[Tackle] South African schoolboy rugby viral tackle video

[mcroker]

i agree with most of this except the dangerous part, unless you’re saying rugby per se and all tackles are dangerous, in which case I agree

Actually I simply saying it was dangerous to the recipient & possibly also the tackler (not specifically a Dangerous Tackle as defined in law).

Approx 200 posts ago, somebody said the player broke a rib, and I can see far worse outcomes could have been possible. I agree there is an element of danger to every tackle - but the dynamics of this one cross the line for me from acceptably dangerous (within the understood risk threshold) to unacceptably dangerous (likely to result in significant or catastrophic life-altering injury).

In the thread, some have given views that this doesn't cross their threshold for acceptable danger; and others have given a view that the danger is immaterial because they don't see any specific illegal action on the part of the tackler. I can empathise with these perspectives, however I am going to penalise that because I think I have a primary duty of care and safety (particularly in the youth game), and I most certainly want to discourage any reoccurrence of this.

For me - the tackle is marginal on height, marginal on lateness, marginal on lifting and beyond that reckless and dangerous, so I am comfortable that there is enough justification in law to justify PK+YC. You'll notice the tackler didn't look too surprised or put up a protest at their YC either.

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree with Zebra1922, if this isn’t covered by Regulation 15 then it blooming well should be.

Underage is very different to the Adult game. The “get a bag of cement and toughen up” brigade will eventually lead to Rugby Union being listed as an extreme sport and subjected to the same requirements as sports like skydiving. Don’t believe me, it was brought up by French Insurers and is the main why the French Union are changing the way safety is dealt with over here. Background (in French)

Le rugby est un sport extrême coûte cher à son assureur.

L'assureur de la Fédération française de rugby est dans une situation inconfortable, il s'agit d'une mutuelle, un organisme d'assurance sans but lucratif, qui est à la fois l'assureur et l'un des sponsors historiques du rugby français.

Une société d'assurances, après avoir établi sa statistique, disons sur trois ans, aurait pu dire à son assuré « vous me coûtez trop cher en sinistres je porte votre prime à tel montant à dater de la prochaine échéance et si vous n'acceptez pas mes nouvelles conditions, je ne renouvellerai votre contrat » ce qui est attitude classique dans l'assurance, or ici, le sponsor assure les risques de son sponsorisé, sur lesquels nous reviendrons plus loin...

Can’t find the official FFR article about it, but they are taking the threat from their insurer very, very seriously. For the record FFR’s insurer is GMF. The ball carrier broke a rib, and so enters the statistics of costing the Health care system money. Simply saying the tackle was legal under the LoTG doesn’t help insurance firms, who ultimately are there to make a profit. Next season, here in France, tackles in the Amateur game will be around the waist only. And no more tackles with a tackle assist. Quite how that can be reff’d I don’t know, but I can promise you GMF don’t care, as long as we make it so.

 

[Zebra1922]

In general, if you think something is *dangerous* .. then I think it probably deserves more than a talking to ?

Dangerous is not illegal in the laws of the game generally, probably a recognition that rugby is an inherently dangerous game. Certain specifics are called out as dangerous, but tackling is not one of them. A tackle must be dangerous AND reckless to be illegal. Hence for a dangerous tackle, in line with my view all tackles are dangerous, I’m not going beyond a chat, and I wouldn’t even do that at adult rugby.

 

[mcroker]

[laws]9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.[/laws]

 

[crossref]

Dangerous is not illegal in the laws of the game generally, .

Yes it is. 9.11

That basically disqualifies all your statements to date on this thread

 

[Zebra1922]

Yes it is. 9.11

That basically disqualifies all your statements to date on this thread

And also makes the entire game or rugby illegal.

Or are you going to tell me that a contact sport is in it's very nature not dangerous?

Literal interpretations means you cannot tackle, you cannot engage in a scrum (the reason we have so many scrum laws and get specific training on the scrum is it is a dangerous area of the game), you cannot fend off, you probably cannot even kick a ball as it might hit someone.

So, let's assume you penalise this because it is dangerous, why is every tackle not dangerous?

 

[crossref]

What do you think 9.11 means ?

 

[L'irlandais]

What do you think 9.11 means ?

September 11, 2001? Twin towers... Or are we still talking about the Laws of the game?

 

[SimonSmith]

I agree with Zebra1922, if this isn’t covered by Regulation 15 then it blooming well should be.

Underage is very different to the Adult game. The “get a bag of cement and toughen up” brigade will eventually lead to Rugby Union being listed as an extreme sport and subjected to the same requirements as sports like skydiving. Don’t believe me, it was brought up by French Insurers and is the main why the French Union are changing the way safety is dealt with over here. Background (in French)

Le rugby est un sport extrême coûte cher à son assureur.

L'assureur de la Fédération française de rugby est dans une situation inconfortable, il s'agit d'une mutuelle, un organisme d'assurance sans but lucratif, qui est à la fois l'assureur et l'un des sponsors historiques du rugby français.

Une société d'assurances, après avoir établi sa statistique, disons sur trois ans, aurait pu dire à son assuré « vous me coûtez trop cher en sinistres je porte votre prime à tel montant à dater de la prochaine échéance et si vous n'acceptez pas mes nouvelles conditions, je ne renouvellerai votre contrat » ce qui est attitude classique dans l'assurance, or ici, le sponsor assure les risques de son sponsorisé, sur lesquels nous reviendrons plus loin...

