Tackle height law change confirmed

[gingerjon]

15 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

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?

Care to explain how?

[bobbruce]

18 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

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?

Surely this is no different from football insisting all players wear shin pads. 

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Care to explain how?

Because if they have to go off for a HIA then a qualified doctor will rule if they are passed fit to return to the field or not. If they are passed fit there is no reason they should be forbidden from returning to the field. I think we will see a lot of players still playing without mouthguards despite this new ruling.

[Dunbar]

24 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Because if they have to go off for a HIA then a qualified doctor will rule if they are passed fit to return to the field or not. If they are passed fit there is no reason they should be forbidden from returning to the field. I think we will see a lot of players still playing without mouthguards despite this new ruling.

Here is the extract from the Rugby League Operational Rules for 2024 (I typed it out verbatum - it is not my bad English)

The mandating of Instrumented Mouth Guards is part of player professional contracts and will be enforced in 2024 in Super League Men’s and Women’s competitions in 2024.

Medical exemptions will be considered through an application process.  All those individuals with exemptions will be advised the Match Commissioners or equivalents in advance.  A player without an Instrumental Mouth Guard used in the study will not be permitted a HIA within the match and must not return to the field following removal.  They may undertake a HIA postmatch.

So, this means two things in relation to this discussion.

1.  The mandatory use of the mouthguards are in the players contracts (with exceptions) so if the players sign the contract, then they are abiding by the regulations in place and so would have to adhere to the stated rule.

2.  The players not wearing the mouthguards are not permitted a HIA during the match and so won't be cleared to resume anyway (this is a slight contradiction to the pervious quote that says they would not be able to return even if they do pass a HIA).  They can still take a HIA post match to clear them for the next fixture.

https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/2024-operational-rules-tiers-1-3/index.html#p=470

[dkw]

So from that statement we can take that the data from these mouthguards will form part of the HIA, so if it's a part of the protocol then it's needed used in the entire match. 

[The Blues Ox]

Regards contracts that makes it sound like it may only be enforced for players who are signing new contracts, Im not sure they could force someone already under contract to sign an ammended contract if they did not wish to. Again its all a bit wishy washy.

[Damien]

5 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Surely this is no different from football insisting all players wear shin pads. 

Great point.

[Dunbar]

I am 5 minutes into watching the first game of the Southern Conference season (Wests Warriors vs. London Chargers).

I can report the game looks no different to last year and about a dozen tackles which look like the one's described as now outlawed in the video at the start of this thread have been let go.

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I am 5 minutes into watching the first game of the Southern Conference season (Wests Warriors vs. London Chargers).

I can report the game looks no different to last year and about a dozen tackles which look like the one's described as now outlawed in the video at the start of this thread have been let go.

You want to watch NW games that have been going on for a bit. Loads of penalties in my experience- maybe you’re more disciplined down south

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

You want to watch NW games that have been going on for a bit. Loads of penalties in my experience- maybe you’re more disciplined down south

2 penalties for high shots in the first half. But they were the shots that would have been penalised last year.  No penalties for the upright tackles we saw in the video from the RFL... as I say, the game looks exactly the same as last year.

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

2 penalties for high shots in the first half. But they were the shots that would have been penalised last year.  No penalties for the upright tackles we saw in the video from the RFL... as I say, the game looks exactly the same as last year.

Yeah. I haven't noticed a massive difference from 2023. We were told that having a defenders head at the same level as the attacker would get pinged - but it hasn't happened in any of the SCL or LJL games I've been at. Strange.

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yeah. I haven't noticed a massive difference from 2023. We were told that having a defenders head at the same level as the attacker would get pinged - but it hasn't happened in any of the SCL or LJL games I've been at. Strange.

Same here.  I'm OK with it as a spectacle but it does put into question the RFL's ability to impose these strict new guidelines if they are essentially ignored from the outset.

Edited April 20 by Dunbar

[Archie Gordon]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Same here.  I'm OK with it as a spectacle but it does put into question the RFL's ability to impose these strict new guidelines of they are essentially ignored from the outset.

The thing is we've trained really hard for the new regs but players quickly revert back to what they know when the refs aren't strict on it.

[The Blues Ox]

Ive seen a lot of amateur games this season and can confirm a lot of the same above. Really not much change but 2 things stand out. Collar grabs are given as penalties everytime which we obviously have not had before and quite often I have seen ref's signal that a tackle was shoulder height which makes no sense as those should now be pinged. I think things will be watched with a lot more scrutiny in the pro game though especially with every game on TV. I still expect the first few weeks to be a mess.

[Harry Stottle]

On 20/04/2024 at 14:37, Dunbar said:

I am 5 minutes into watching the first game of the Southern Conference season (Wests Warriors vs. London Chargers).

I can report the game looks no different to last year and about a dozen tackles which look like the one's described as now outlawed in the video at the start of this thread have been let go.

Yeah, following on from our discussion the other day as I said even with these changes it doesn't look much different from previously in that the laws are not 'pedantically' enforced, so the experiment of playing it out in the community game is not really working.

But, I don't think this will be the case with the pro game and even moreso with televised games, the refs will have to follow the letter of the law or suffer the wrath of the commentary, reporters, opposing coaches, jeering crowds etc etc.

 

Edited April 22 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

18 hours ago, Spidey said:

You want to watch NW games that have been going on for a bit. Loads of penalties in my experience- maybe you’re more disciplined down south

Really, I am not disagreeing with you Spidey but that is not in my expierience, is it the NW Mens League you are watching, I am watching the games in both the National Conference 1st and 3rd divisions not as that should have anything to do with it just curious.

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

. I still expect the first few weeks to be a mess

I have made up my mind that I will not for the first time in many many years purchase a season ticket next season, I will go but if it results in a 'penalty fest' I can choose whether to carry on going and not lose out.

Going further forward, there is a scheduled test series next season with Aus, not in a million years do I expect the NRL will follow suit with the RFL, nor do I expect the International Laws will be altered to accomdate these rules, what do you think will happen?

[Blind side johnny]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I have made up my mind that I will not for the first time in many many years purchase a season ticket next season, I will go but if it results in a 'penalty fest' I can choose whether to carry on going and not lose out.

Going further forward, there is a scheduled test series next season with Aus, not in a million years do I expect the NRL will follow suit with the RFL, nor do I expect the International Laws will be altered to accomdate these rules, what do you think will happen?

We will lose the series, if it actually goes ahead.

[Archie Gordon]

I've taken in a bit more SCL and LJL games now and it just looks like 2023 to me. I think this is too important to quietly give up on. What's happening up North?

[Futtocks]

 

[The Blues Ox]

Thats an interesting stat but I find it hard to believe the stat that 13% of tackles were head/neck area for the 5 years prior to this season. Its also interesting that it has been reduced so vastly without any actual change to the rules regarding tackle height more just an increase in punishments. I think we will find that number creep back up though as we are now seeing a lot more leniency as we get further in to the season.

Also that near 10% reduction has shown no drop in actual concussions but I think a lot of people imagined that would be the case anyway so that really is no surprise.

Edited Thursday at 07:10 by The Blues Ox

[Dunbar]

8 hours ago, Futtocks said:

 

This represents something of a problem for the RFL.

They are seeing a reduction in head contact in tackles this year (something they need to show as they are in the middle of a law suit around protective care).  That's the good news.  

But they are also committed to introducing laws next year that will drastically change the game while not enforcing those laws at the community level this year.

[Archie Gordon]

That's the second Bower piece in a week where he hasn't really grasped the nuance around a set of numbers. Better journalism needed.