New Concussion report

[Which Tyler]

Worth noting that research didn't finish in 2018

[Puja]

This really does feel like a heavy handed way to try and improve the game that will actually backfire and hurt community clubs. I've already seen people on Twitter encouraging Union players to come and play League instead as the tackle laws are getting a lot of backlash.

It's very unpopular in the two player group chats that I'm a part of too. I understand the logic and that the RFU need to be seen to be doing things, but this is a hell of a risky manouevre from them. Surely this would've been the sort of thing that would've been better eased into? Making it so that, from 2023, the line of high tackle is the armpits, then reconsider next moves from there. Right now, it feels like the game is going to abruptly change.

Puja

[p/d]

Just think, Lewsey hit on Surf boy would be a straight red.
Joy.

What next? Player can only take 5 strides before passing the ball.

[Mellsblue]

This chap makes a good point to finish his tweet.

[Mellsblue]

Cross border tours/matches will also be made pretty difficult. My old school go to a Sevens comp in Wales every year…
Will players moving from school into senior academies go directly from below waist to existing laws?

[Which Tyler]

This chap makes a good point to finish his tweet.

It's a fair point, but 1 union can't really do it at the elite level with cross-vorder competitions and jobs in the line

[Stom]

There was a lot less tackling generally as the ball wasn't in play anywhere near as much and not that much multi phase play, the game was more lateral as defences weren't as good, but there was a sprinkling of head on tackling, and we were taught how to do that (with a big lad we would often get very low and lasso the ankles ) as well as good sideways technique, esp head position.

The things I remember most from being coached 20+ years ago are tackle height and technique. We worked on it a lot, as it was the most dangerous part before we got big enough for scrums to get tough.

Saying that, I only ever had 2 injuries, one as the ball carrier, and that was bad luck and a broken hand, and one thanks to a collapsed scrum.

I like to think it’s because we knew how to tackle

I knew how to tackle but managed to be concussed twice when runner changed direction as well as break my jaw. Sh*t happens.

Yeah, you also played a higher level and for longer :p

[Mellsblue]

This chap makes a good point to finish his tweet.

It's a fair point, but 1 union can't really do it at the elite level with cross-vorder competitions and jobs in the line

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, albeit I’m initially sceptical, but as with anything there will be pluses and minuses to be discussed.

[Oakboy]

I've read a fair bit about this without developing any firm opinion. Three debating points in a balance of facts/opinions seem to stand out amongst many items being raised:

1. tacklers/tackled head injury percentages in trial 71/29%;
2. all trials should be conducted first in professional rugby so amateurs get to see changes demonstrated;
3. the consequences within the law of the land require changes in the laws of rugby now that the dangers of head injury to long-term health are known.

I'm glad I'm not playing any more.

[FKAS]

This really does feel like a heavy handed way to try and improve the game that will actually backfire and hurt community clubs. I've already seen people on Twitter encouraging Union players to come and play League instead as the tackle laws are getting a lot of backlash.

It's very unpopular in the two player group chats that I'm a part of too. I understand the logic and that the RFU need to be seen to be doing things, but this is a hell of a risky manouevre from them. Surely this would've been the sort of thing that would've been better eased into? Making it so that, from 2023, the line of high tackle is the armpits, then reconsider next moves from there. Right now, it feels like the game is going to abruptly change.

Puja

I would have thought the logical thing to do would have been to bring this in at junior level initially (u9s to u12s or similar) and then slowly let it creep up. Then what you have is a generation of players that have learnt the game tackling low. When they eventually feed in to u16s and above where it's under current rules their go to technique is then to hit low and drive through.

[Gloskarlos]

Haven’t seen a positive response to these changes anywhere. This will create a fiasco for next season and turn anybody who’s been into rugby for a while completely off. Less of an issue with tackle height, although I would have said waist is a very grey boundary and armpit height far better policeable. Many pro players have come out and decried the new laws. By far the biggest grey area for me is the ball carrier, can’t dip into contact? Can’t dive for the line then when scoring a try? Died in the wool props (no insult intended) are never going to learn ‘evasion’ when the reason they play rugby is the love of route 1. There could be more concussions here as a result of the ball carrier taking the ball in upright, not able to brace and having their head smashed on the ground as they are sent hurtling backwards in the tackle. How the hell referees are going to manage what the ball carrier does defeats me.

