Tackle Height Discussion

[Dave Elliott]

taken from a social media post from a very experienced Referee


Attended a meeting last night with the Berkshire RFU Council representative who was reporting back to the county about the meeting the members had that they voted on re the tackle height …
left me angry, sad, frustrated and disillusioned …
If you LOVE rugby as it’s played at the moment at NON PROFESSIONAL level … i.e. 30 normal players, trying their best in a physical CONTACT team sport, where players will occasionally get injured (sometimes quite badly, broken leg/arm/hand, dislocation of limbs, accidental clash of heads etc etc).
It was clear that there are MACHIAVELLIAN forces high up in both WR and RFU who want to see the end of the game as it’s played at the moment at NON PROFESSIONAL level (acknowledgement of the level is key) where the over riding mantra above all else is “safety” of the players and that is paramount over anything else, whether clubs go to the wall or the product looks nothing like it did, as long as they can say to themselves the game is now safer, it will NOT matter to them that thousands of girls/boys/women/men are no longer playing the game, we’ve all grown up loving playing/officiating/spectating …
PROFESSIONAL rugby has a major problem with players getting CONCUSSION, this is because they are bigger, fitter and stronger and the collisions they have are MASSIVE, because they know they will NOT get hurt because of their conditioning …
The French study of lowering the tackle height showed that on average, there was one less concussion per season per team (in a 14 team league), not exactly a massive reduction in player safety!
If you want to make NON professional rugby safe, as one lady from a Level 8 club pointed out last night “make it touch rugby” …
We are in a fight to the death on this, lose this and there will either be no contact rugby played in 10 years or it will be so sanatized that no one will want to play …
If you LOVE rugby in its present form, please feel free to share, we must get a groundswell of opinion from normal rugby people to oppose this from the RFU … and WR (who are actually the bigger culprits)
Better still, just de select your Council representative (the free tickets they get for every England game might concentrate their minds when they realise they won’t get them anymore) and put someone in who will represent the normal non professional player/coach/administrator/supporter ….
Failing all of the above, will the last person out the room turn the light off on non professional rugby!

 

[crossref]

i dunno, I sort of wonder if rugby might up looking more like the rugby I played when I was young - back in the last century - when we were all taught tackle low, no one had heard of a choke tackle (because there was no 'turnover').

 

[SimonSmith]

There’s a lot of chat about making the game safer.

And I don’t think that’s the right approach. The game carries an inherent degree of risk - it’s a contact sport with forceful collisions. The only way of making the game “safe” is to change its nature.

The real question is where the balancing point is between an acceptable degree of risk and the game retaining its core characteristics.

One less concussive event per team per season seems a low return for this kind of change - especially when other, less drastic, options haven’t been tried.

 

[crossref]

I keep reading that similar changes in France have actually proved popular ?

 

[Stu10]

Assuming we end up with the maximum tackle height at the sternum, which is essentially the arm pits, I find my self repeatedly thinking that u19s rugby manages perfectly fine with the reduced maximum tackle height compared to seniors.

Regarding age-grade rugby, I never think "the product looks nothing like" senior rugby, nor do I believe "that thousands of girls/boys/women/men are no longer playing the game" because age-grade rugby has a lower maximum tackle height. I've never once heard a junior player exclaim they are packing in rugby if they can't smash someone in the chest.

Interesting piece in one of the papers yesterday written by Ben Kay in which he suggested this change will not only reduce head-on-head collisions from upright tackles, but increased offloads in the tackle may result in fewer rucks and subsequently fewer injuries there too (notably dodgy clear-outs on a jackaling player and crocodile/neck-rolls)

 

[Rich_NL]

Machiavellian plotting, slippery slope, fight to the death, the game as it's always been... I'm surprised they could type that after so much hand-wringing

The problem with "safer" is that people associate it with sprained ankles and broken noses. The safety issue is about long-term debilitation and massively increased risk of fatal conditions, and it's not just from concussions but sub-concussive impacts. The complaints remind me of the pub landlords who complained about the smoking ban, because people accepted the risks of lung cancer and knew what they were getting into and it would be the death of hospitality, etc... a year later and barely anyone noticed, pubs were a much nicer place.

Rugby now is vastly different to the game when I learnt it in the 80s. It's faster, it's smarter, the set pieces have changed, and so have the tackles. It'll survive another change. And if it's seen to be reducing the issues with long-term mental impairment and serious illness, parents might be less hesitant to send their kids to the rugby club, than if they're told "we've always played it, we know the risks and think motor neurone disease and early onset dementia is a small price to pay for the pleasure of the game".

 

[crossref]

Assuming we end up with the maximum tackle height at the sternum, which is essentially the arm pits, I find my self repeatedly thinking that u19s rugby manages perfectly fine with the reduced maximum tackle height compared to seniors.

