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

[SimonSmith]

I can't find confirmation on World Rugby's website, nor a version of the story that is not paywalled.

Essentially major local papers in Australia (The Age and Sydney Morning Herald) saying that World Rugby will be following RFU in Jan 2024.

World Rugby set to lower elite game’s tackle height

In a seismic shift, Alan Gilpin, the chief executive of the game’s global governing body, has confirmed the organisation plans to follow the lead of England’s RFU.

www.smh.com.au

"He [Alan Gilpin from WR] also confirmed World Rugby was planning to stage a global law trial from January 1, 2024, initially at amateur level, with a decision yet to be made over whether that would involve a prohibition on tackles above the waist or the sternum."

Great. Now some billionaire idiot from, say, WA is going to fund some kind of breakaway competition.

Given the number of players in my 4 team area who play Union mainly to stay in shape for the other footie codes in the winter, this will kill CARU. We can just about keep them at nipple height. Just about. Lower than that? They're not going to be interested. They live for the biff.

 

[Volun-selected]

Changes would not be any earlier than the 2024-25 season and may not even be in place until after the 2027 World Cup... Clearly not in a rush!

Unless the legal team indicate a delay may prejudice future lawsuits, perhaps?

 

[crossref]

More here but still paywallwed

Tackle height set to be lowered across elite rugby

Exclusive: World Rugby CEO tells Telegraph Sport about controversial new laws, plus analysis of how they could change the game forever

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[crossref]

gosh- so apparently 'waist' was never mentioned at the Council meeting and it was all a mistake.

Likely to be 'sternum' . Going out for consultation

what a fiasco

RFU to reconsider waist-high tackle law after council claims it was misled

The RFU will reconsider its new ruling about the waist-high tackle height limit after furious members of the governing body’s council claimed that they had been

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Mipper]

Or…the initial announcement was made with the expectation that it would create such a fuss, that they can safely row back to the sensible option, leaving a lot of the “furious” to consider their “fury” to have been justified and successful.

Result; tackle height lowered, clubs consulted, fury vented, RFU rolls on in the same old shambolic way. But, still a “leading light” in the march toward safer rugby!

Of course it’s a very cynical view.

 

[crossref]

there's this as well

There were 27 council members absent from the meeting when the vote was held last week, with many attending the Rugby Black List awards at the House of Lords. The decision to change the tackle height was presented by the RFU as a unanimous decision, which implied all 62 council members had voted.

The Times reported last week that a number of council members had argued that meetings of this importance had to be held face to face and not via Zoom

i mean, really ....

 

[Phil E]

The Times reported last week that a number of council members had argued that meetings of this importance had to be held face to face and not via Zoom

Jackie Weaver for RFU President.

 

[Stu10]

gosh- so apparently 'waist' was never mentioned at the Council meeting and it was all a mistake.

Likely to be 'sternum' . Going out for consultation

what a fiasco

RFU to reconsider waist-high tackle law after council claims it was misled

The RFU will reconsider its new ruling about the waist-high tackle height limit after furious members of the governing body’s council claimed that they had been

www.thetimes.co.uk

I believe there was a trial in NZ that concluded setting the maximum tackle height at the sternum was reasonable.

 

[Volun-selected]

I believe there was a trial in NZ that concluded setting the maximum tackle height at the sternum was reasonable.

I wonder if that’s about margin of error? With waist the ref is going to have to gauge how far up the chest becomes material for PK or PK+card. Maybe with the sternum you have the clear view that if I can see your head above their shoulder then either you were too high or they dropped down enough to be material.

 

[crossref]

I wonder if that’s about margin of error? With waist the ref is going to have to gauge how far up the chest becomes material for PK or PK+card. Maybe with the sternum you have the clear view that if I can see your head above their shoulder then either you were too high or they dropped down enough to be material.

the podcast (above) is great on this
For the ball carrier - the lower the tackle the safer (ovbiously)
For the tackler - the safest place to tackle is the torso - away from the head and away from hips and knees

Overall, combining both risks, the torso is safest

Hence the sternum is probably best. BUT while we have had trials with sternum so lots of data (france, new zealand) their haven't been many trials of waste. (only the 8 weeks in the championship which is too short) .

He said he was surprised at the RFU decision to go for waist.

It's really well worth a listen (start 11 mins in)

 

[Phil E]

The rationale is that you have three zones.

Red around the head and neck area where the risk is high.
Green around the tummy/waist where the risk is low.
Amber around the hips/knees where the risk is medium (there can still be injuries but they wont be as bad as those in the red area).

If you go for the sternum you risk riding up into the Red area.
If you go for the waist you risk sliding down into the Amber area.

Both are better than what we have at the moment.

 

[Volun-selected]

Finally ... RFU Statement: Tackle Height
Let's see if the talking heads a) read the links, and/or b) walk back some of the rhetoric.

And are the paying (baying?) crowd prepared to wait?

Finally - we need to be patient
The FFR maintained their commitment through a difficult transition period, which saw an increase in penalties before a reduction in concussions was evident. There may not be an immediate drop in reported concussions, while players adapt. We need to be prepared for up to two seasons of consistent messaging and implementation.

 

[didds]

"that meetings of this importance had to be held face to face and not via Zoom"

why?

 

[crossref]

"that meetings of this importance had to be held face to face and not via Zoom"

why?

More important might be not clashing with a rugby dinner at the house of lords

 

[Volun-selected]

"that meetings of this importance had to be held face to face and not via Zoom"

why?

Possibly to make sure the "right sort of chaps" were in the room for a nice quick vote? (As a bonus, get the vote in fast enough and there's even time for a swift aperitif at the Carlton before heading on over to the Lord's for @crossref 's dinner.)