Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:10 am
Just a point raised at a meeting this morning- if my guys get promoted to the champ (fingers crossed) then we will have a first team playing to one set of rules, and a second, third and colts team playing to another....when we loan players out, ditto. Tricky stuff.
Yep, there's always going to be issues at the fringes. Also the case for clubs in the border regions to Wales / Scotland, where they play across, albeit not a huge number (in season).
Oh, and good luck for promotion!
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:10 am1. I do have sympathy for those who thought the waist meant waist.
2. I am conscious at work not to use too many technical terms with non construction people, especially when it could be misleading.
3. On that, the noises coming from my club is that the move to sternum is a reaction to the reaction dressed up as ‘this is what we always meant’.
1. I don't recall anyone having a problem with "waist" meaning "waist" - all the complaints about it that I've seen is that they don't know what "waist" means, often confusing it for the word "hips". https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=waist
2. I'm surprised that you're talking about the use of technical terms, when many of the complaints about the word "waist" have been that it's not technical, not anatomical, and too fluffy.
3. Arguments based on ignorance, backed up by arguments based on ignorance, does not make them knowledgeable.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:10 am1. I do have sympathy for those who thought the waist meant waist.
2. I am conscious at work not to use too many technical terms with non construction people, especially when it could be misleading.
3. On that, the noises coming from my club is that the move to sternum is a reaction to the reaction dressed up as ‘this is what we always meant’.
1. I don't recall anyone having a problem with "waist" meaning "waist" - all the complaints about it that I've seen is that they don't know what "waist" means, often confusing it for the word "hips". https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=waist
2. I'm surprised that you're talking about the use of technical terms, when many of the complaints about the word "waist" have been that it's not technical, not anatomical, and too fluffy.
3. Arguments based on ignorance, backed up by arguments based on ignorance, does not make them knowledgeable.
1. I know many people who had a problem with waist meaning what they thought waist meant, but that’s anecdotal evidence for you and a symptom of the RFU’s terrible comms.
2. Conflation of two different arguments. In common use waist means where the waist of your trousers sit (not Simon Cowell). Now, if you work in a medical field you’ll know what/where the technical/medical term waist relates to, but the vast majority of people don’t and without further info will just lean on their basic knowledge of how they buy their trousers. All of a symptom of terrible comms, again.
3. I’m just reporting what I’ve been told and ultimately it’s those perceptions that have got us to where we are, ie a vote of no confidence.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:10 am1. I do have sympathy for those who thought the waist meant waist.
2. I am conscious at work not to use too many technical terms with non construction people, especially when it could be misleading.
3. On that, the noises coming from my club is that the move to sternum is a reaction to the reaction dressed up as ‘this is what we always meant’.
1. I don't recall anyone having a problem with "waist" meaning "waist" - all the complaints about it that I've seen is that they don't know what "waist" means, often confusing it for the word "hips". https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=waist
2. I'm surprised that you're talking about the use of technical terms, when many of the complaints about the word "waist" have been that it's not technical, not anatomical, and too fluffy.
3. Arguments based on ignorance, backed up by arguments based on ignorance, does not make them knowledgeable.
1. I know many people who had a problem with waist meaning what they thought waist meant, but that’s anecdotal evidence for you and a symptom of the RFU’s terrible comms.
2. Conflation of two different arguments. In common use waist means where the waist of your trousers sit (not Simon Cowell). Now, if you work in a medical field you’ll know what/where the technical/medical term waist relates to, but the vast majority of people don’t and without further info will just lean on their basic knowledge of how they buy their trousers. All of a symptom of terrible comms, again.
3. I’m just reporting what I’ve been told and ultimately it’s those perceptions that have got us to where we are, ie a vote of no confidence.
In addition, people are used to the high tackle line of "shoulders and below" being practically defined as "actively below shoulders" because seatbelt challenges mean that anything *on* the shoulders is often counted as high. So, when they hear "waist or below", it's not unreasonable for them to make the assumption that means that none of the tackle can come above the waist or else it will be called as high. Combining with Mell's point about waist also referring to clothing, has led a fair few people to assume that any tackle where shoulder touches shirt is going to be illegal and thus every tackle must now be around the legs.
