Tackle height law change confirmed

[Griff]

11 minutes ago, EggFace said:

 it's a contact sport and if you think there is going to be any chance in players concussed then you be fool.....Got the Sale Sharks v stade Francais on at around 2.38 Sale's Nic Scgonert goes for a text book leg tackle and gets injured o te head/neck and has to go off.

Sign your petition, then. 

Be happy.

[EggFace]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

Sign your petition, then. 

Be happy.

I want us all to be happy just need better preparation and discussion with players and clubs before becoming the law.

[Tommygilf]

This feels like looking to do something rather than doing something worthwhile.

Playing RL (any contact sport) is dangerous and will increase your risk of developing certain conditions. There is no way of getting away from that - these measures aren't far enough to do anything other than make it look like the RFL are doing something.

The logical conclusion of this is to not take the risk in the first place, anything else is merely shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic for such a perspective.

RU has had these rules (or similar) for some years, they are still facing legal threats and concerns over long term impacts of head injuries.

To me, either accept it is dangerous and play, or don't accept that level of danger can't be removed and don't.  

[The Masked Poster]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Because I'm fine with the new rules and transition.

How can you realistically say that until you have seen what affect it has on the game? Maybe you will really love it, maybe you won’t. But at this stage, nobody knows what the effect on the game as a spectacle will be. Agreeing with the proposal is one thing, the reality might be quite different. 

[Tommygilf]

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.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

a petition is up and running re: the changes. If anyone feels strongly they should sign up!

https://chng.it/dJk286bTzs
 

That petition is nothing to do with what we are discussing though, it is to get the RFL to reverse the decision to eliminate contact for under six & under seven from 2024.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

So do you wish you’d never done any of it and instead sat at home with less risk? Remove the memories and remove the risk?

I wish I'd listened to the experts. It turns out that better cycling technique would have reduced the impact on my now damaged shoulders. Carrying too much weight on my back exacerbating hip damage. If only I'd listened to advice, I would be in better condition now and wouldn't have Egg on my Face.

And so the know-it-alls on here should listen to the experts, too.

Edited December 10, 2023 by JohnM

[Odsal Outlaw]

6 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I wish I'd listened to the experts. It turns out that better cycling technique would have reduced the impact on my now damaged shoulders. Carrying too much weight on my back exacerbating hip damage. If only I'd listened to advice, I would be in better condition now and wouldn't have Egg on my Face.

And so the know-it-alls on here should listen to the experts, too.

But what if the experts had only allowed you to walk half way up the mountain? Anyway, we can agree ti disagree on this

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I wish I'd listened to the experts. It turns out that better cycling technique would have reduced the impact on my now damaged shoulders. Carrying too much weight on my back exacerbating hip damage. If only I'd listened to advice, I would be in better condition now and wouldn't have Egg on my Face.

And so the know-it-alls on here should listen to the experts, too.

If I, or any other person who had stepped onto a rugby pitch, had listened to the experts we would have walked straight back off.

That is the core issue here.

[bobbruce]

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”. 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes 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”. 

Personally, as I laid out above, I think they are changes that are about "looking like doing something" than actually doing something.

[bobbruce]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Personally, as I laid out above, I think they are changes that are about "looking like doing something" than actually doing something.

They are changes to allow the game to keep going into the future. The RFL can’t stop accidental head clashes and they will be seen as part of the game that players accept by stepping onto the pitch. The same way boxing isn’t having the same issues as either code of rugby because boxers know when they step into a ring they will be punched in the head. These new rules are simply to prove the RFL are doing all they can to stop players being hit illegally. 

[Damien]

21 minutes 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 have no issue with that. That simply isn't the case though is it, based on the video and the examples of the illegal tackles that were given?

[bobbruce]

Just now, Damien said:

I have no issue with that. That simply isn't the case though is it, based on the video and the examples of the illegal tackles that were given?

Surely we aren’t surprised if the RFL does things a bit rubbish. 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

They are changes to allow the game to keep going into the future. The RFL can’t stop accidental head clashes and they will be seen as part of the game that players accept by stepping onto the pitch. The same way boxing isn’t having the same issues as either code of rugby because boxers know when they step into a ring they will be punched in the head. These new rules are simply to prove the RFL are doing all they can to stop players being hit illegally. 

I totally see that, I just don't think it will have that effect.

