Tackle height law change confirmed

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yep that is why 25 is far to old as defining the age of responsibility as Foxy suggests being in line with 'scentific' findings, the judicial laws of the country are the correct age ranges for me.

The judicial laws change though don't they? And they aren't consistent across the board for every aspect, even in the same country. 

From what I understand he is suggesting that a whole range of subjects could change and consent to play sports will be just one facet of that.

[Harry Stottle]

11 minutes ago, Roy Haggerty said:

Good post. Obviously we’ve still got next season in the pro game before these changes. That gives a whole year to see what the impact is on amateur games. 

Doubt there will be many on here who will witness it first hand Roy.

[JohnM]

The probelm is, these guys know nothing about the game.  Where did  they consult the TRL forum, for example? and remember, in the video, JJB says "INITIAL contact must be below armpit level."

Since 2021, the RFL have been working with Leeds Beckett University on the TaCKLE Project (Tackle and Contact Kinematics, Loads and Exposure), led by Ben Jones, a Professor at LBU who is the RFL’s Strategic Lead for Performance and Research. 

The use of Instrumented Mouthguards since 2021 has allowed detailed studies of head acceleration exposures, which permitted a number of research projects and Laws Trials, leading to the latest recommendations. These studies have been used alongside injury surveillance studies, which have been ongoing for the last 10 years. 

The recommendation include mandated use of the latest models of Instrumented Mouthguards for players in Men's and Women's Super League through Rugby League's partnership with Prevent Biometrics.

Other recommendations which will apply in professional Rugby League from 2024 include a mandated minimum off-season of four weeks, followed by an additional minimum two-week pre-season period without contact training, to reduce cumulative player load.  

In addition, match limits over a 12-month period will be introduced, with different figures for forwards and backs to reflect their differing levels of contact exposure based on the last three years of research by Leeds Beckett University. 

Independent concussion spotters will be introduced on a trial basis in 2024, following on from the success during last year’s Rugby League World Cup.  Recent changes to on-field and off-field sanctions relating to head contact, and to the use of 18th player interchanges following Head Injury Assessments (HIAs), have been updated. This will include the introduction of the Head Contact Sanctioning Framework. 

Changes to Laws, Operational Rules and Medical Standards, and Coaching Interventions, following recommendations of Brain Health Sub-Committee to RFL Board

New for 2024 (rugby-league.com)

Edited December 9, 2023 by JohnM

[Ragingbull]

I was unlucky enough to watch 3 academy games last year played under these new rulings and the games were an absolute farce. 

Sad to say after being a season ticket holder for 33 years this will be my last. 

I wont be forking out thousands of pounds a year to watch a sport that no longers resembles the game i fell in love with as a child. 

I hope 2023 is a great season to sign off with

RIP Rugby League

 

Ps. Congrats to Nick Fozzard et al. for killing the sport.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Pie tries said:

In many ways they are not…

List them.

[The Future is League]

On 08/12/2023 at 18:19, Leyther_Matt said:

Amazed I’ve got the dubious privilege of sharing this. Can only assume I’m the first one to pick themselves up off the floor. Couldn’t have picked three worse examples of ‘illegal’ tackles if they tried.

Given the farcical nature of the academy trials last year, I’d love to know how bad it would have needed to be to be considered a failure! 

 

I know I'm in the minority with my view on this, " But why cant it be brought in at all levels for the game from the 2024 season?"

[The Blues Ox]

19 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This is the critical factor for me.  I know that pro and amateur are a little different but the major studies we have are really only available for the professional game.

This study showed the risk of concussion for the tackler and tackles player and the type of tackle.

https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-021-00377-9

Results: “The propensity for tacklers to sustain a head injury was 0.99 HIAs per 1000 tackles, 1.74-fold greater than for the ball carrier (0.57 HIAs per 1000 tackles). There was a 3.2-fold higher risk for an HIA when the tackler was upright compared to bent-at-the-waist. The greatest risk of a tackler HIA occurred when head contact was very low (knee, boot) or high (head and elbow). HIAs were most common following head-to-head impacts. The lowest propensity for tackler HIA was found when the tackler’s head was in proximity with the ball carrier’s torso.”

So, what we should see here is the reduction of HIA with upright tacklers (the shared head space resulting in head clashes).  But as we move the tackle down, we introduce the other danger areas of head on head contact between tacklers as we will see more players targeting the same area.

