Tackle height law change confirmed

[Wakefield Ram]

19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

There are very few people saying we shouldn't take action.  As far as I can see, the discussion, which is entirely sensible and considered for me, is based around 2 points.

The video offered up was very poor as it provided examples of illegal tackles that didn't actually seem to break the new laws as stated.

Upright tackles are by far the biggest source of HIA - for both the ball carrier and (even more so) the tackler. This is mostly due to head clashes rather than actual tackles around the head.  The big unknown is how moving tackles lower will effect HIA's.  We know that head clashes between tacklers going lower is a source of HIA and if we see more of these tackles, will we also see proportionally more HIA's? That is just a mathematical question we need to see play out.

These seem to me to be eminently sensible questions that can be raised without trivialised the impact of head injury and its long term effects. 

Think there's a few posts on here about "spoiling the game" to be fair but agree the videos could be better.

And yes head clashes are the most dangerous, this is about changing the culture of the tackling high, but direct contact to the head from arm or shoulder can still cause concussion. 

I have seen some RU research that showed a player going into a tackle high was 3-4 more likely to suffer a concussion than one going low. I'll see if I can find it. 

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Why do you say that?

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

[Wakefield Ram]

This is an informative read

https://www.drakefoundation.org/rugby-concussions/

[Odsal Outlaw]

24 minutes ago, JohnM said:

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

Well the changes are positive for you then! Enjoy.

[JohnM]

4 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Well the changes are positive for you then! Enjoy.

I will, I will. I realise that we're not here to enjoy things, rather were here to moan at everything, but I'm doing my best.

Here's something:

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/tackle-and-scrum-should-be-banned-in-school-rugby-argue-expert/

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, Double Knock On said:

There are a number of excellent points made on this topic from a variety of views. However, what is not discussed is that the changes are largely aimed at knocking down a "Strawman" (head to head contact)

Reducing the tackle height may reduce the number of "head to head" contacts (These are grossly, & I mean grossly, over-estimated in the Beckett's studies- look at their figures and then watch an game and slo-mo the tackles and see if you come up with their figures)

Reducing  "head to head" contacts will probably reduce the number of concussions. Are individual concussions the cause of CTE (long term brain disorders)? - No

Will wearing IMG measure Peak g force- yes, cumulative g force-yes, Peak Angular Velocity-probably yes.

Will any of these measures help in diagnosing brain trauma? -No 

The science as it is at the moment suggests that CTE is caused by cumulative rotational forces on the brain. These can be measured by chemical markers such as certain proteins in the blood, micro RNA etc.. As far as I understand it they can also be measured by Rezon headbands (it is also my understanding that the authors of the RFL report were not interesting in working with Rezon and the researchers at Loughborough and ICL(?) to further understand the immediate effect on the brain)

No one knows "how much is too much". A figure of 2g is assumed to be "everyday occurrences involved in such as sitting and walking", above 50g is "bad" (if I remember correctly). RU has had figures over 70g for individual tackles. However, that does not alter the fact that no one knows if 100 x 2g is worse than 1 x 70g without actually measuring the impact on the brain either concurrently, immediately afterwards or at regular intervals

The lower tackle height may also increase the g force in the tackle, as rather than standing and locking the ball the first tackler may now adopt a more squat position and drive through the ball carrier and lift the leg to dump the attacking player in his/her back

As for those who say "we used to tackle around thigh etc.," that was under the 5m rule. With the 10m it would lead to scores of 50 -40, as was in the Aussie Super League in 1997 during the "split" when the ruck in that competition was artificially quick 

Excellent post...

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

This is an informative read

https://www.drakefoundation.org/rugby-concussions/

...as the post from Wakefield Ram shows, sub-concussive impacts – those that do not lead to a concussion - are just as impactful over time as the more severe knocks.  "Within football, too, the FIELD study observed that former professional football players had a three and a half times higher rate of death due to neurodegenerative disease than the general population, which – particularly given the relatively low rate of concussions in football – is believed to likely be due to repeated subconcussive head impacts sustained when heading the ball."

A professional footballer would have headed the ball during a 90 minute game yes. But he would have headed it many more times in the week of training. 

Similarly, contact training over a week is just as relevant (probably more so) than the 80 minute game and any high contact for a rugby player.

