Tackle height law change confirmed

[DavidM]

And yet we still let fullbacks and wingers jump for high balls with their leg out and studs up and that’s not a player safety issue . Someone like Lomax who has his eye on the ball trying to compete every time may have a different opinion . Yet we focus relentlessly on some things . The NRL also has a tendency to bring in edicts and clampdowns throughout a season , sometimes when the media pick something up . Right  or wrong that must be  confusing . Everything should be set before a ball is kicked in game one 

[Click]

I think the NRL has decided to have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to chasers touching the kicking leg when putting the pressure on. It seemed to start at the same time they gave a penalty in the last minute to NZ Warriors (or the team playing them, I can't recall) for them to level the match before Golden Point a few weeks ago.

[Farmduck]

2 hours ago, Click said:

I think the NRL has decided to have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to chasers touching the kicking leg when putting the pressure on. It seemed to start at the same time they gave a penalty in the last minute to NZ Warriors (or the team playing them, I can't recall) for them to level the match before Golden Point a few weeks ago.

The current hard line started with an incident in NSW Cup where Lachlan Ilias ended up with a broken leg after the tackler made contact with his kicking leg. It was about 5 weeks ago.

[Harry Stottle]

19 hours ago, DavidM said:

And yet we still let fullbacks and wingers jump for high balls with their leg out and studs up and that’s not a player safety issue .

I am of the impression that the raised leg when receiving the ball is more of self preservation than going to hurt an opponent.

[DavidM]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I am of the impression that the raised leg when receiving the ball is more of self preservation than going to hurt an opponent.

Yes , but a straight leg threw  out with the studs showing is also potentially  dangerous with chasers coming threw at speed . 

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Yes , but a straight leg threw  out with the studs showing is also potentially  dangerous with chasers coming threw at speed . 

Aye, but a tackler may just think twice when an opponent 'jumps' as you put it if he knows he is putting himself at risk, it seems the 'tackle in the air' penalty is not really a deterrent to a lot of chasers.

Edited May 13, 2024 by Harry Stottle

[Click]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Aye, but a tackler may just think twice when an opponent 'jumps' as you put it if he knows he is putting himself at risk, it seems the 'tackle in the air' penalty is not really a deterrent to a lot of chasers.

I don't think we get many catchers tackled in the air do we? 

I think Connor loves to do it when he jumps for a bomb, he'll deliberately stick his leg up to make sure chasers don't get too close or they'll hit his studs. It's dangerous.

[Harry Stottle]

4 minutes ago, Click said:

I don't think we get many catchers tackled in the air do we? 

Mmm? Oh I don't know about that, I suppose it is down to how good the kick is.

[Click]

19 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Mmm? Oh I don't know about that, I suppose it is down to how good the kick is.

I am not sure how the quality of the kick impacts if a catcher is tackled in the air. 

[Harry Stottle]

52 minutes ago, Click said:

I am not sure how the quality of the kick impacts if a catcher is tackled in the air. 

Timing Click, Timing and the height and depth of a kick, if the chaser is in the vicinity when the ball is coming down and defender receiving it that's when the tackle can be executed perfectly as the catchers foot touches the floor, or the chaser mistimes and takes the catcher in the air.

In any event the catcher is very brave he doesn't know if he us going to get 'clattered' or not, so put up your foot as a deterrent.

[Click]

22 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Timing Click, Timing and the height and depth of a kick, if the chaser is in the vicinity when the ball is coming down and defender receiving it that's when the tackle can be executed perfectly as the catchers foot touches the floor, or the chaser mistimes and takes the catcher in the air.

In any event the catcher is very brave he doesn't know if he us going to get 'clattered' or not, so put up your foot as a deterrent.

Or the timing of the kick makes it easier for the attacker to also challenge for the high ball to attempt to catch it. Rather than just tackling them as they fall down/catch it.

I would say playing RL in any position is very brave, putting your foot up as a deterrent is dangerous. 

[Harry Stottle]

58 minutes ago, Click said:

Or the timing of the kick makes it easier for the attacker to also challenge for the high ball to attempt to catch it. Rather than just tackling them as they fall down/catch it.

I would say playing RL in any position is very brave, putting your foot up as a deterrent is dangerous. 

Yes off course, and that is still the quality of a the kick.

Secondly, it is the self preservation society, if putting the foot up stops you getting a big hit carry on, what other form of defence does a catcher have none that I can think off.

[Click]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes off course, and that is still the quality of a the kick.

Secondly, it is the self preservation society, if putting the foot up stops you getting a big hit carry on, what other form of defence does a catcher have none that I can think off.

Why does a catcher need a form of defense? We've existed as a sport for how many years, but putting a foot up has only started becoming more and more common in the last 3/4 years. 