Yes, it is people being ignorant and electing to stay that way, but it's also the RFU's literal job here to make sure that everyone everywhere understands and, given that the press have managed to find plentiful rent-a-quotes from pro players and coaches, they haven't even got people professionally involved in the game to understand.
Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:36 pm
make the assumption that…
Puja
‘Assumptions are the mother of all f**k ups’
‘To assume is to make an ass out of you and me’
Two sayings that the RFU PR dept. want to provide examples of for the Urban Dictionary.
It all comes back to shite comms…
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:11 pm
1. I know many people who had a problem with waist meaning what they thought waist meant, but that’s anecdotal evidence for you and a symptom of the RFU’s terrible comms.
2. Conflation of two different arguments. In common use waist means where the waist of your trousers sit (not Simon Cowell). Now, if you work in a medical field you’ll know what/where the technical/medical term waist relates to, but the vast majority of people don’t and without further info will just lean on their basic knowledge of how they buy their trousers. All of a symptom of terrible comms, again.
3. I’m just reporting what I’ve been told and ultimately it’s those perceptions that have got us to where we are, ie a vote of no confidence.
1.Yes, but they thought it meant "hips" - I will absolutely agree that it's mostly the fault of the RFU's comm.s
I will accept my bias, I do work in a medical field, and come from medical parents; so maybe. Either way, the first definitions I find anywhere online talk about "waist" correctly.
2.You mention Simon Cowell - his waist is in the same place as anyone else's, but the top of his trousers isn't. Equally, if we're talking waistline of trousers; then anyon'e going to get very confused if they... know any women - where it can range from "just below the hips" to "just below the boobs"
3.Yes, arguments based on ignorance (and I fully agree that the RFU have done a terrible job of addressing that ignorance, and really REALLY should have got out ahead of that by presenting the evidence (medical and legal) to club rep.s at an SGM; and explaining the measures intended, and the hoped for consequences, complete with Q&A, and ideally a vote based on information rather than knee-jerk (or no vote).
Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:36 pm
In addition, people are used to the high tackle line of "shoulders and below" being practically defined as "actively below shoulders" because seatbelt challenges mean that anything *on* the shoulders is often counted as high. So, when they hear "waist or below", it's not unreasonable for them to make the assumption that means that none of the tackle can come above the waist or else it will be called as high. Combining with Mell's point about waist also referring to clothing, has led a fair few people to assume that any tackle where shoulder touches shirt is going to be illegal and thus every tackle must now be around the legs.
Yes, it is people being ignorant and electing to stay that way, but it's also the RFU's literal job here to make sure that everyone everywhere understands and, given that the press have managed to find plentiful rent-a-quotes from pro players and coaches, they haven't even got people professionally involved in the game to understand.
Puja
Fair point on the previous interpretation seeming to mean "below" rather than "at or below"; and again, 100% agree that the RFU have handled it all terribly.
As for anyone assuming it meant "below the shirt", I've not seen anyone saying that, all I can do is eye-roll them though.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:11 pm
1. I know many people who had a problem with waist meaning what they thought waist meant, but that’s anecdotal evidence for you and a symptom of the RFU’s terrible comms.
2. Conflation of two different arguments. In common use waist means where the waist of your trousers sit (not Simon Cowell). Now, if you work in a medical field you’ll know what/where the technical/medical term waist relates to, but the vast majority of people don’t and without further info will just lean on their basic knowledge of how they buy their trousers. All of a symptom of terrible comms, again.
3. I’m just reporting what I’ve been told and ultimately it’s those perceptions that have got us to where we are, ie a vote of no confidence.
1.Yes, but they thought it meant "hips" - I will absolutely agree that it's mostly the fault of the RFU's comm.s
I will accept my bias, I do work in a medical field, and come from medical parents; so maybe. Either way, the first definitions I find anywhere online talk about "waist" correctly.