Changing what a typical week or season looks like, day in day out, for a Rugby player is for me the most pressing matter.

I know we have seen some reduction in contact training but is it enough?

(And are pro footballers still heading the ball every training session.  I bet they are, although that is another discussion).

Edited December 10, 2023 by Dunbar

[Griff]

53 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Well the changes are positive for you then! Enjoy.

Seriously, people's health is at stake here.

[Odsal Outlaw]

55 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I will, I will. I realise that we're not here to enjoy things, rather were here to moan at everything, but I'm doing my best.

Here's something:

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/tackle-and-scrum-should-be-banned-in-school-rugby-argue-expert/

I genuinely meant my comment, if this is positive for you then enjoy it. In the same way I would enjoy the return of the shoulder charge. I appreciate there are different viewpoints.

I read the link, but thanks - not sure I agree with the sentiment in that either!

[Odsal Outlaw]

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

Seriously, people's health is at stake here.

You need to decide where you draw the line, if you stop everything that puts peoples health at risk then life becomes very dull.  Should we stop all unhealthy foods? Should we ban alcohol? Should we ban boxing? What about air travel? Much of what we do has risk, but I think in the grand scheme of the bad things in this world then rugby league is ok as it stands.

Personally I look at the benefits of the game in its current guise which I think outweigh the negatives (and I have multiple scars / surgeries as a result of this sport).

[Odsal Outlaw]

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

https://chng.it/dJk286bTzs
 

[JohnM]

2 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

You need to decide where you draw the line, if you stop everything that puts peoples health at risk then life becomes very dull.  Should we stop all unhealthy foods? Should we ban alcohol? Should we ban boxing? What about air travel? Much of what we do has risk, but I think in the grand scheme of the bad things in this world then rugby league is ok as it stands.

Personally I look at the benefits of the game in its current guise which I think outweigh the negatives (and I have multiple scars / surgeries as a result of this sport).

But sadly, like the rest of us, you don't know what the future may bring. 

I've cycled on and off road. I've walked long distances, climbed hills and mountains at home and abroad over many years. Enjoyable yes, but maybe proper technique would have helped me avoid the arthritic problems I now have. Limited mobility, limited endurance, extra load on the NHS....

Edited December 10, 2023 by JohnM

[Odsal Outlaw]

11 minutes ago, JohnM said:

But sadly, like the rest of us, you don't know what the future may bring. 

I've cycled on and off road. I've walked long distances, climbed hills and mountains at home and abroad over many years. Enjoyable yes, but maybe proper technique would have helped me avoid the arthritic problems I now have. Limited mobility, limited endurance, extra load on the NHS....

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?

[EggFace]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

I've seen plenty of concussions as a result of two defending players tackling from the side and clashing heads. It's certainly not risk free.

I don't think the so called experts at Becketts Uni have looked into that.

[Griff]

22 minutes 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
 

I won't be signing.

You need to get real.

[EggFace]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

I will, I will. I realise that we're not here to enjoy things, rather were here to moan at everything, but I'm doing my best.

Here's something:

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/tackle-and-scrum-should-be-banned-in-school-rugby-argue-expert/

I agree with one thing just ban the scrum and still wondering why Union have it because espite all the safety measures being put in place.

[EggFace]

6 minutes ago, Griff said:

I won't be signing.

You need to get real.

Looks over 3000 plus have signed in a short time.

[Damien]

35 minutes ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

You need to decide where you draw the line, if you stop everything that puts peoples health at risk then life becomes very dull.  Should we stop all unhealthy foods? Should we ban alcohol? Should we ban boxing? What about air travel? Much of what we do has risk, but I think in the grand scheme of the bad things in this world then rugby league is ok as it stands.

Personally I look at the benefits of the game in its current guise which I think outweigh the negatives (and I have multiple scars / surgeries as a result of this sport).

Interesting you mention alcohol as it is well known that alcohol is also a cause of dementia. As is drugs.

Of course alcohol has always been a large part of the social aspect of both codes. Drugs, well I'll not go there, but what I will say more generally is that it would be very naive of anyone to think that RL lives in a bubble when it comes to them. Then there are things like family history and genetics.