[The Blues Ox]

34 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I wish I'd listened to the experts. It turns out that better cycling technique would have reduced the impact on my now damaged shoulders. Carrying too much weight on my back exacerbating hip damage. If only I'd listened to advice, I would be in better condition now and wouldn't have Egg on my Face.

And so the know-it-alls on here should listen to the experts, too.

The experts say that there is around about a 3 times more chance of getting concussion as a defender rather than an attacker. I believe this will increase with the new laws.

22 minutes 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”. 

Personally I think we will see an increase in concussions and back injuries which is why I am against it and looking at it from a player welfare perspective.  From a coaching perspective I think it offers a bit of intrigue to see how teams adapt to it, I'm think of how quick you should now be able to hit the deck winning the tackle and get a quick play the ball or how defenders will now struggle to wrap the ball up so it gives you more attacking options from offloads.

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

They are changes to allow the game to keep going into the future. The RFL can’t stop accidental head clashes and they will be seen as part of the game that players accept by stepping onto the pitch. The same way boxing isn’t having the same issues as either code of rugby because boxers know when they step into a ring they will be punched in the head. These new rules are simply to prove the RFL are doing all they can to stop players being hit illegally. 

Just to repeat: boxing has had to make multiple changes to how fights are fought, how they are overseen and the level of medical provision required in order to carry on.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, bobbruce said:

Surely we aren’t surprised if the RFL does things a bit rubbish. 

That's the discussion that has been taking place for the last 10 pages isn't it? 

Your assertion of this is simply a case of reducing the tackle height by 4” isn't backed up by the message given by the governing body. It is much more than that.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

This feels like looking to do something rather than doing something worthwhile.

Playing RL (any contact sport) is dangerous and will increase your risk of developing certain conditions. There is no way of getting away from that - these measures aren't far enough to do anything other than make it look like the RFL are doing something.

The logical conclusion of this is to not take the risk in the first place, anything else is merely shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic for such a perspective.

RU has had these rules (or similar) for some years, they are still facing legal threats and concerns over long term impacts of head injuries.

To me, either accept it is dangerous and play, or don't accept that level of danger can't be removed and don't.  

I was trying to work out what is the risk %'ages of taking part in this sport, personally being involved in this game for 60 years I only know of one person who had later life problems from head injuries, add to that the thousands from all over the world I have either seen or read about and the numbers of reported lawsuits that I have heard of then the risk factor of playing is extremely minimal.

Obviously I feel very sorry for anyone who suffers from these conditions but as you state in your last paragraph the choice is nobody's but your own if you want to play the game or not, some do it for reward others just for the sheer enjoyment.

Like most things in life in the modern world there are disclaimers to agree with before you can participate in some things, this should be drawn up in RL pulling no punches of the possible consequences and the risk %'ages of taking part, sign up or don't play, nothing can be simpler.

 

[bobbruce]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's the discussion that has been taking place for the last 10 pages isn't it? 

Your assertion of this is simply a case of reducing the tackle height by 4” isn't backed up by the message given by the governing body. It is much more than that.

How is it more than that. 

[Damien]

Just now, bobbruce said:

How is it more than that. 

Have you actually watched the video? From your posts it doesn't sound like it.

[bobbruce]

Just now, Damien said:

Have you actually watched the video? From your posts it doesn't sound like it.

Yes and it just looks like they are including the defenders head as part of the tackle. Which I think is fair enough it’s good technique for defenders to get their head out of the way anyway. 

[EggFace]

23 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

They are changes to allow the game to keep going into the future. The RFL can’t stop accidental head clashes and they will be seen as part of the game that players accept by stepping onto the pitch. The same way boxing isn’t having the same issues as either code of rugby because boxers know when they step into a ring they will be punched in the head. These new rules are simply to prove the RFL are doing all they can to stop players being hit illegally. 

But the so called illegal tackles looked legal and no Shaun Edward type swinging foreare to the head.

I just waatched Sale v Stade and some of the tackles were armpit but under Leeds Beckett view would of been illegal but thankfully the ref let the game flow.

Can't believe I'm defending Union at this moment in time.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, bobbruce said:

Yes and it just looks like they are including the defenders head as part of the tackle. Which I think is fair enough it’s good technique for defenders to get their head out of the way anyway. 

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?

[StandOffHalf]

I'm not necessarily against a lower tackle situation, but the examples used to differentiate in that RFL video with JJB are a muddled joke.