a kick.

Rationale and evidence for proposal to reduce the tackle height in ... https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/fa/fa980049-c792-4352-84c9-dd06d4989021/27.01.23 Waist height Rationale.pdf

 

[Dunbar]

9 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

This is a long read but especially read 4.5 how a prolonged trial in French RU led to a decline in concussions as the game became more open, more offloads, more passing .........a bit like RL used to be before 5 drives and a kick.

Rationale and evidence for proposal to reduce the tackle height in ... https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/fa/fa980049-c792-4352-84c9-dd06d4989021/27.01.23 Waist height Rationale.pdf

 

Do you believe we should adopt the same laws, no tackling above the waist and no 2 man tackles?

[Wakefield Ram]

52 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Do you believe we should adopt the same laws, no tackling above the waist and no 2 man tackles?

No but this is how rugby league used to be - watch how different (and more enjoyable to watch) the game used to be.

I know he played RU, but Steve Thompson's book "Unforgettable" is an interesting read esp how the game has evolved from one of skill and evasion to power. He's 45, brain damaged and can't remember his kids names. 

It's way more than applying high tackles, it's limiting contact sessions, reducing number of subs, reducing offside line etc..if not more players will continue to suffer brain damage. 

https://youtu.be/uXqftTsyp4k

Edited December 13, 2023 by Wakefield Ram

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

No but this is how rugby league used to be - watch how different (and more enjoyable to watch) the game used to be.

 

https://youtu.be/uXqftTsyp4k

League used to be no tackling above the waist and one man tackles only?

[Wakefield Ram]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

League used to be no tackling above the waist and one man tackles only?

Watch the video. It didn't use to be 5 drives and a kick, huge subs who can only play 20 mins, full time training....

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Watch the video. It didn't use to be 5 drives and a kick, huge subs who can only play 20 mins, full time training....

The video you posted is absolutely full of players tackling high, throwing elbows into people's faces and thumping each other.  Just watch the 3 minutes from 7:20 to 10:30 to see 3 or 4 events with people lying on the floor holding their faces after being walloped.

Look, I get the frustration with the wrestle (although Rugby League isn't and never has been '5 drives and a kick') but there was plenty wrong with previous versions of the sport.

We don't need to go back, we need to think forward and produce something better.  And that isn't the French RU version as tackling waist and below and one tackler only is overkill.

[Double Knock On]

"Also, reducing sub-concussive impacts is also covered by the game time limits being implemented. The cumulative effect of hits (not just concussions) is the main drive behind that rule change. So the aim is to make the game safer on numerous fronts".

I am not suggesting that concussions are not a problem.

The rule changes will reduce head to head contacts. They may increase head to hip concussions (who knows).

The total time allowed for a player to play will not, as far as I understand, reduce match time to any significant extent (A reduced number of fixtures, and a mid season break would be both beneficial, but given that clubs won't even get rid of loop fixtures real concerns about player welfare are skin deep)

"While sub-concussion events might not be able to be measured by iMG's the evidence suggests sub-concussive head impacts cause an increase in risk of CTE so why would reducing all head impacts not make a difference?

Lowering the tackle height does not reduce the number of head impacts, it may reduce the number of head to head impacts. But "head impacts" can be head to the rear of the thigh in an old school side tackle, a bump of the head to the ground. There may be no contact to the head but the rotational forces on the brain can still be high, particularly from being hit from the side. Lowering the tackle height may lead to the first tackler rather than going  shoulder height and locking the ball (with heads in close proximity), but instead squatting and hitting under the ball which, while reducing the chance of head to head collisions will increase the g force in the tackle

No one knows. There are technologies out there that measure impact on the brain. IMGs do not do this.

If RL were to adopt a lower tackle height, similar to English RU, or French RU the game would have to reduce the 10m rule to 5m. NZ RU allow the second tackler to go above the sternum, as it is believed it is the first tackler that creates the big force

 

[Lowdesert]

52 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Watch the video. It didn't use to be 5 drives and a kick, huge subs who can only play 20 mins, full time training....

Mate, have you posted the right video?

[The Blues Ox]

Really not sure regards the mouthguards and trying to force players to wear them is just not going to happen, I know most teams ive played on or coached have been way less than 50% of players that use them, I could never wear one they would just make me gip. 

I keep thinking of more points as the discussion goes along but another problem I see at amateur and junior level is regarding the state of pitches and you will see a number of concussions every season because of head contact with the ground. It's not a problem at pro level as we see most pitches will be well watered but games are usually called off for frozen pitches but have you ever heard of calling a game off in the middle of summer when most pitches are like playing on concrete?

