Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Tackle height lowered in community game by RFU.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 1116528" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>I have no sympathy at all for those thinking that everything is fine as it is - because those same people already know about the law suits the RFU (and WRU and WR) are facing - on charges of negligence; which (to my understanding) can only viably be defended by either pleading ignorance (fine when no-one knew, not fine once we understand the risks of head impacts), or by acknowledging and acting. If the RFU loses, then the RFU goes bankrupt. If the RFU go bankrupt, then the vast majority of grassroots rugby clubs goes bankrupt. If the RFU loses, that sets precedence for WRU and WR to lose - and soon after, every other national union, and there's no more rugby union to play.</p><p>You want to talk about "destruction of the game" - that's the way to do it.</p><p></p><p>I don't have much sympathy for those thinking that "waist" meant the waist line of the shorts and complaining on that basis - it's another argument from ignorance. It literally takes 6 key strokes on google to correct that ignorance.</p><p>Waist is a stand-in term for Abdomen, which means from the top of the pelvis (typically higher than the waist band of shorts, for men) to the underside of the bottom ribs.</p><p>"Navel" is a perfectly decent stand-in for waist, as is "below the sternum".</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have limited sympathy for those arguing "but that'll just mean more head on hip hits, which are more dangerous, because that's the concussions I've seen" - it's another argument based on ignorance.</p><p>There are far more tackles carried out with the head at hip height than there are with the head at head height, especially lower down the league structure; whilst ignoring that head on head is approximately 10 times more dangerous than head on hip. It's observer bias (the example Dr Tucker gives about cars seeming more dangerous than motorbikes because more people are killed in car accidents).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a decent amount of sympathy for those who thought that it was wrong to introduce this at the amateur level and not professional - it's a perfectly reasonable reaction and thought. Until you realise that the pro.s play far more cross-border competitions, where the RFU has no say, and the pro.s have a RWC coming up in a few months.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a great deal of sympathy for those thinking that skipping the torso and going straight to waist is too much too soon (that's still my instinct) - but I can see the rationale that they've tried smaller changes with greater enforcement, and that it hasn't worked; so maybe a more radical change is required to actually get heads away from heads. I'm still not convinced either way.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a great deal of sympathy for those thinking that soak tackles should still be legal - and I agree. Though I have difficulty finding a way that would work without it being a cop-out option and without overly complicating already complicated laws.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a huge amount of sympathy for those thinking that the whole thing has been handled terribly. The messaging and the optics are a complete mess.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have less sympathy for professional players/coaches arguing from ignorance than I do for Joe Bloggs turning out for Old Prostate's 2nd XV.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What I would have liked to have seen would be something along the lines of:</p><p>Either wait until WR has it's meeting in March, and announce something together.</p><p></p><p>Or say "We're looking at these changes to the tackle height for the 2024-5 season, and looking to bring it in at all levels. For the 2023-4 season, we're bringing in these changes for the ball carrier (and maybe some of the secondary changes the French made, like double tackles and no pre-binding of any other attacker to the ball carrier).</p><p>Here's an SGM to educate the clubs' rep.s, with the science advisors front and centre, legal advisors also present; fully explained rationale, and precise wording used.</p><p>Maybe go "Sternum" (or armpit, or nipple line) 2023-24; and "Below sternum" 2024-25.</p><p>If going before WR do, then say that they're asking WR to look at bringing in the same globally for post-RWC.</p><p></p><p>FTR: If going to waist, I'd also have a simple sliding scale for higher tackles.</p><p>Sternum = penalty as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation</p><p>Shoulder = yellow as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation</p><p>Head/neck = red as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation</p><p>Actually, make that tackler's head height, rather than first point of contact (that can be seen as an aggravating/mitigating factor, usually the latter), and it's a reasonable guide.</p><p>Height of the head is much easier to see in real time</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 1116528, member: 73592"] I have no sympathy at all for those thinking that everything is fine as it is - because those same people already know about the law suits the RFU (and WRU and WR) are facing - on charges of negligence; which (to my understanding) can only viably be defended by either pleading ignorance (fine when no-one knew, not fine once we understand the risks of head impacts), or by acknowledging and acting. If the RFU loses, then the RFU goes bankrupt. If the RFU go bankrupt, then the vast majority of grassroots rugby clubs goes bankrupt. If the RFU loses, that sets precedence for WRU and WR to lose - and soon after, every other national union, and there's no more rugby union to play. You want to talk about "destruction of the game" - that's the way to do it. I don't have much sympathy for those thinking that "waist" meant the waist line of the shorts and complaining on that basis - it's another argument from ignorance. It literally takes 6 key strokes on google to correct that ignorance. Waist is a stand-in term for Abdomen, which means from the top of the pelvis (typically higher than the waist band of shorts, for men) to the underside of the bottom ribs. "Navel" is a perfectly decent stand-in for waist, as is "below the sternum". I have limited sympathy for those arguing "but that'll just mean more head on hip hits, which are more dangerous, because that's the concussions I've seen" - it's another argument based on ignorance. There are far more tackles carried out with the head at hip height than there are with the head at head height, especially lower down the league structure; whilst ignoring that head on head is approximately 10 times more dangerous than head on hip. It's observer bias (the example Dr Tucker gives about cars seeming more dangerous than motorbikes because more people are killed in car accidents). I have a decent amount of sympathy for those who thought that it was wrong to introduce this at the amateur level and not professional - it's a perfectly reasonable reaction and thought. Until you realise that the pro.s play far more cross-border competitions, where the RFU has no say, and the pro.s have a RWC coming up in a few months. I have a great deal of sympathy for those thinking that skipping the torso and going straight to waist is too much too soon (that's still my instinct) - but I can see the rationale that they've tried smaller changes with greater enforcement, and that it hasn't worked; so maybe a more radical change is required to actually get heads away from heads. I'm still not convinced either way. I have a great deal of sympathy for those thinking that soak tackles should still be legal - and I agree. Though I have difficulty finding a way that would work without it being a cop-out option and without overly complicating already complicated laws. I have a huge amount of sympathy for those thinking that the whole thing has been handled terribly. The messaging and the optics are a complete mess. I have less sympathy for professional players/coaches arguing from ignorance than I do for Joe Bloggs turning out for Old Prostate's 2nd XV. What I would have liked to have seen would be something along the lines of: Either wait until WR has it's meeting in March, and announce something together. Or say "We're looking at these changes to the tackle height for the 2024-5 season, and looking to bring it in at all levels. For the 2023-4 season, we're bringing in these changes for the ball carrier (and maybe some of the secondary changes the French made, like double tackles and no pre-binding of any other attacker to the ball carrier). Here's an SGM to educate the clubs' rep.s, with the science advisors front and centre, legal advisors also present; fully explained rationale, and precise wording used. Maybe go "Sternum" (or armpit, or nipple line) 2023-24; and "Below sternum" 2024-25. If going before WR do, then say that they're asking WR to look at bringing in the same globally for post-RWC. FTR: If going to waist, I'd also have a simple sliding scale for higher tackles. Sternum = penalty as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation Shoulder = yellow as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation Head/neck = red as starting position +/- for aggravation/mitigation Actually, make that tackler's head height, rather than first point of contact (that can be seen as an aggravating/mitigating factor, usually the latter), and it's a reasonable guide. Height of the head is much easier to see in real time [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Tackle height lowered in community game by RFU.
Top