Time will tell on success.

This makes me wonder if the RFL could be opening themselves up once again with this rule change. There is a very clear study that states the defender is more at risk and with these new rules that will be increased and if what a lot of us think is going to happen actually does then where does the RFL go from there?

18 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

You must have played with a different set of lads to me (in the 1980/90s). Did we know you could break a bone, get knocked out, etc.? Of course. Did anyone ever talk about the cumulative effect of head knocks and concussions? Not once. CTE would have meant absolutely nothing to anyone.

CTE probably means nothing to many players even today.

To be clear, I don't think the ex-players bringing a case against the RFL have much of a chance but the idea that they (and we) understood the risks in a well-rounded and quantifiable way is not true because I don't think anyone did.

I always laugh when I see some of the pro's on twitter telling people they knew the risks. Personally I didn't have a clue and used to think it were funny if one of my team mates or opponents was a bit rubber legged after a head knock. I obviously knew there was a chance of injury and suffered a broken leg myself and just one mild concussion but I had no idea that some of my team mates who suffered multiple concussions would pay the price for that later in their lives. The big question in the case is if the RFL knew more about it but did nothing. From case studies that were done on impact injuries I would suggest that they certainly knew more about it than their players.

12 hours ago, RL Tragic said:

Genuine question . 

1: how am I meant to stop someone offloading. 
 

 

I asked this previously as well, I reckon the way most players carry the ball in to impact would have at least half of the ball unavailable for contact. I am also worried from a coaches point of view about how we go about implementing these changes, a lot of our work in training involves 2 players making contact upstairs to control the tackle and trying to get players, some who have played over 10 years or more, to even make this slight adjustment is going to be a nightmare. I am guessing the only support we get at amateur level for this will be that video so the first few games are going to be a mess until both the players and the ref's adjust.

[The Blues Ox]

5 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

I know I'm in the minority with my view on this, " But why cant it be brought in at all levels for the game from the 2024 season?"

The cynic in me says its because the amateur game is really not that important to the RFL and they know what a mess the games are going to be so they give the pro players 12 months to get ready for it.

[The Future is League]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

The cynic in me says its because the amateur game is really not that important to the RFL and they know what a mess the games are going to be so they give the pro players 12 months to get ready for it.

It cant be hard to coach players to tackle below the armpits in pre-season coaching, or can it?

[Archie Gordon]

11 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

It cant be hard to coach players to tackle below the armpits in pre-season coaching, or can it?

Yes.

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

It cant be hard to coach players to tackle below the armpits in pre-season coaching, or can it?

I don't particularly have an issue with the below the armpit rule. I think it's perfectly workable and sensible. I have seen similar applied in Union with the sternum and the main thing is an attempt to bend the back and hitting below the sternum. If something similar was the change but with the armpit then I think it would probably be okay. The armpit is much better and really shouldn't be much lower than what should have been a legal tackle in Rugby League anyway, less than 6 inches.

The main issue I have is with the message and the examples because they are plainly at odds with each other. The illegal examples aren't illegal as per the message in the video. I think they are plainly copying Union with the need to bend the back part in the illegal examples they are showing but not making that part of the message. That is completely wrong and the RFL deserve all the flack they are getting on that.

[Roy Haggerty]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

The probelm is, these guys know nothing about the game.  Where did  they consult the TRL forum, for example? and remember, in the video, JJB says "INITIAL contact must be below armpit level."

Since 2021, the RFL have been working with Leeds Beckett University on the TaCKLE Project (Tackle and Contact Kinematics, Loads and Exposure), led by Ben Jones, a Professor at LBU who is the RFL’s Strategic Lead for Performance and Research. 

The use of Instrumented Mouthguards since 2021 has allowed detailed studies of head acceleration exposures, which permitted a number of research projects and Laws Trials, leading to the latest recommendations. These studies have been used alongside injury surveillance studies, which have been ongoing for the last 10 years. 

The recommendation include mandated use of the latest models of Instrumented Mouthguards for players in Men's and Women's Super League through Rugby League's partnership with Prevent Biometrics.

Other recommendations which will apply in professional Rugby League from 2024 include a mandated minimum off-season of four weeks, followed by an additional minimum two-week pre-season period without contact training, to reduce cumulative player load.  