[gingerjon]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

Really not sure regards the mouthguards and trying to force players to wear them is just not going to happen, I know most teams ive played on or coached have been way less than 50% of players that use them, I could never wear one they would just make me gip. 

I keep thinking of more points as the discussion goes along but another problem I see at amateur and junior level is regarding the state of pitches and you will see a number of concussions every season because of head contact with the ground. It's not a problem at pro level as we see most pitches will be well watered but games are usually called off for frozen pitches but have you ever heard of calling a game off in the middle of summer when most pitches are like playing on concrete?

Local RU called games off last summer because the ground was too hard.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

We don't need to go back

This is what is good about sport in how individuals foster different opinions, my take on it is not for hankering for what has passed but of the experience of being subject to different styles and rules for what I consider to be the best option delivering a more entertaining spectacle for paying customers.

In an instant I would move the defensive line back to 5mtrs and reduce the number of interchanges to a max of 3 and let 'fatigue' play it's part in the game, and once a player is replaced he cannot return to the field, and further more without the constant refreshing of the 'behomoths' it would provide a safer environment for those taking part.

[Wakefield Ram]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The video you posted is absolutely full of players tackling high, throwing elbows into people's faces and thumping each other.  Just watch the 3 minutes from 7:20 to 10:30 to see 3 or 4 events with people lying on the floor holding their faces after being walloped.

Look, I get the frustration with the wrestle (although Rugby League isn't and never has been '5 drives and a kick') but there was plenty wrong with previous versions of the sport.

We don't need to go back, we need to think forward and produce something better.  And that isn't the French RU version as tackling waist and below and one tackler only is overkill.

If people accept that too many players are suffering brain damage, which I think many people do, then something or things need to change.

I agree that just changing the laws on high tackles won't solve the problem on its own, but it should reduce the number of head clashes. 

The NFL has reduced contact training to once session a week and have introduced extra padded helmets in training. Can't see that it's affected the game there.  Is there any reason why RL can't do the same and have 1 contact session a week?

Is there any reason we can't reduce substitutions down to say 4 to stop the 20 minute props? Or reduce offside to 5-7m to force more creative play rather than the relentless hit ups that happen now?

In boxing, pro boxers get annual brain scans, any reason why players can't have the option of those?

Or we can keep letting players like Lachlan Coote and James Graham and hundreds other suffer brain damage, so as not to spoil our enjoyment of the game.

And if these result in more open play, more offloads like it did in France, then who knows people might enjoy it more. 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

This is what is good about sport in how individuals foster different opinions, my take on it is not for hankering for what has passed but of the experience of being subject to different styles and rules for what I consider to be the best option delivering a more entertaining spectacle for paying customers.

In an instant I would move the defensive line back to 5mtrs and reduce the number of interchanges to a max of 3 and let 'fatigue' play it's part in the game, and once a player is replaced he cannot return to the field, and further more without the constant refreshing of the 'behomoths' it would provide a safer environment for those taking part.

"Constant refreshing of behemoths" ?

We only have eight interchanges.

[Archie Gordon]

30 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

...

In boxing, pro boxers get annual brain scans, any reason why players can't have the option of those?

...

And/or use blood tests.

Is the reason not to do this cost or fear of the outcomes? Or something else?

[Wakefield Ram]

41 minutes ago, Griff said:

"Constant refreshing of behemoths" ?

We only have eight interchanges.

In the olden days and for many years, think it was 4. There's no reason it should be 8 or 12 as it was before. Subs used to be mainly for injuries, not because players couldn't play 80 minutes. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Wakefield Ram

[Griff]

21 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

In the olden days and for many years, think it was 4. There's no reason it should be 8 or 12 as it was before. Subs used to be mainly for injuries, not because players couldn't play 80 minutes. 

I can remember it being two.  And they could only be used before half time.  Doesn't mean I want to go back to those days.

[Wakefield Ram]

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

Mate, have you posted the right video?

In the sense you're not watching relentless hit ups featuring 15st wingers running into three 16st forwards tackling upright 20btimes a game, yes. My posts say that it's not just about high tackling. 

[Wakefield Ram]

6 minutes ago, Griff said:

I can remember it being two.  And they could only be used before half time.  Doesn't mean I want to go back to those days.

You must be older than me then don't think anyone's suggesting that but there's no reason it can't be 4 for example and for subs to become more injury replacements. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Wakefield Ram

[MattSantos]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

If people accept that too many players are suffering brain damage, which I think many people do, then something or things need to change.