Regarding age-grade rugby, I never think "the product looks nothing like" senior rugby, nor do I believe "that thousands of girls/boys/women/men are no longer playing the game" because age-grade rugby has a lower maximum tackle height. I've never once heard a junior player exclaim they are packing in rugby if they can't smash someone in the chest.

indeed in England we have precisely the opposite problem : age grade rugby is phenomenally popular, but we can't retain the kids to play as adults.
I see plenty of clubs with seperates teams of U16 a u17 and a team of u18 ... but one one team of adults.

Why is that?

One factor might well be that concussion risk bothers young adults MUCH more than us oldies -- they are much more sensitised to it. Perhaps the higher tackles, neck rolls, crodile roles all put them off.

 

[Rich_NL]

indeed in England we have precisely the opposite problem : age grade rugby is phenomenally popular, but we can't retain the kids to play as adults.
I see plenty of clubs with seperates teams of U16 a u17 and a team of u18 ... but one one team of adults.

Why is that?

One factor might well be that concussion risk bothers young adults MUCH more than us oldies -- they are much more sensitised to it. Perhaps the higher tackles, neck rolls, crodile roles all put them off.

My son's playing U18 at the moment, so I see a lot of kids/young adults around this phase... here (and anecdotally) at least, the drop off is much more due to jobs, study, discovering girlfriends/boyfriends and beer. And that's the same for all sports, especially ones that take a physical toll - adulthood is more demanding

The last couple of years I do know of some kids and parents of kids who've stopped because they had accumulated concussions and were worried about the longer-term consequences, and heard from a couple of parents who didn't want their kids playing because of the risks.

 

[crossref]

all factors, I agree

 

[didds]

as ever I suspect I'm in a minority of one, but here is my 2p anyway.

The entire thing is a storm in a tea cup (SIATC), blown massively out of all proportion by knee jerk reactions, (deliberate ?) misunderstandings and interpretations, and an ill conceived issue by the PTB.

"Waist" isn't around where blokes wear a belt. Its far higher. But seems to be the place that the reactions consider from what I've read (concussion form impact with the hips being a major bleat)
Is head contact in upright tackles really that prevalent in community rugby anyway? (when i asked this question before, one person responded with 1 head contact in 14 games. I can only thus perceive that nobody else here has had any, so that's one head impact in hundreds of games across all the refs here)
A "waist high tackled line" does not mean now every tackle has to be around the knees (the "other concussion place" etc argument)
If one less concussion per team per season is "all" that a sternum line ruling leads to - in England that would be hundreds of fewer concussions per season - and that's not worth pursuing?

The entire SIATC created by the RFU with its poorly worded, poorly timed lack of community discussions ruling, at a level where very little dependable data is collatable.


Pathetic all round.

I'll get me coat.

 

[Stu10]

I've read through some of the posts on FB in reply to Ash Rowden's post, and it continues to feel like knee jerk reactions, often without thought...

The problem with concussion in rugby is with (mostly) professional rugby, those of us that play / coach (as I do at age grade) hardly see concussion. I've had one incident in the last 6 years, and that was head on ground...
The RFU and WR, need to tidy up their own back yard first, how can I tell my kids not to do something when they retort with. "...well (Owen) FARRELL can do it..."

This guy has said he is an age-grade coach and says this change would be ridiculous because he would struggle to justify/explain why his kids can't tackle the same as elite level... IT IS ALREADY LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!! Going back to my point above, he has already observed and "bought into" age grade rugby with a max tackle height at the arm pits, so why does he think adopting the same at senior level with destroy the sport?

I refereed u14 two weeks ago and removed 3 players due to possible concussion (2 definite IMHO)... none were from upright/illegal tackles, but it is evidence that players of all ages are accumulating head injuries, so we have to do what we can. Last week I refereed u15 and removed 1 player who looked unsteady on his feet after a high tackle. That's 4 possible concussions in 2 weekends... if this guy has only seen one incident in 6 years then I would argue that he is not looking properly.

 

[crossref]

the RFU management of this has been beyond hopeless.
if it had been introduced properly a lot of pain could have been spared.

 

[crossref]

.. if this guy has only seen one incident in 6 years then I would argue that he is not looking properly.

i agree. and if it were really the case then would be a real advert FOR lowering the tackle height as it is in his age groups games, to get that level of safety

 

[crossref]

meanwhile in NFL - pros are playing with tag belts

‘It’s like you’ve been in a car crash’: Efe Obada on brutal reality of NFL life

The Washington defensive end tells Robert Booth of the physical costs of the NFL, the joy of sacks and why he is a fan of flag football

www.theguardian.com

Yet it could be the way the game becomes part of the Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028 and it is also the version the NFL is promoting in the UK as it works towards establishing one or more teams in London and possibly a European division.

