• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Tackle height lowered in community game by RFU.

Just to answer the original question (just checked) as well, the new tackle height is from national 1 and below for the men's game, so the championship still play proper rugby and everyone else is on kids rules for now.
 
Law variation states -

9.13. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent in open play above the base of the sternum even if the tackle starts below the base of the sternum.

So I'm assuming it will be sanctioned by penalties and or cards.

How many Prem and England players will be getting pinged for this next season..... None.
 
Correction - everyone's playing proper rugby
Not really. You now have two different versions of the game. The community one and the professional one which up until now have been the same.

So when I rock up to play next season I won't be playing for he same rugby as on tv, so that's not proper rugby. It's minis tackling basically.

You do love to argue for the sake of it sometimes.
 
If I were to want to start amateur rugby again I'd probably choose rugby league or just go to combat sports or martial arts. Why? Because it's clear the physical contest is being increasingly devalued. I don't think I am aligned with the modern game any more and I'm not even that old.

I would think having another version of rugby for the amateur will have a negative impact on pro rugby too.
 
Sorry, I forgot for a moment that having a different opinion to DSLD makes me an [insert ad hominem of choice] by definition.

My mistake and I apologise.
 
Sorry, I forgot for a moment that having a different opinion to DSLD makes me an [insert ad hominem of choice] by definition.

My mistake and I apologise.
Until they change the laws for professional rugby (which they will at some point), then it's not proper rugby. It's a watered down version where you can't tackle as high and you can't lower your body height in to contact.

So it's not your opinion it's fact I'm afraid. Two different types of rugby now and one is rugby, the other is a watered down one.
 
Nope, both are proper rugby.
Is touch rugby "proper rugby"?

How would you define "proper rugby", ie; what makes something "proper rugby" vs "improper rugby" or however we want to phrase the alternative?
 
The RFU themselves have divided the game into "community" and "elite". I can't help but think the RFU should have waited on world rugby.

Teams from Nat 1 to Championship will go from 'community rules to elite rules and vice versa. It changes your tactics, positioning etc. Can you rip the ball or is that a tackle? Especially given the ball carriers got to remain upright. Just seems a coaching nightmare.

As far as i know world rugby are looking at trials for the "belly tackle next year.
So if an amateur Bristol club for example plays a welsh club in a preseason friendly what rules do you play. From an insurance point of view would you only be covered playing the" safer" version of the game.

Again maybe the RFU should have waited on everyone else agreeing to change as well.
 
Last edited:
Nope, both are proper rugby.
Can you clarify your position on this please. The tackle height change is massive in terms of tactics and how the game is to watch so at what point does it change from proper rugby to a watered down version of its former self?
 
Are they any other sports that have different laws/ rules now for playing vs pros? Apart from number of subs etc?

Was trying to think and couldn't.
 
Teams from Nat 1 to Championship will go from 'community rules to elite rules and vice versa. It changes your tactics, positioning etc. Can you rip the ball or is that a tackle? Especially given the ball carriers got to remain upright. Just seems a coaching nightmare.
At least the winners of National 1 will have an off-season to prepare. The real headache to me is for loan and DR players who will find themselves playing community laws one week and elite the next.
 
So it's an opt in trial till 2025. Yet the RFU have gone all in, as have the SRU. It appears the WRU aren't that bothered at the moment.
 
I really don't get the point in the trial. They needed to trial this at professional level not at amateur level. I need to read the literature but wonder if they've got the same BS about the ball carrier not lowering their body height which is a joke and also see if they went belly or below sternum or even below armpit.

I've said it before but think we are in the last few years of rugby. Can easily see world rugby and the other useless unions all fighting and destroying the game once and for all.
 
And yet we still haven't seen this unequivocal evidence anywhere.

"However, throughout this process we have been guided by the science to help make the game safer for our players and the evidence is unequivocal."

This is fixing a problem the community game doesn't even have ffs.
 
This is fixing a problem the community game doesn't even have ffs.

I'd be interested to see the unequivocal evidence to support this statement.

Anecdotally, a relative of mine has played most of his rugby at level 3/4 and described a season in which he only picked up 3 concussions as "pretty good". Hopefully, medical attention is better now that awareness is much higher, but going back a few years, I saw him get up after a clash of heads then collapse again. A magic sponge later, he was allowed to play on. On another occasion, one of his teammates boasted in the local press about how he played on despite throwing up in the changing room at halftime. The latter time, the team he was playing for listed 3 team doctors on their website!
 

Latest posts

Top