[Puja]

This really does feel like a heavy handed way to try and improve the game that will actually backfire and hurt community clubs. I've already seen people on Twitter encouraging Union players to come and play League instead as the tackle laws are getting a lot of backlash.

It's very unpopular in the two player group chats that I'm a part of too. I understand the logic and that the RFU need to be seen to be doing things, but this is a hell of a risky manouevre from them. Surely this would've been the sort of thing that would've been better eased into? Making it so that, from 2023, the line of high tackle is the armpits, then reconsider next moves from there. Right now, it feels like the game is going to abruptly change.

Puja

I would have thought the logical thing to do would have been to bring this in at junior level initially (u9s to u12s or similar) and then slowly let it creep up. Then what you have is a generation of players that have learnt the game tackling low. When they eventually feed in to u16s and above where it's under current rules their go to technique is then to hit low and drive through.

Yeah, that would've made a lot of sense too. Mind, I'm sure it's no coincidence that the RFU have announced this the same day that a 55 person court case is announced of former amateur players with CTE. They've really backed themselves into a corner though - if they stick with it, it looks like they'll lose thousands of players to retirement or, worse, League, but they can't back out as they've made their case based on "medical evidence" and "latest research" (which I'm dubious drove this decision, as (AFAIK) there's not a compelling narrative that going to waist high tackling will be the universal panacea), so if they u-turn, then any future court cases against the union will be open and shut.

There's a petition going around lots of rugby club chats arguing against the change, and every time I look at it, it seems like the number of signatories has doubled: https://www.change.org/p/2023-24-tackli ... union-game

Bad times for the game.

Puja

[FKAS]

It really is a shit storm of the RFU's own making.

What they need to do is find some contradictory evidence and then use that as the basis to reverse their decision. The 55 will be working with some injury lawyer type. The RFU lawyers should either be able to take them to the cleaners or arrange a relatively cheap buy off whilst accepting no blame.

[ad_tigger]

Don't suppose any of you lot have got footage of what rugby actually looks like played under these rules? I just had a bit of a google but couldn't find anything

[Banquo]

It really is a shit storm of the RFU's own making.

What they need to do is find some contradictory evidence and then use that as the basis to reverse their decision. The 55 will be working with some injury lawyer type. The RFU lawyers should either be able to take them to the cleaners or arrange a relatively cheap buy off whilst accepting no blame.

The problem they have is being seen to do something quickly with lawsuits flooding in and the game facing an existential crisis- and whilst that sounds pessimistic, its not that out there tbh. What is weird is that this action will lead to more concussions for tacklers.

[FKAS]

It really is a shit storm of the RFU's own making.

What they need to do is find some contradictory evidence and then use that as the basis to reverse their decision. The 55 will be working with some injury lawyer type. The RFU lawyers should either be able to take them to the cleaners or arrange a relatively cheap buy off whilst accepting no blame.

The problem they have is being seen to do something quickly with lawsuits flooding in and the game facing an existential crisis- and whilst that sounds pessimistic, its not that out there tbh. What is weird is that this action will lead to more concussions for tacklers.

Yeah certainly when they did the whole below the armpits thing with the Championship it led to more concussions not less.

[Banquo]

It really is a shit storm of the RFU's own making.

What they need to do is find some contradictory evidence and then use that as the basis to reverse their decision. The 55 will be working with some injury lawyer type. The RFU lawyers should either be able to take them to the cleaners or arrange a relatively cheap buy off whilst accepting no blame.

The problem they have is being seen to do something quickly with lawsuits flooding in and the game facing an existential crisis- and whilst that sounds pessimistic, its not that out there tbh. What is weird is that this action will lead to more concussions for tacklers.

Yeah certainly when they did the whole below the armpits thing with the Championship it led to more concussions not less.

Just common sense tbh. I would think the majority of concussions are tacklers anyway. Be interesting to see what they do about rucks, cos I suspect again the majority of head related issues are to do with repeatedly hitting rucks, and a lot of the more serious injuries are being rucked by players coming in horizontally/crocodile rolling. Frankly, those should be addressed right now at all levels- the laws already exist, give or take.

