RFU Council approves lowering of the tackle height across community rugby in England from 2023/24

[Phil E]

Edit: Can a mod change the St George’s Cross on my profile to a Saltire please?

Are you a referee in England or Scotland?
You should be able to change it in your profile yourself?

 

[colesy]

Are you a referee in England or Scotland?
You should be able to change it in your profile yourself?

I was in England, now in Scotland. I can change my society icon but not the national one.

 

[didds]

Going back to my notes, I’ve seen three red cards this season - two of the three were head on head contact in an upright tackle.

how many games is that in Colesy?

 

[colesy]

how many games is that in Colesy?

Twelve matches in total. One red in National 3 (level 4) and one in West 1 Reserve (level 6).

 

[crossref]

I was really referring to the process of moving through from an amateur game to a professional one rather than adapting to different rules/regulations/laws. What you describe is what the amateur refs do all the time. 7s and 15s do have different laws but they are consistent between levels for the adult game. (At the moment.) A referee doing a trial game at a Championship match is not going to have an opportunity to ‘practise’ his knowledge prior to his ‘test’.
But I appreciate the point you are making.

it's a good point for refs -- because going forward the Laws come with the grade - as you say there will be no opportunity for a ref to practice reffing higher tackles until the first time they do it. I guess the obvious solution is to ref pre-season and training games for Championship clubs

 

[crossref]

 

[Balones]

RFU to provide 'guidelines' on new tackle laws

The Rugby Football Union says it will soon provide "clarity for the game" regarding the radical new tackle laws amid fears of a mass player exodus.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Stu10]

Is that from RFU?

 

[SimonSmith]

Ben Stokes joins chorus of criticism over RFU’s ‘amateurish’ handling of tackle law

The Rugby Football Union is facing a revolt over its decision to radically change tackling in amateur rugby, with objections coming from players as well as th

www.thetimes.co.uk

Taking a step back from the law change itself, there's a couple of what I what I would term very worrying points to be taken out of this article. Three, maybe.

1. The change management process is fucked. And I'm looking at it with a professional eye. This is a significant change to the game. It's one where you would want to go through a pretty careful change management process - even if the outcome is predetermined, you still have to 'sell' the message. The RFU have absolutely butchered that, and in doing so have probably created unnecessarily stronger headwinds than necessary. How strong? Time will tell, but I'll put money down somebody somewhere is sat in an office in Twickenham going "I told you we should have done it differently".

2. I'm concerned by the opposition voiced by the only neutral party in the debate. Everyone posting here, Facebook, Reddit, weherever, all come at this from a rugby perspective - fabric of the game, game's ruined etc. But when the body whose single concern is the reduction of concussion in sport, and not the sport itself, expresses significant concern and says they think concussion rates might rise, I think we have to consider that perhaps we might just have got this one wrong. The neutrals are saying we have...

3. I'm getting the sense that there is not, in fact, a good, clean, single data set. Let me put it this way. If I was making this kind of a big business decision professionally, I wouldn't be using this kind of quality of data.

I rather think the RFU have fucked this, as a process.

 

[crossref]

Yes

The RFU council endorsed the proposal unanimously at a meeting on Monday night, which was held on Zoom despite some participants believing an “unbelievably contentious” decision should be made only after an in-person debate. A council source claimed they would have been branded the equivalent of a “Covid-19 denier” if they had voted against the evidence presented.

There is fury within factions of the council at the RFU’s “amateurish” handling of the announcement. The Times understands that two votes were held at the meeting. The first was on a proposal to delay a final decision on the law change so that council members could spend between three and five weeks consulting clubs.

That idea was voted down, so clubs across the country were shocked to learn on Thursday lunchtime that their sport was fundamentally changing for ever. “I have had lots of people screaming down the phone at me, ‘You’ve killed rugby,’ ” one source said. “The RFU will get a lot of shit in the clubhouses of England tomorrow.”

“There was no way the council could vote against the evidence that was being presented and the data coming over from France. We would have left ourselves legally vulnerable in that regard.

