Tackle height law change confirmed

[The Blues Ox]

17 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

No you wouldnt be qualfied to diagnose a concussion as a trained medical person would need to do that. The aim of the course was to try and help recognise the symptons of a possible concussion. Im amazed that you say that you have done the course and didnt know that there was a reporting mechanism for suspected concussions.

I was as surprised to find out to be honest. 

[N2022]

I think the tackle height change is potentially good for safety if properly implemented, but I suspect (happy to be corrected) that NRL will be reluctant to follow. This will be further wedge through what little international game there is.

[Harry Stottle]

7 hours ago, N2022 said:

I think the tackle height change is potentially good for safety if properly implemented, but I suspect (happy to be corrected) that NRL will be reluctant to follow. This will be further wedge through what little international game there is.

100% it will.

[N2022]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

100% it will.

Just to clarify, do you mean 'it will' as in 'NRL will follow' or as in 'it will drive a wedge through international game'? I'm no expert, just an occasional viewer, so interested to know.

[The Lad]

I hope common sense will prevail. Context matters, a high tackle doesn't always mean a red/yellow card. When two players come into contact with each other more upright than the average tackle, it doesn't always mean there was foul play. 

Edited December 26, 2023 by The Lad

[TBone]

On 08/12/2023 at 11:41, Dovster said:

I presume scrum hats or other head protection has been tried and found unsuitable. 

 

yes… they don’t do much towards stopping the brain rattling around inside the skull.this can happen in any collision but the severity/risks go up if the head is directly involved in the collision. hence the need to also reduce conntact sessions in training.

(you would need something like some of the cycling helmets that give more dampenning. i’ve had a couple of nasty crashes on my bike and i can vouch that they work! in both cases the helmet was trashed but, when examined, was told i didn’t have any concussion symptoms, downside they tend to be a bit bulkier - not to be the best fashion statement , and they are single incident only. one high tech helmet is a coller that has sensors so it can detect a ‘bad’ collision and inflate the collar to surround the head  - could be entertaining seeing two props collide then suddenly their heads disappear  )

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, N2022 said:

Just to clarify, do you mean 'it will' as in 'NRL will follow' or as in 'it will drive a wedge through international game'? I'm no expert, just an occasional viewer, so interested to know.

Hi N2022, I think it will do the latter of your queries the Southern Hemisphere will simply not follow these rulings and why should they.

So what will happen, the choice the RFL has are either they will have to maintain their stance to the International Board and say "these are the rules we now play by" and forego any further International games from the start of '25,  OR forget the rules the tackling rules they are introducing and abide by the International rules on tackling for such fixtures, which they could not possibly do without making themselves the laughing stock of the sporting world.

Simply put the rules as they stand does not allow any tackling above the shoulder and misdemeanors are penalised, it is effectively being lowered 4" or so eliminating shoulder or shirt collar grabs.

[sheddingswasus]

Having just watched the Oldham v Halifax game, I don’t have a problem with the new ruling. There were some real hard shots from both teams but in the main they were tackling  around the body. There were a few early penalties but overall the players respected the new rule. There was just one HIA late in the game and this was after the player seemed to bang his head on the ground. We do r need head shots we just want to enjoy fast hard RL

[Dunbar]

Were the Challenge Cup games at the weekend officially played under these new laws?

It was community clubs at this stage of the competition but not a community club competition as such.

Edited January 29 by Dunbar

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

We're the Challenge Cup games at the weekend officially played under these new laws?

It was community clubs at this stage of the competition but not a community club competition as such.

Not sure regarding the Community Game in the CC but for there is an amnesty which is being applied in the Pro game .  My guess is it is being applied.
“The Match Review Panel has charged six players following incidents in last weekend’s pre-season fixtures – but only one of them has been suspended, as a result of the amnesty on offences for which punishment has changed in 2024 under the new Head Contact Sentencing Framework.  ”

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/HEAD CONTACT SANCTIONING FRAMEWORK.pdf

[Damien]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Were the Challenge Cup games at the weekend officially played under these new laws?

It was community clubs at this stage of the competition but not a community club competition as such.

They are bound to have been, you can't have competitions changing mid way when professional teams enter. 

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

They are bound to have been, you can't have competitions changing mid way when professional teams enter. 