[Which Tyler]

Don't suppose any of you lot have got footage of what rugby actually looks like played under these rules? I just had a bit of a google but couldn't find anything

IIRC The French initiative is in its second year at the moment (and seems to go further than the RFU's) - I've not tried, but you'd probably need to be googling in French, and setting the time to <18 months and restricting to amateur level.

[Mellsblue]

[Puja]

The problem they have is being seen to do something quickly with lawsuits flooding in and the game facing an existential crisis- and whilst that sounds pessimistic, its not that out there tbh. What is weird is that this action will lead to more concussions for tacklers.

Yeah certainly when they did the whole below the armpits thing with the Championship it led to more concussions not less.

Just common sense tbh. I would think the majority of concussions are tacklers anyway. Be interesting to see what they do about rucks, cos I suspect again the majority of head related issues are to do with repeatedly hitting rucks, and a lot of the more serious injuries are being rucked by players coming in horizontally/crocodile rolling. Frankly, those should be addressed right now at all levels- the laws already exist, give or take.

I mean, tbh, the majority of head knocks that I have had at the community level have been in rucks. The big bosh upright tackles that crack heads together just don't exist this far down the pyramid.

Puja

[Puja]

There's a petition going around lots of rugby club chats arguing against the change, and every time I look at it, it seems like the number of signatories has doubled: https://www.change.org/p/2023-24-tackli ... union-game

Not quite doubled, but this was at 16k when I posted that and it is now 25k. It's the sixth separate time that I've seen someone share it on Facebook.

Puja

[fivepointer]

This is a pretty balanced assessment (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/good-int ... le-content)

Good intentions, unintended consequences

The RFU Law change and who’s affected

The RFU yesterday (the 19th January 2023) proposed a new law change that is intended to come into effect from the 1st July 2023.

The change will apply across the;

a. Community game (Clubs, Schools, Colleges and Universities) at both age-grade and adult levels;
b. To National One and below in the men’s game; and
c. Championship One and below in the women’s game.

It does not apply to elite rugby, that is to say the Premiership or Championship in the men’s game.

There doesn’t seem to have been any trial of this rule change in the UK that we can identify. We understand that it has been trialed in amateur clubs in France for [since March 2019] and was introduced there in the wake of the deaths of four young rugby players including Stade Francais teenager Nicolas Chauvin after breaking his neck and Aurillac’s 21-year-old Louis Fajrowski following a heavy tackle.

To see an example of what will be affected and are actually broadcast, you only have to look at the World Rugby Schools festival and the England University and School Cups matches streamed on the England Rugby YouTube channel. These produce exciting and competitive matches comparable to Professional Rugby matches.

Does it also mean the annual Army and Navy game needs to adopt this? We just done know clearly yet but we are sure there will be clarification soon.

What’s the RFU done?

The upshot from the RFU statement is;

Reduced tackle height for all community rugby

Tackles must be made at the line of the waist and below.
The aim is to put players’ heads in the safest possible place by defining in law where the line of the tackle may start.
A greater focus on the actions of the ball carrier

Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.
Match officials will focus on the actions of the ball carrier as well as the tackler when head contact occurs.
The positives?

We can see positives from the proposed change. Namely;

a. The ball carrier may be less likely to receive contact to the head if tackled, reducing the risk of concussion;
b. The focus on waist-high tacking will place emphasis on the offload, that will speed up games;
c. The sport becomes more evasion focused, and less collision based which can be a positive.

The negatives?

It may be questioned whether these positives fail to truly acknowledge and accept that at its core, rugby is and always will be a collision sport. Evasion is one part of a player’s repertoire but it’s not the sole focus. Players are already trained to seek to move the ball away from contact quickly, but contact should always be an option, and a feature of the game. Do the proposed changes really make contact safer?

The law change seeks to adopt a half-way house approach that is well intended (and we don’t criticise the intention), but, we suggest, raise some real concerns. As an initial observation, we note that;

a. There seems no real sense in having two sets of laws, for the same game;
b. This will create inconsistency in how a match is refereed and sanctions handed out;
c. Whilst there’s a focus on speeding up the game, will this actually create more stoppage, more penalties, and more confusion?;
d. The tackling player in being forced to target the legs and hips region is exposed to an inevitable risk of head injury, which in my opinion seems to offset the risk of a head injury to the tackled player, shifting to the tackling player;
e. Players making safe tackles will be frustrated when penalised which could lead to an impact on playing numbers.