In addition, match limits over a 12-month period will be introduced, with different figures for forwards and backs to reflect their differing levels of contact exposure based on the last three years of research by Leeds Beckett University. 

Independent concussion spotters will be introduced on a trial basis in 2024, following on from the success during last year’s Rugby League World Cup.  Recent changes to on-field and off-field sanctions relating to head contact, and to the use of 18th player interchanges following Head Injury Assessments (HIAs), have been updated. This will include the introduction of the Head Contact Sanctioning Framework. 

Changes to Laws, Operational Rules and Medical Standards, and Coaching Interventions, following recommendations of Brain Health Sub-Committee to RFL Board

New for 2024 (rugby-league.com)

Possibly talking cross-purposes here. I don't think anyone doubts that the purpose of the changes is to reduce head contact, and nobody is questioning the expertise of those who said if we do this, it will reduce head contacts (on the ball carrier, at least). That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the degree to which we accept mitigations which will reduce head contacts but also change the game significantly.

It's clearly a sliding scale. If we want to reduce all head contact, we issue players with velcro tags and ban contact of any sort. If we don't care about head contact, we make clothes-line tackles legal. What we're doing is deciding where the line is - where to find the balance between what risks we deem unacceptable, and what spectacle we deem unacceptable. An expert in measuring chances of and severity of head contact will absolutely be able to give us chapter and verse on how to minimise those risks. But that is not the same decision as what will make the game functional as a  mass participation/spectator sport.

The reason many people are troubled by the tackle height decision is that it will clearly have a significant impact on the game for both participants and spectators, as we know from the trials last year. The other mitigations such as game time limits and concussion spotters are much less problematic because they reduce a player's exposure to risk by reducing  exposure to the risks inherent in the game. The tackle height issue reduces exposure to risk by reducing the risks inherent in the game. The other factors don't change the game. The tackle height issue does. And that's not a decision which should be offloaded to any experts whose sole concern is minimising risk, but a decision which must take that expertise into account while balancing the need to maintain a ruleset which will encourage sufficient participation and viewing.

It's important not to dig trenches here, and I've seen some daft statements like "if we don't make this change, the game won't exist". That's just patently untrue. There are far more risky activities out there underway from motorsport to hang-gliding and horse-riding, all of which have significantly worse life-changing/ending injury potential than RL. As well as the obvious issues like boxing and other combat sports. For sure, insurance companies may well be bumping up premiums for any policy which covers possible consequences of head injuries - I have no difficulty at all believing that. But insurance for even risky activities can almost always be found if those inflated premiums are paid - that's a choice, not a requirement. And in cases where people cannot get insurance for a particularly risk, they insure for those which they *can* control, and decide - as adults - whether to go ahead with the activity they can't get insurance for. Get skiing insurance and you'll find a whole range of activities and injuries which are covered, as well as some which aren't. You decide whether to sign away your cash based on whether you're willing to risk the possible outcomes which aren't covered. 

As for litigation, then for sure one can argue that if a governing body knows of a risk, but deliberately withholds that risk from people exposed to it, then they're liable. Likewise, even if they don't necessarily consciously know of a risk, but haven't taken reasonable action to prevent catastrophe, then they're also arguably liable. But this isn't a black and white at all. If participants in any activity are provided with the full knowledge of any organisation regarding risks and mitigations, and their undertaking of those risks is entirely voluntary - which is obviously the case in any sport - then it's simply not the case that anyone could successfully sue if a potential consequence of which they were aware came to pass. The law does recognise individual agency!

At some level, this is recognised even with these changes - after all, there are still risks of head contact no matter where the tackle starts, particularly to the tackler. The RFL hasn't issues velcro straps to everyone. Which means that we are already acknowledging that there are risks inherent in the game which we are willing to bear. Which means we already accept the principle that risk exists and that players are choosing to accept those risks. To hear some people talk on this, they make it sound like any risk at all is now impossible due to insurance or litigation - it's clearly not. So given that principle is established, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable for people to question whether this particular change is necessary, and whether this attempted mitigation will change the game to such an extent that it will affect the game unduly negatively as a spectacle and an activity.

 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

The cynic in me says its because the amateur game is really not that important to the RFL and they know what a mess the games are going to be so they give the pro players 12 months to get ready for it.