Ben Stokes joins chorus of criticism over RFU’s ‘amateurish’ handling of tackle law

The Rugby Football Union is facing a revolt over its decision to radically change tackling in amateur rugby, with objections coming from players as well as th

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[crossref]

Here's some data discussion

Lowering the legal height of the tackle: The six year process, and that's just to get here | The Science of Sport

Get more from The Science of Sport on Patreon

www.patreon.com

 

[Stu10]

Here's some data discussion

Lowering the legal height of the tackle: The six year process, and that's just to get here | The Science of Sport

Get more from The Science of Sport on Patreon

www.patreon.com

That's the version that avoids the 45 minute read

 

[Volun-selected]

Here's some data discussion

Lowering the legal height of the tackle: The six year process, and that's just to get here | The Science of Sport

Get more from The Science of Sport on Patreon

www.patreon.com

Very interesting read - a bit that stood out for me was the France angle and the line

Ball carriers are no longer allowed to drop down and charge into a tackler

I think this is key - either we prohibit ball carriers from ducking into a tackle, if they do then it’s on them for creating a situation - or we treat the tackle height as based on as if the ball carrier was upright, so they can still brace but won’t get a red against the tackler if they duck down into the tacklers lowered shoulder.

<begin rant>
However, the biggest issue here is that the “process of developing law variations and the law application guidelines is well underway. It is anticipated that new laws will be in place in the next few weeks”

When you announce a seismic shift like this, you either 1. introduce it as “we’re thinking of this, give us feedback and here’s how to get it to us” with online posts and/or roadshow and give a clear path for how players, coaches, and refs can feedback or (as in this) 2. you announce it with a full set of guidelines in already place.

If they had followed (1) last year, then thought it through and absorbed what players can do, how coaches can educate, and how we can enforce it fairly, then we’d now be talking about (2) and maybe even looking forward to seeing some positive changes.

<end rant/>

 

[Volun-selected]

Started digging into the FFR assets and they have a PowerPoint on tackling (about 1/3 the way down this page Regles du Rugby - wish I’d paid more attention in class now)

They make it pretty clear that the BC cannot drop into a tackle. The text (badly translated by me) has “The ball carrier arriving into contact drops his chest forward resulting in a risk of impact between heads = this player must be sanctioned”

 

[crossref]

This must be the moment that the RFU finally write some Game Management Guidelines -- which I have long been in favour of

 

[didds]

This must be the moment that the RFU finally write some Game Management Guidelines -- which I have long been in favour of

BWA HA HAH!!
STOP!

MY RIBS! OUCH!

 

[Rich_NL]

Very interesting read - a bit that stood out for me was the France angle and the line

I think this is key - either we prohibit ball carriers from ducking into a tackle, if they do then it’s on them for creating a situation - or we treat the tackle height as based on as if the ball carrier was upright, so they can still brace but won’t get a red against the tackler if they duck down into the tacklers lowered shoulder.

<begin rant>
However, the biggest issue here is that the “process of developing law variations and the law application guidelines is well underway. It is anticipated that new laws will be in place in the next few weeks”

When you announce a seismic shift like this, you either 1. introduce it as “we’re thinking of this, give us feedback and here’s how to get it to us” with online posts and/or roadshow and give a clear path for how players, coaches, and refs can feedback or (as in this) 2. you announce it with a full set of guidelines in already place.

If they had followed (1) last year, then thought it through and absorbed what players can do, how coaches can educate, and how we can enforce it fairly, then we’d now be talking about (2) and maybe even looking forward to seeing some positive changes.

<end rant/>

I don't think (1) will work. Professional coaches and players are paid on results, not safety, and as the Ross Tucker article demonstrates, have every reason to undermine the intent of the changes. They have their own agendas and plans, and a change like this throws all sorts of spanners into the works.

Top-down approaches like France are the only way I see to apply it. I have a couple of French friends and acquaintances who tell me that after a year of pain, it has improved the game for players and spectators alike - more evasive running, more offloads and tries, and apparently far fewer concussions - a 30% reduction in cartes bleus

 

[Stu10]

Started digging into the FFR assets and they have a PowerPoint on tackling (about 1/3 the way down this page Regles du Rugby - wish I’d paid more attention in class now)

They make it pretty clear that the BC cannot drop into a tackle. The text (badly translated by me) has “The ball carrier arriving into contact drops his chest forward resulting in a risk of impact between heads = this player must be sanctioned”

BWA HA HAH!!
STOP!

MY RIBS! OUCH!

Are your ribs sore because you had to keep tall into the tackle and just got cut in half?

 

[Phil E]

I hes

Here's some data discussion

Lowering the legal height of the tackle: The six year process, and that's just to get here | The Science of Sport

Get more from The Science of Sport on Patreon

www.patreon.com

I hesitated to read this because it's quite long, but it was well worth it.
EVERYONE should read this before they comment on the proposed change. It answers all of the questions I have seen on social media and in the papers.

How the RFU have handled the announcement is a very different discussion, this information should have been presented to all clubs prior to any announcement to "sell" the decision.

 

[crossref]

This might also be helpful

(never heard it called an alamy before !)