Some questions

If we look at the game broadly, and we both say this as ex forwards, our main thoughts are;

a. For us, as (relatively) unfleet of foot, and not particularly physically flexible, it would have reduced our tackle count in our playing days, as tacking above the waist is a staple of forward play, but we question whether the tackles that we would now be encouraged to make (below the waist, by ‘putting our head in’) would expose us to a lesser risk of injury;
b. Does this kill the maul? Its part of the game, and the way it is most commonly set up is by moving into contact. Can an opposition player now be penalised for trying to set up a maul?
c. Does it effectivity ban a wrap tackle, and in cases of 2 man tackles, make the possibility of injury to the tacklers very likely as one cannot go high, and the other low?;
d. How does a hand off play into this, a player who is handed off may then tackle over the waist height?
e. Why are you forcing a player go for a dangerous tackle area when a player is moving at speed? When you consider player size, its sometimes in a mismatch and necessary to start high and slide down lower to a player’s legs.
f. Chop (ankle tackles) can be just as dangerous when you look at injury potential. This change focuses more impact onto the leg joints;
g. How does it affect a tackle from behind?
h. In close range tackling how can you hit the waist if a player has dipped and they start moving with the tackler having no time to react and needing to wrap the player?;
i. How do you assess the waistline through a moving players shirt?

Conclusions

Firstly, in England as tackling is normally introduced and played from under 9’snwards, isn’t there sense in enforcing this rule to cover players up to the under 15’s level, and this level only?
Secondly, why has there been no trial of this? There seems to be a lot of potential problems and exposure to foreseeable danger that need to be assessed before an entire playing population is exposed to them.
Thirdly, when watching a game of televised rugby, there is an assumption that certain younger viewers, (and some older) will seek to replicate the tackles and strategies they see in games. Does this not lead to the potential for even more problems, and criticism of young players who may then be deterred from playing the game altogether?
Finally, it seems to us to be contradictory to send a message that players in lower leagues need to be protected, but players at a professional level don’t. We are troubled by this message.

It may well be that this law doesn’t come into effect. We can see it having a real impact on playing numbers at the grass root level. We will have to wait and see.

Liam Ryan

Adam Korn

[FKAS]

Yeah certainly when they did the whole below the armpits thing with the Championship it led to more concussions not less.

Just common sense tbh. I would think the majority of concussions are tacklers anyway. Be interesting to see what they do about rucks, cos I suspect again the majority of head related issues are to do with repeatedly hitting rucks, and a lot of the more serious injuries are being rucked by players coming in horizontally/crocodile rolling. Frankly, those should be addressed right now at all levels- the laws already exist, give or take.

I mean, tbh, the majority of head knocks that I have had at the community level have been in rucks. The big bosh upright tackles that crack heads together just don't exist this far down the pyramid.

Puja

I had two concussions during my playing days and both were attempting what would be legal tackles under the new rules. One was where I was going low (cause he was really big) I slipped and headbutted his knee which hurt and got me plenty of ridicule. The other one was me tackling a guy from one side whilst my winger stepped in from the other and I got elbowed in the head by my own teammate, which left me with what I can only describe as pixelated vision.

It's a contact sport I don't think there's a magic way of stopping concussions though I am very much in favour of encouraging proper technique, particularly in kids who might see things on the TV and try to emulate them at the weekend.

[Banquo]

Yeah certainly when they did the whole below the armpits thing with the Championship it led to more concussions not less.

Just common sense tbh. I would think the majority of concussions are tacklers anyway. Be interesting to see what they do about rucks, cos I suspect again the majority of head related issues are to do with repeatedly hitting rucks, and a lot of the more serious injuries are being rucked by players coming in horizontally/crocodile rolling. Frankly, those should be addressed right now at all levels- the laws already exist, give or take.

I mean, tbh, the majority of head knocks that I have had at the community level have been in rucks. The big bosh upright tackles that crack heads together just don't exist this far down the pyramid.

Puja

yep, that's kind of my point; its a bigger deal to sort out the rucks imo.

[ad_tigger]

The point on cross-border competition is a big one, I grew up playing in Shrewsbury and we played about 2/3 or our matches against welsh teams. Not been to the club in 20 years but I would imagine it's similar for the age-group stuff now, that would become essentially impossible.