I agree that just changing the laws on high tackles won't solve the problem on its own, but it should reduce the number of head clashes. 

The NFL has reduced contact training to once session a week and have introduced extra padded helmets in training. Can't see that it's affected the game there.  Is there any reason why RL can't do the same and have 1 contact session a week?

Is there any reason we can't reduce substitutions down to say 4 to stop the 20 minute props? Or reduce offside to 5-7m to force more creative play rather than the relentless hit ups that happen now?

In boxing, pro boxers get annual brain scans, any reason why players can't have the option of those?

Or we can keep letting players like Lachlan Coote and James Graham and hundreds other suffer brain damage, so as not to spoil our enjoyment of the game.

And if these result in more open play, more offloads like it did in France, then who knows people might enjoy it more. 

Something perhaps needs to be changed, but it could be argued that the changes need to happen away from the field; the amount of contact in training etc.

Is it definitive that 'head clashes' are the cause of concussion and related symptoms? I would have thought that other than a cut or a break, head clashes are ok relatively speaking and that the goal should be to reduce the number of collisions the head has against a hip, the floor etc.

The problem with reducing subs and introducing more fatigue is then the possibility of incorrect tackle technique leading to concussion and related symptoms. 

James Graham is very comfortable with his decisions, an odd example to use.

Sorry to pick on your post, but all i see across all of this thread is potential unintended consequences. The trail period wasn't long enough to establish what the proper outcomes are and we are potentially going down a rabbit hole of legislation  / changes to the game.

 

 

[Griff]

40 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

You must be older than me then don't think anyone's suggesting that but there's no reason it can't be 4 for example and for subs to become more injury replacements. 

We ditched "injury-only" substitutions because whether a player can continue is a judgement call.  It could result in players exacerbating injuries unnecessarily.

Massive backward step imho.  Obviously you disagree and that's fine.  We don't have to agree, particularly as the RFL won't be listening to either of us.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

In the sense you're not watching relentless hit ups featuring 15st wingers running into three 16st forwards tackling upright 20btimes a game, yes. My posts say that it's not just about high tackling. 

Ok.

The game you posted has all that.  
 

 

[Wakefield Ram]

1 hour ago, MattSantos said:

Something perhaps needs to be changed, but it could be argued that the changes need to happen away from the field; the amount of contact in training etc.

Is it definitive that 'head clashes' are the cause of concussion and related symptoms? I would have thought that other than a cut or a break, head clashes are ok relatively speaking and that the goal should be to reduce the number of collisions the head has against a hip, the floor etc.

The problem with reducing subs and introducing more fatigue is then the possibility of incorrect tackle technique leading to concussion and related symptoms. 

James Graham is very comfortable with his decisions, an odd example to use.

Sorry to pick on your post, but all i see across all of this thread is potential unintended consequences. The trail period wasn't long enough to establish what the proper outcomes are and we are potentially going down a rabbit hole of legislation  / changes to the game.

 

 

With respect James Graham isn't suffering symptoms yet. But we can use Stevie Ward or Francis Maloney or Lachlan Coote or whomever else you want.

If you haven't seen it, the Wally Lewis documentary is a sobering watch

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Wakefield Ram

[Wakefield Ram]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

We ditched "injury-only" substitutions because whether a player can continue is a judgement call.  It could result in players exacerbating injuries unnecessarily.

Massive backward step imho.  Obviously you disagree and that's fine.  We don't have to agree, particularly as the RFL won't be listening to either of us.

I didn't say injury only, but if the number of substitutions are reduced, there'll be fewer 18st props who can only play 20 minutes that was more the point. 

And yes I'm sure the RFL won't listen to us. 

[MattSantos]

31 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

With respect James Graham isn't suffering symptoms yet. But we can use Stevie Ward or Francis Maloney or Lachlan Coote or whomever else you want.

If you haven't seen it, the Wally Lewis documentary is a sobering watch

 

With respect, i think you're missing my point.

Let's assume that the problem statement is: There are too many concussions and concussion related symptoms in RL. That could be argued, but we'll crack on. 

The solution that will be implemented to tackle the problem is that they'll be no tackling under the armpit. I have a problem with this as i fundamentally do not believe that this will solve the problem and the reasons why i think this have been articulated previously in this thread.

My women's intuition tells me that this is all about insurance and a ticking the box exercise in that regard. What it isn't, is a collaborative and robust process with clear outcomes. Ergo, i think we've started a slippery slope.