So you mean they are bound to have not been as the professional game isn't adopting the new laws until 2025.

[Damien]

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So you mean they are bound to have not been as the professional game isn't adopting the new laws until 2025.

Sorry misread your post. Take what I said in reverse (although as Lowdesert pointed out they do seem to have been applied which to me seems odd)

[Lowdesert]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

Sorry misread your post. Take what I said in reverse (although as Lowdesert pointed out they do seem to have been applied which to me seems odd)

The new rules were adopted week before last weekend for Donny v Hull FC.

PTBs and head highs.  Tindall scored scored for Hull and the Donny 2nd row clipped his face as he was putting the ball down.  In slo mo it wasn’t a dirty play but he got sent off anyway and a penalty was awarded on top of the try.

 

[Damien]

Stevie Ward launches legal proceedings against Leeds:

Stevie Ward is suing Leeds Rhinos. Rugby League Live understands Ward, a former captain of the club, has initiated a High Court claim against the club for damages over head injuries that he suffered during his career. 

The claim, which is thought to be in excess of £200,000, relates to the sequence of events that saw him retire from the game in 2020, when he was just 27 years old. The claim has been made against Leeds Cricket Football and Athletic Company. Court papers state the he suffered concussions in two separate matches within a fortnight, with the second of those matches proving to be the last time he ever took to the field. 

It's claimed that Ward suffered a concussion in a pre-season friendly against Wigan Warriors on January 19th before suffering another concussion in the club's round one Super League match against Hull FC on February 2nd. The club has been accused of breach of duty and negligence in the management and handling of his return to play.

The Rhinos, who decided not to comment, are counterclaiming against doctor Marwan Al-Dawood and Synergy Ltd. Rugby League Live has also reached out to the solicitor representing Ward.

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/stevie-ward-leeds-rhinos-injury-28530072

Edited January 29 by Damien

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

Stevie Ward launches legal proceedings against Leeds:

Stevie Ward is suing Leeds Rhinos. Rugby League Live understands Ward, a former captain of the club, has initiated a High Court claim against the club for damages over head injuries that he suffered during his career. 

The claim, which is thought to be in excess of £200,000, relates to the sequence of events that saw him retire from the game in 2020, when he was just 27 years old. The claim has been made against Leeds Cricket Football and Athletic Company. Court papers state the he suffered concussions in two separate matches within a fortnight, with the second of those matches proving to be the last time he ever took to the field. 

It's claimed that Ward suffered a concussion in a pre-season friendly against Wigan Warriors on January 19th before suffering another concussion in the club's round one Super League match against Hull FC on February 2nd. The club has been accused of breach of duty and negligence in the management and handling of his return to play.

The Rhinos, who decided not to comment, are counterclaiming against doctor Marwan Al-Dawood and Synergy Ltd. Rugby League Live has also reached out to the solicitor representing Ward.

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/stevie-ward-leeds-rhinos-injury-28530072

Leeds counterclaiming against Marwan Al-Dawood and Synergy Ltd.

Marwan Al-Dawood provided medical services to Leeds in at least 2020.

This could get messy.

Edited January 29 by Dunbar

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Leeds counterclaiming against Marwan Al-Dawood and Synergy Ltd.

Marwan Al-Dawood provided medical services to Leeds in at least 2020.

This could get messy.

This was always the type of situation where I thought players had more of a case against individual clubs, as opposed to the general suing of RL by players claiming that RL may have caused issues in later life (and not something else) and that they didnt know the dangers.

These situations are much easier to pinpoint and its much easier to prove if duty of care and best practices were not followed.

Edited January 29 by Damien

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

This was always the type of situation where I thought players had more of a case against individual clubs, as opposed to the more general suing of RL because players didnt know it was dangerous and claiming that RL may have caused issues in later life (and not something else).

These situations are much easier to pinpoint and its much easier to prove if duty of care and best practices were not followed.

Indeed. But the countersuit is an interesting development.

Without getting into the specifics of this case, a club's defence could be that they contracted medical professionals to provide advice and develop/implement policy on these matters and so it is these advisers at fault.

But surely this would deter any medical organisation from engaging with club's at risk of being found liable in a case like this around player welfare. 

[Damien]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Indeed. But the countersuit is an interesting development.