Its UK foundation announced on Tuesday that Sport England is providing £250,000 of funding NFL flag football programs in partnerships with local charities in Greater Manchester and Birmingham. Its experience has been that the game appeals to boys and girls and reaches parts of society otherwise under represented in sport. Little Ealing primary school in west London represented the UK at the Pro Bowl championship in Las Vegas last week with a mixed team.


Obada, who says he’s “living my best life” playing the full contact game, is a fan. “You can start getting kids to play at a much younger age and we can convince parents because they don’t have to worry about the contact.”

Plus, “if you don’t have helmets and you know there’s no contact that kind of leaves way for more trash talking”.

The NFL believes flag football is “a future of football”

 

[Volun-selected]

the RFU management of this has been beyond hopeless.
if it had been introduced properly a lot of pain could have been spared.

Agreed - just a total mess. If they'd led from the start with "based off 6 years watching how embracing a lower tackle height has transformed French rugby by both making it safer for all players, and encouraging the expansive running rugby our fans want to see, we're now adopting a lower height at the Community Game ..." and then throw in a few graphics showing below the armpits, etc. Close with some "we're listening, talk to us, more to come..." noises and I think we'd see a different conversation now.

Instead, it's all "death of the game" and "back to Proper Rugby" click-bait.

 

[belladonna]

Could this have something to do with it?

"Rugby union authorities in England and Wales are facing a second major lawsuit as a group of more than 55 former amateur players have begun legal action against the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union and World Rugby, who they accuse of negligence in their failure to protect them from brain injuries during their playing careers."

Amateur players launch lawsuit against rugby authorities over brain injuries

Rugby union authorities are facing a second major lawsuit as group of more than 55 former amateur players have begun legal action against the RFU, the WRU and World Rugby

www.theguardian.com

 

[didds]

"The group includes retired female internationals, elite players from the amateur era, former youth players, and the family of one deceased male player"


so some of those players at least are the equivalent of pro players today - its not all bert bloggs from Old twatbaggiabns 5th XV.
"Former youth players" - again, COULD be public school/academy level players, not Fred Flipper from Nadgers RFC U15s.
This isnt to disavow any claims these players may be making but we need to be careful in what is meant by "amateur" here in a histotical & effective playing level context.

 

[Stu10]

Could this have something to do with it?

"Rugby union authorities in England and Wales are facing a second major lawsuit as a group of more than 55 former amateur players have begun legal action against the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union and World Rugby, who they accuse of negligence in their failure to protect them from brain injuries during their playing careers."

Amateur players launch lawsuit against rugby authorities over brain injuries

Rugby union authorities are facing a second major lawsuit as group of more than 55 former amateur players have begun legal action against the RFU, the WRU and World Rugby

www.theguardian.com

I agree that cases like this are driving the change to the tackle height, and I think it is good and appropriate. I wonder what the outcome of these court cases will be, and IMHO I think it may be unfair to blame the RFU and WRFU. Maybe I'm too simplistic in my thinking, but I am considering what is done knowingly and unknowingly.

Did I choose to play rugby knowing I would get bumps and bangs to every part of my body... yes, and I accept that. Did players choose to play rugby knowing those bumps and bangs could lead to permanent neurological impairment... no!!! Did the RFU/WRFU know those bumps and bangs could lead to permanent neurological impairment? I'm going to assume they did not previously know, which is why I think it unfair to blame them in hindsight... if they did know, then there is blame to be owned!

The RFU/WRFU (and WR) definitely know now that repeated head impacts can lead to permanent neurological impairment, therefore they must now act to mitigate the risk, hence lowering the maximum tackle height (and adopting the head contact framework).

Reading that article, I wonder who should carry more blame, the RFU/WRFU or clubs/coaches? The focus in the article appears to be the amount of games played, injured players being allowed to stay on the pitch, and not enough time off between injuries.

 

[Stu10]

Just got an email from the RFU regarding a tackle height survey, which is "open to all in England."

 

[Volun-selected]

IMHO I think it may be unfair to blame the RFU and WRFU. Maybe I'm too simplistic in my thinking, but I am considering what is done knowingly and unknowingly.

I agree and I wonder if a lot of this will come down to who knew what and when. Even from a personal view, when I started playing as a kid in the early 80s (1980s, just for the avoidance of doubt) there was a blithe acceptance that I may well get my bell rung and if I did it was expected to play on if I could stand back up, because that was rugby. My parents were more concerned about my teeth as I got a massive kick in the face early on.

If the blazers can show a pattern of the understanding and consensus around concussion evolving over time, and they generally matched it with increasing controls and guidance based off that, then I think successful claims may be tough to make. If they’re more like the cigarette firms who buried/ignored clearresearch, that may be different.