2.You mention Simon Cowell - his waist is in the same place as anyone else's, but the top of his trousers isn't. Equally, if we're talking waistline of trousers; then anyon'e going to get very confused if they... know any women - where it can range from "just below the hips" to "just below the boobs"
3.Yes, arguments based on ignorance (and I fully agree that the RFU have done a terrible job of addressing that ignorance, and really REALLY should have got out ahead of that by presenting the evidence (medical and legal) to club rep.s at an SGM; and explaining the measures intended, and the hoped for consequences, complete with Q&A, and ideally a vote based on information rather than knee-jerk (or no vote).
Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:36 pm
In addition, people are used to the high tackle line of "shoulders and below" being practically defined as "actively below shoulders" because seatbelt challenges mean that anything *on* the shoulders is often counted as high. So, when they hear "waist or below", it's not unreasonable for them to make the assumption that means that none of the tackle can come above the waist or else it will be called as high. Combining with Mell's point about waist also referring to clothing, has led a fair few people to assume that any tackle where shoulder touches shirt is going to be illegal and thus every tackle must now be around the legs.
Yes, it is people being ignorant and electing to stay that way, but it's also the RFU's literal job here to make sure that everyone everywhere understands and, given that the press have managed to find plentiful rent-a-quotes from pro players and coaches, they haven't even got people professionally involved in the game to understand.
Puja
Fair point on the previous interpretation seeming to mean "below" rather than "at or below"; and again, 100% agree that the RFU have handled it all terribly.
As for anyone assuming it meant "below the shirt", I've not seen anyone saying that, all I can do is eye-roll them though.
Knowing the aesthetics of those who make up the committee at my club, the assumption that they’ve ever known a woman, let alone had the opportunity to see the waist or boobs of a woman, is on par with the RFU assuming everyone would know where the anatomical waist line is.
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:08 pm
2.You mention Simon Cowell - his waist is in the same place as anyone else's, but the top of his trousers isn't. Equally, if we're talking waistline of trousers; then anyon'e going to get very confused if they... know any women - where it can range from "just below the hips" to "just below the boobs"
I mean, since we're talking about judging something happenjng on a rugby pitch, it's not unreasonable for someone thinking clothing rather than anatomy to leap immediately to "waistband of rugby shorts" rather than women's clothing.
JFR's snark notwithstanding, this is actually a pretty good result. A managed climb down, guided by the figleaf of "confusion about waist and below", while not abandoning Which's very real point that a change does have to be made.
Don't know if it's enough to save Sweeney's job, but it's a good sign for the general direction of things.
Yeah, its a backtrack but still upholding the principal that something must be done, which i think most of the game appreciate.
I learned earlier that armpit level tackling is the standard across all junior rugby in England and there is a mandatory 3 week stand down period after a concussion.
RUGBY UNION | SAM WARBURTON
New law is flawed – teach stars how to tackle properly instead
I cannot believe how many professional players are unable to master this basic of the game. This is where the focus should lie, not on a height restriction
Sam Warburton
Thursday January 26 2023, 3.30pm, The Times
The RFU’s decision to outlaw tackles above the waist in community rugby from this summer has certainly caused a furore, especially as it was taken without consultation with players, coaches or referees.
I think the intentions are good, but the lack of detail really concerns me. Not all concussions are caused by head-on-head collisions; rather, many result from the tackler’s poor technique, because his or her head is on the wrong side.
This change in the tackle height is an attempt to protect the ball-carrier, but is it going to help the tackler? It is not. In fact, it is probably going to increase the risk for them.
Are we addressing the wrong problem? For me, most of rugby’s concussion problems stem from poor tackle technique.
It is something I talk about a lot, and I’m actually getting a bit embarrassed because I keep saying on television: “He’s picked the wrong shoulder again.” I just can’t believe how many players are still picking the wrong shoulder to tackle with. It is a basic of the game and yet so many professionals cannot do it.
The tackles out wide, in particular, frustrate me, when full backs are covering across and they get their heads on the wrong side.
From what I am seeing at the moment more concussions are caused by poor tackle technique from the defender. Unfortunately, there are times when you simply have to tackle high (by that I mean the midriff/chest area) and sometimes that can result in accidental head-on-head collisions.