Without getting into the specifics of this case, a club's defence could be that they contracted medical professionals to provide advice and develop/implement policy on these matters and so it is these advisers at fault.

But surely this would deter any medical organisation from engaging with club's at risk of being found liable in a case like this around player welfare. 

I think it would also be extremely naive to think said medical people aren't under pressure from clubs to get people back on the field too.

As you said previously it could all get very messy.

[The Blues Ox]

10 hours ago, sheddingswasus said:

Having just watched the Oldham v Halifax game, I don’t have a problem with the new ruling. There were some real hard shots from both teams but in the main they were tackling  around the body. There were a few early penalties but overall the players respected the new rule. There was just one HIA late in the game and this was after the player seemed to bang his head on the ground. We do r need head shots we just want to enjoy fast hard RL

Im confused, the "pro" game is still been played under the old rules until next season as far as I am aware.

 

Just on Stevie Ward, I wonder if we will get a different response from current players or if we will see the usual suspects coming out and calling him soft? Also can't wait for Mazey's take on this.

[del capo]

5 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Im confused, the "pro" game is still been played under the old rules until next season as far as I am aware.

 

Just on Stevie Ward, I wonder if we will get a different response from current players or if we will see the usual suspects coming out and calling him soft? Also can't wait for Mazey's take on this.

The CC is  indeed played under Pro rules. It is a pro competition. All competing clubs including community ones know that.

The tackle height adjustments apply only to the community game  ( Tiers 4 -6) for 2024.  They will be introduced at pro level in 2025.

[Barley Mow]

7 hours ago, del capo said:

The CC is  indeed played under Pro rules. It is a pro competition. All competing clubs including community ones know that.

The tackle height adjustments apply only to the community game  ( Tiers 4 -6) for 2024.  They will be introduced at pro level in 2025.

There must be some community rugby rules used in earlier rounds.

This weekend watching the broadcast matches I noticed teams opting to advance 10m rather than kicking for touch from penalties. That's something that can only happen in the community game.

[del capo]

3 hours ago, Barley Mow said:

There must be some community rugby rules used in earlier rounds.

This weekend watching the broadcast matches I noticed teams opting to advance 10m rather than kicking for touch from penalties. That's something that can only happen in the community game.

Ha you've spotted one of our historical legacies - just like that tree in cricket that if you hit you get a boundary!

A lot of our community pitches adjoin canals - St Pats and Leigh Miners have the Leeds - Liverpool , Saddleworth the Huddersfield etc , some like Underbank have to cope with a cliff whilst others like Kells have the sea. More than a few have hostile neighbours unhappy to be invaded three or four times an hour to retrieve the ball.

For years the Community game has adopted that ' local 'rule whereby if appropriate and by agreement of both sides and the ref a tap replaced the kick to touch and subsequent delay.

I'm certain that its  not in the CC rules but a pragmatic solution to spending half an hour otherwise fishing the match ball out of the water, getting it back from the other side of a railway line or even these days the central reservation of a major road !

I suspect Barley Mow you were watching the Miners /Stanningley game - the canal is right behind the dug outs there...

[Damien]

Rather than start a new thread I'd thought I'd put this here as it is to do with the wider topic of concussion that has already been discussed.

There will be mandatory mouthguards for SL players this season. These include a chip that records how much movement the brain goes through in collisions and throughout a game, to learn more about concussion:

When the season starts you might initially think every player in the competition has been treated to a new pair of teeth - hey, IMG are trying to make players more marketable after all. But the likelihood is that you'll be mistaking a new set of pearlers for "revolutionary" mouthguards that are compulsory for players to wear this season as the sport continues in its efforts to learn more about the impact rugby league has on brain health.

The mouthguards are fitted with a chip that can record how much movement the brain goes through in collisions and throughout a game.

Players who don't wear them will be unable to return to the field if they require a head injury assessment - even if they are cleared of having a concussion. There are some exemptions, such as for players wearing braces, but the sport is keen to make the mouthguards mandatory to help them collect as much data as possible, which will then help them make decisions relating to the sport in the future.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/super-league-mouthguards-brain-health-28479000

Edited February 13 by Damien

[The Blues Ox]

Another strange decision by the RFL especially not allowing players who don't wear the mouthguards back on to the pitch if they need a HIA. That has to fall around a restriction of trade or discrimination line hasn't it?