The point is yes the sport can mitigate against risk and should. However I think we are way off properly studying dementia when it comes to RL and some studies produce sensationalist headline results due to the poor sampling used i.e heavily skewed by those with issues coming forward by the many without them not. 

If a player has any family history, drank alcohol, took drugs, smoked, diabetes etc then I think it becomes awfully difficult to conclusively prove it was caused by RL. I am not saying that playing RL isn't a risk factor but it is one of many others.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Damien

[Griff]

1 minute ago, EggFace said:

Looks over 3000 plus have signed in a short time.

Not surprised.  Rugby League supporters have always been resistant to change.

But if those 3000 think that the RFL will change their collective mind, they are deluded.

[The Blues Ox]

14 hours ago, frank said:

These rule changes will do a lot to reduce head injuries.

I honestly can't see it, Ive said many times in this thread that most of the concussions I have seen in my time coaching and playing at the amateur level are to the defenders rather than the ball carrier. I think when measured then maybe we see a reduction in numbers for the type of tackle they are wanting to prevent but when measured we will see an increase overall in concussions. Another thing which makes it hard to track is that amateur clubs may follow concussion protocol but the concussions themselves are not recorded so its near impossible to get actual numbers.

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

There are very few people saying we shouldn't take action.  As far as I can see, the discussion, which is entirely sensible and considered for me, is based around 2 points.

The video offered up was very poor as it provided examples of illegal tackles that didn't actually seem to break the new laws as stated.

Upright tackles are by far the biggest source of HIA - for both the ball carrier and (even more so) the tackler. This is mostly due to head clashes rather than actual tackles around the head.  The big unknown is how moving tackles lower will effect HIA's.  We know that head clashes between tacklers going lower is a source of HIA and if we see more of these tackles, will we also see proportionally more HIA's? That is just a mathematical question we need to see play out.

These seem to me to be eminently sensible questions that can be raised without trivialised the impact of head injury and its long term effects. 

Just following on from my reply to frank, and following what Dunbar has said, we have seen rules brought in that are designed to speed up the play the ball with less ground wrestling and now with these new rules it seems this will make for less amount of dominant tackles and maybe for more offloads so what we are doing is increasing the amount of fatigue that the players will be under and this along with the new legal tackle areas that could also see a big increase in the amount of concussions.

29 minutes 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
 

This petition seems to be about non contact in u10's rugby which to me seems a good idea although as I said on the other thread, I also wouldn't have been against simply reducing the space between attackers and defenders but non contact encourages my ball work which is brilliant.

[EggFace]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

Not surprised.  Rugby League supporters have always been resistant to change.

But if those 3000 think that the RFL will change their collective mind, they are deluded.

Well what will no fun police do next ban low tackles.

[Griff]

1 minute ago, EggFace said:

Well what will no fun police do next ban low tackles.

You think it's "fun" to watch players getting concussed?

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[ATLANTISMAN]

3 minutes ago, EggFace said:

Well what will no fun police do next ban low tackles.

Prob well this is all about the current legal action the RFL are skint and running scared.

Touch and pass here we come not for me.

[EggFace]

Just now, Griff said:

You think it's "fun" to watch players getting concussed?

Stop embarrassing yourself.

 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.

[sheddingswasus]

I want to go and watch a game if RL with fantastic handing and running skills on show. I want to watch superb tackles. What I don’t want to watch is superb athletes and showmen being carried off the field like punch drunk boxers. We were all taught to ride the tackle and relax as we hit the ground. What we can’t do to protect our heads and necks ( which are perhaps the most vulnerable parts of our bodies) from the head hunters who make up for lack of skill with acts of thuggery. Getting ride of thugs should be priority!

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, sheddingswasus said:

I want to go and watch a game if RL with fantastic handing and running skills on show. I want to watch superb tackles. What I don’t want to watch is superb athletes and showmen being carried off the field like punch drunk boxers. We were all taught to ride the tackle and relax as we hit the ground. What we can’t do to protect our heads and necks ( which are perhaps the most vulnerable parts of our bodies) from the head hunters who make up for lack of skill with acts of thuggery. Getting ride of thugs should be priority!

Many aren't arguing with that though and I strongly suspect the majority would agree with it. This is conflating getting rid of high tackles and thuggery with these moves. They are not the same.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Damien