I do worry that we are trying to make this a perfect sport, which is whiter than white and always safe, but rugby can never be like that. You cannot have 30 big men or women running into each other for 80 minutes without some head contacts. It is impossible.
Those people who have made this decision on the tackle height — have they stood in a defensive line as either the first, second or third player from a ruck and had an 18st forward running flat out at them?
For those confrontational carries off the opposition No 9, you have to stay high because to adjust to any change of direction, you cannot be low. If you set yourself low and the carrier steps, then you simply cannot change direction and therefore it is likely that your head will be on the wrong side.
The only time I left the field for a head-injury assessment was when I tackled low (I was knocked out at Twickenham against England once but that was when a knee caught my head in a ruck). It was in the very last game I played, the third Test of the 2017 British & Irish Lions series in New Zealand, and because I tried to tackle Kieran Read low, when he stepped late, his knee hit my head.
Of course, I am not saying that concussion is not a hugely important issue for the game to deal with — and my heart goes out to those former players who are suffering the effects of it, with conditions such as dementia. I have always said that I think the mandatory time out of the game after a concussion should be extended, maybe even to a month, and that contact time at training must be kept to a minimum, but I do think the issue of tackle techniques is more critical to this argument than tackle heights.
I’m 6ft 3in and I found it hard to tackle low, but for players such as Courtney Lawes, who is 6ft 7in, it is nigh on impossible sometimes. It could almost become farcical, watching players trying to do that.
Tackling techniques simply have to improve. Tackle schools need to become compulsory. If you remember during Covid, there were people watching training to ensure there was only a certain amount of contact time — and that was implemented quickly — so why can’t we now swiftly implement mandatory tackle schools every so often? That can be monitored closely by someone independent.
As a player I put so much time into my tackle technique. I liked tackling but I put that extra time in to make sure my technique was good and therefore safe.
I hear a lot of coaches saying they are working hard on this in training but, without wishing to be rude, I am often thinking, “Well, you are obviously not doing that because you have got a professional full back who cannot tackle with his left shoulder.”
I’ve done some coaching and I know what it is like. Getting a player to do three or four tackles on a pad at the end of a session is simply not enough. You don’t have to do live contact, but you need to do it with decision-making involved and in a dedicated block during the session.
Nigel Owens, the former referee, made a good point by asking how you would be able to form a maul with this tackle height, because to form a maul you need to perform a choke tackle. If you could only hit below the waist, how could you do that?
If I played now, I know that I would be at risk of a lot of yellow cards for shoulder-to-head contact, because I used to make a lot of choke tackles — just soaking the carrier up, so not with great force — and it is easy for the shoulder to ride up. That is why I have a lot of sympathy for players today.
For me, there are other areas of the game that are potentially more dangerous. For instance, reckless clear-outs at rucks. The sanctions against them need to be much stronger. We are still seeing too many of them, with a player flying in with his arm tucked in. There is obvious intent to injure a player in my view. I never did that. Yes, I wanted to physically dominate opponents, but I never flew in knowing that I could easily make contact with their head and injure them.
It is still a wonderful game to play and watch, but I really do think that the concussion problem can be best fixed by focusing on tackle technique.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:14 pm
RUGBY UNION | SAM WARBURTON
New law is flawed – teach stars how to tackle properly instead
What an astonishingly ignorant article.
Puja
Which bits do you find astonishingly ignorant?
Just the overall tone and attitude of "Is tackle height really an important issue?", "Have the people making these decisions ever played the game?", "You can't make this a perfect sport", "The only time I ever got concussed was by tackling low - I tackled high all the time and it never did me any harm," etc.
He's bang on about tackle technique in the professional game, but conflating that with the situation in the community game is less than helpful.
He's right that too many Pro players get into bad positions in the tackle. I also think he's right to point to the Pro game needs to do more to get players tackling lower. The elite should be leading. Its the shop window of the game and good habits should be displayed there first and foremost.
But he's also right to say that the game cannot be completely sanitised. It is a contact sport that involves regular collisions, so some contact around the head is unavoidable.
Last edited by fivepointer on Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Just the overall tone and attitude of "Is tackle height really an important issue?", "Have the people making these decisions ever played the game?", "You can't make this a perfecf sport", "The only time I ever got concussed was by tackling low - I tackled high all the time and it never did me any harm," etc.