It's fairly common to test new rules or interpretations in lower grades. The RFL/NRL normal practice of making changes that instantly apply to all games including all top grade senior ones is an outlier.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, Ragingbull said:

I was unlucky enough to watch 3 academy games last year played under these new rulings and the games were an absolute farce. 

Sad to say after being a season ticket holder for 33 years this will be my last. 

I wont be forking out thousands of pounds a year to watch a sport that no longers resembles the game i fell in love with as a child. 

I hope 2023 is a great season to sign off with

RIP Rugby League

 

Ps. Congrats to Nick Fozzard et al. for killing the sport.

I assume they were a farce because players didn't/couldn't adjust their tackling style and there were loads of penalties?

I can't blame the players too much, there will be an awful lot of adjustments to make if we are calling upright tackles a penalty.  Maybe not as much in the community game but at all levels of the pro game players will have had tackling technique drilled into them through many hours of practice.  And for forwards in particular, that is an upright tackle to secure the ball and more defenders lower to manage the player to the ground. 

A lot of reverse engineering of tackling techniques is required.  And in the meantime, many many penalties. 

Maybe hypnosis is the way forward.

[EggFace]

14 hours ago, JohnM said:

Are there as many "punch drunk" boxers now as there used to be. Not "numbers" but "rates" together with sources. In any case, boxing is looking at the issues, too.

BBC News - Boxers at greater risk of early onset dementia, study finds

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59415741

 

my mate works at a Dementia home and most of the patients have never played Rugby League, Boxed or the poor old grannies have never headed a ball.

[JohnM]

7 minutes ago, EggFace said:

my mate works at a Dementia home and most of the patients have never played Rugby League, Boxed or the poor old grannies have never headed a ball.

And your point is what, exactly? 

[EggFace]

6 minutes ago, JohnM said:

And your point is what, exactly? 

I just made it.

[Tommygilf]

36 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's fairly common to test new rules or interpretations in lower grades. The RFL/NRL normal practice of making changes that instantly apply to all games including all top grade senior ones is an outlier.

Quite, sin bins were brought into football in the amateur and lower divisions before they look to be introduced higher up.

This is because the top tiers are important to bring money into the sport, so tests should be made lower down.

[The Blues Ox]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Quite, sin bins were brought into football in the amateur and lower divisions before they look to be introduced higher up.

This is because the top tiers are important to bring money into the sport, so tests should be made lower down.

But they already tested it, what do they think is going to be different about this new test this coming season?

[Tommygilf]

Just now, The Blues Ox said:

But they already tested it, what do they think is going to be different about this new test this coming season?

Its broader and brings in more data.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Roy Haggerty said:

 ....

Thanks for your detailed and helpful response.  However, is it correc to say that the changes were down to the experts you characterise. I can't imagine that there weren't other inputs into this.

In addition, I think that SL players at least can adapt to the tackling rule very quickly. They have until the start of the 25 season to do so, and it's their coaches job to train them accordingly.  

I'd be interested, too, to hear of the training that refs will undergo to police the new rule.

experts whose sole concern is minimising risk, but a decision which must take that expertise into account while balancing the need to maintain a ruleset which will encourage sufficient participation and viewing.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, The Blues Ox said:

But they already tested it, what do they think is going to be different about this new test this coming season?

They tested it in a selection of academy matches.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, The Future is League said:

It cant be hard to coach players to tackle below the armpits in pre-season coaching, or can it?

Its going to be a total technique change for players and coaches and its not even a slight one. Watching the video and then watching any game you can see how many tackles would be given as a penalty under the new rules. You might get an hour or two a week with your players in the amateur game and trying to change up technique in such a short time is simply not happening. There is also the point that a lot of safe tackle technique videos are now illegal tackles so how do you go about teaching safe tackle technique to juniors when for the moment we are just winging it. This shouldn't be underestimated what a huge change this is.

[gazza77]

It should please all those on the terraces at Post Office Road who I hear year in, year out shouting "tackle round the legs". 

[Midlands hobo]

At what level exactly does this start? Championship?

One of the big issues with the RU sternum tackle was it was below premiership and there was a genuine concern that loaning players to lower leagues either dual reg type or in many cases for some match practice coming off injury could end up red carded and banned.