If a catcher gets hit while they're in the air, it's a penalty. If they stop someone contesting the ball by sticking their boot out in the air, then it is very dangerous.

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Click said:

Why does a catcher need a form of defense? We've existed as a sport for how many years, but putting a foot up has only started becoming more and more common in the last 3/4 years. 

If a catcher gets hit while they're in the air, it's a penalty. If they stop someone contesting the ball by sticking their boot out in the air, then it is very dangerous.

Its not really a recent thing Watch a few games in the 80s/90s and full backs regularly put their knees/legs up to make defenders to protect themselves.  They shouldn't have to do it - however if defenders could be trusted not to tackle them in the air consistently they wouldn't do it

[Click]

37 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Its not really a recent thing Watch a few games in the 80s/90s and full backs regularly put their knees/legs up to make defenders to protect themselves.  They shouldn't have to do it - however if defenders could be trusted not to tackle them in the air consistently they wouldn't do it

Yea, my memory of those years isn't great when I was born in 92'

I only remember the occasional leg being stuck out in the early 2000s, it definitely wasn't the way it is now with Connor doing it every time he jumps for a high ball.

I guess referees need to protect the catchers more. 

[Coggo]

Rugby league's armpit tackle laws set for delay after huge reduction in head contacts

[WN83]

Pleasing news. I think supporters can just about live with how this season has gone so far, after some early teething problems but the armpit rules seemed a bridge too far.

[Coggo]

1 hour ago, WN83 said:

Pleasing news. I think supporters can just about live with how this season has gone so far, after some early teething problems but the armpit rules seemed a bridge too far.

100%. 

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Coggo said:

Rugby league's armpit tackle laws set for delay after huge reduction in head contacts

The good thing for anyone watching the community game on a regular basis is that the new rules that were brought in have not really been applied by refs who look to have taken a common sense approach. So although once again we have two different sections of the game playing under different rules it has hardly been noticable. It would be interesting to see a comparison of concussions in the community game compared to previous seasons.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

The good thing for anyone watching the community game on a regular basis is that the new rules that were brought in have not really been applied by refs who look to have taken a common sense approach. So although once again we have two different sections of the game playing under different rules it has hardly been noticable. It would be interesting to see a comparison of concussions in the community game compared to previous seasons.

Aye, but as I said Oxy the refs in the community game are not under anywhere near the scrutiny as refs are in televised matches, having every move and decision they make analysed.

If the authorities do change their intended rules re 'armpit and below' tackles, it will not be because of what they have learned from the community game, it will in my opinion be because they realise how wrong they were in the first place, think about the start of this season and multiply the complaints by a factor of 10 at least, if it is to go ahead as originally intended.

Anyway it will cost me the price of a season ticket, I vowed if the 'armpit'rule came in for the first time in a long long time, I wouldn't buy one.

Edited July 25, 2024 by Harry Stottle

[LeeF]

The main reason for the no change next season being the success of the changes introduced this season. So this year’s “pain” has been worthwhile and (un)surprisingly players have adapted 

[The Blues Ox]

17 hours ago, LeeF said:

The main reason for the no change next season being the success of the changes introduced this season. So this year’s “pain” has been worthwhile and (un)surprisingly players have adapted 

Or could it be that there has been more scrutiny as to how concussions have actually happened this year? I know there was a lot of talk before this around that its very rare that a concussion comes from a high tackle so could it be a case that they have now monitored them differently with the help of these new mouthguards to pin point the actions that actually causing the concussions. It must certainly help the case with the insurers if they can go to them and say only approx 5% or less of concussions are coming from illegal play from competitiors.

Another worry over this decision is that its based on 6-7 months of data and the reality is that it could simply be variance.

[LeeF]

3 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Or could it be that there has been more scrutiny as to how concussions have actually happened this year? I know there was a lot of talk before this around that its very rare that a concussion comes from a high tackle so could it be a case that they have now monitored them differently with the help of these new mouthguards to pin point the actions that actually causing the concussions. It must certainly help the case with the insurers if they can go to them and say only approx 5% or less of concussions are coming from illegal play from competitiors.

Another worry over this decision is that its based on 6-7 months of data and the reality is that it could simply be variance.

The biggest influence seems to be the 75% reduction in head contact which is a massive drop. Even a variance would still leave a big reduction 
 

Yes the mouthguards will have assisted in any decision being more informed but the clampdown has paid dividends

[JT RL]

On 08/12/2023 at 22:31, RL Tragic said:

Genuine question . 

1: how am I meant to stop someone offloading. 
 

 

Is that a good or bad thing ?

 More offloads > open game ?

Players passing rather than protecting their head ?