Can’t find the official FFR article about it, but they are taking the threat from their insurer very, very seriously. For the record FFR’s insurer is GMF. The ball carrier broke a rib, and so enters the statistics of costing the Health care system money. Simply saying the tackle was legal under the LoTG doesn’t help insurance firms, who ultimately are there to make a profit. Next season, here in France, tackles in the Amateur game will be around the waist only. And no more tackles with a tackle assist. Quite how that can be reff’d I don’t know, but I can promise you GMF don’t care, as long as we make it so.

Let's wait and see how the 'round the waist' thing plays out. As most injuries occur to the tackler and not the ball carrier, I can see a plausible argument that this increases risk to the tackler.

 

[mcroker]

Let's wait and see how the 'round the waist' thing plays out. As most injuries occur to the tackler and not the ball carrier, I can see a plausible argument that this increases risk to the tackler.

isn't that what happened here?
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-01-24...bandoned-for-putting-players-at-greater-risk/

 

[L'irlandais]

Sure. I have no axe to grind. However it looks like the insurance company has got the French Union by the balls and is intent on changing/lowering the cost of sports injuries. Wonder how that might or might not affect the 2023 World Cup.

 

[didds]

So does the GMF/FFR decsion apply to all rugby in France including the top flight and the domestic international test matches?

I'd find that unlikely to occur higher up the ladder. In which case it wont affect the RWC etc etc presumably. I cant see RWC "OKing" a blanket rule in a RWC that all tackles are below waist level and no double tackles without wholesale global usage of those requirements for some considerable time leading into it, and neither can I see WR changing the laws globally to embrace it in the first place. (Yet?).

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

As I understand it, the French Union is adopting these changes next season, even in top flight rugby. (Though I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick, my french is good, but has its limits too.). Also WR are going to trial new tackle laws. That you can google for confirmation.

GMF insurance is included in the subs each of 438,000 members of the French Union pay each year. Following several deaths last year there was a drop of over 12,000 members for the 2018/19 season.
Source: Player registration
For Pro 14 players these subs are €15,000 a season, not sure what amount of that is insurance cover. Obviously in mini/midi/maxi the insurance cover is optional and not many parents avail of it for their kids.

I agree, this (waist high tackle technique) isn’t going to solve the problem.
No-arm charges at rucks are just as dangerous as the dangerous tackles. So focusing on waist high tackles, will create more difficulties (for referees) than it solves (for the medical team) and at the same time players will continue to suffer long term injuries in other areas of play.

Munster rugby brought out a backroom staff video (below) which is well worth a watch. The clear out on the ruck in question was perfectly legal, yet obviously the resulting injury was none the less serious. (9 months to recover that’s serious.). Surely ensuring player are bound when joining the ruck should be a major area of concern. That is if the aim is to reduce the cost of rugby to the health care system and make things more profitable for insurers.

[LAWS]More injuries occur during matches (57%) than in training, and more often in the second half of the game.
Approximately half of all injuries occur while a player is tackling or being tackled.[/LAWS]
But conversely this means that more than half of all injuries are caused by things other than tackles. And also nearly half of all injuries occur in training. 43% anyway. The increase in injury risk when players are tired, is surely an argument to reduce playing time for Pro players, along the lines of the IRFU’s player welfare scheme.

 

[crossref]

The only way we can know the effect of tweaking the Laws is by trialling.. and keeping good data

In the amateur game we don't keep data ...

 

[L'irlandais]

Somebody is obviously keeping data. Presumably the insurance companies who foot the bill for such injuries. In any case the problem is not going away; 4 year trial to start after the 2019 World Cup. *Decision taken over three weeks ago, but hasn’t made the headlines in your neck of the wood.

World Rugby will undertake detailed analysis on a package of law proposals after its three-day player welfare symposium in Paris concluded (*20 March last) with delegates submitting evidence-based injury-prevention proposals.

Leading coaches, match officials, recently retired players, international and domestic competition representatives, game analysis experts, doctors and sports scientists considered the detailed latest shape of the game and injury data before breaking into workshops to consider potential injury-prevention focus areas within the next four-year law amendment review cycle that will begin after Rugby World Cup 2019.

Source: World Rugby in English
Judging by the results of the RFU trial, they will interrupt this 4 year trial, after about a year and change direction, maybe toward tighter ruck laws, who knows.

 

[Rich_NL]

I work in crash safety, and insurance companies are excellent sources of safety data - their whole business runs on accurate and relevant statistics. I'm very surprised at mandating low tackles, though, I must admit.

 

[L'irlandais]

Injuries in the Grassroots game are not significantly different from other contact sports, apparently. It is the professional game which is at risk of having extreme sports insurance imposed, unless they drastically reduce the risk and numbers of serious injuries.

 

[Rich_NL]

The insurance industry is going through heavy weather at the moment, Brexit-related risk aversion is being cited... I've recently heard that insurers in Ireland are cracking down on contact sports, as a friend of mine who does roller derby is facing having her team rolled up because the insurers have pulled out.
http://www.dublinrollerderby.com/drd-faces-insurance-woes/

 

[crossref]

In London we referees were asked this season (for the first time) to report all serious injuries .. as a rule of thumb , those where an ambulance is called

 

[mcroker]

The only way we can know the effect of tweaking the Laws is by trialling.. and keeping good data

In the amateur game we don't keep data ...

RFU Community and Youth Rugby Injury Surveillance and Prevention Projects (CRISP).
...and from this year a youth one is introduced (YRISP - easy for you to say)

http://www.bath.ac.uk/health/projects/rfu-rugby-injury/

I'm sure sampling rather than comprehensive reporting is used.