He's bang on about tackle technique in the professional game, but conflating that with the situation in the community game is less than helpful.
Puja
Ah, ok. Yep, the tone is very dismissive, not to mention the repeated use of anecdotal evidence which I hate, but I do think he has a number of good points, as 5p states, ie that we’re using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, will it translate to elite rugby and we haven’t picked all the low hanging fruit in the pro game/shop window.
I still can't help a degree of cynicism about the RFU (and world rugby authorities generally) in that I am convinced they would be doing nothing were it not for the threat of litigation, damages etc. That is a real threat, of course, and a response is necessary. Where I agree with Warburton is that 'seeing to be doing something' has over-ridden 'doing something'.
Perhaps the urgency of the situation required something instant. Perhaps, too, in the long run, an announcement, a climbdown and a readjustment following universal debate will achieve a desirable compromise.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:34 am
Which bits do you find astonishingly ignorant?
Just the overall tone and attitude of "Is tackle height really an important issue?", "Have the people making these decisions ever played the game?", "You can't make this a perfecf sport", "The only time I ever got concussed was by tackling low - I tackled high all the time and it never did me any harm," etc.
He's bang on about tackle technique in the professional game, but conflating that with the situation in the community game is less than helpful.
Puja
Ah, ok. Yep, the tone is very dismissive, not to mention the repeated use of anecdotal evidence which I hate, but I do think he has a number of good points, as 5p states, ie that we’re using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, will it translate to elite rugby and we haven’t picked all the low hanging fruit in the pro game/shop window.
His anecdote about "the only time I got concussed" annoyed me as well, because I watched you play Sam and that was not the only time you got concussed on a rugby pitch. Might've been the only time you went off for an HIA, cause you only played under the very beginning of those, but that is 100% not the only serious head knock you had. (Decided against making a "maybe you don't remember" joke as it's a bit tasteless).
I think the problem with the pro game is that, if this wasn't a RWC year, they'd be bringing sternum height and no going head first in across the game, but it is, so they can't. There'll be massive law trials in 2024, I guarantee.
Just the overall tone and attitude of "Is tackle height really an important issue?", "Have the people making these decisions ever played the game?", "You can't make this a perfecf sport", "The only time I ever got concussed was by tackling low - I tackled high all the time and it never did me any harm," etc.
He's bang on about tackle technique in the professional game, but conflating that with the situation in the community game is less than helpful.
Puja
Ah, ok. Yep, the tone is very dismissive, not to mention the repeated use of anecdotal evidence which I hate, but I do think he has a number of good points, as 5p states, ie that we’re using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, will it translate to elite rugby and we haven’t picked all the low hanging fruit in the pro game/shop window.
His anecdote about "the only time I got concussed" annoyed me as well, because I watched you play Sam and that was not the only time you got concussed on a rugby pitch. Might've been the only time you went off for an HIA, cause you only played under the very beginning of those, but that is 100% not the only serious head knock you had. (Decided against making a "maybe you don't remember" joke as it's a bit tasteless).
I think the problem with the pro game is that, if this wasn't a RWC year, they'd be bringing sternum height and no going head first in across the game, but it is, so they can't. There'll be massive law trials in 2024, I guarantee.
Puja
I agree the overall tone was a bit lofty and 'what do non internationals know about the game', but he did make some very salient points on technique and esp (my bugbear) on the ruck being a higher priority (and where no law change is actually needed, just enforcement). Must confess as before I had the same knee jerk that if you drive players lower, there will be more head knocks unless there is a big effort on tackle technique.......but the evidence doesn't show that, cos what they presented (hope they weren't fibbing!) was that if you go high, you are twice as likely to get a head issue than if you go at the thigh--- so it protects the ball carrier clearly, and does reduce the overall risk for the tackler for the same number of tackles.
Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:37 pm
esp (my bugbear) on the ruck being a higher priority (and where no law change is actually needed, just enforcement).
Just won £10 off myself!
It’s such an obvious move…
Interesting stats from France via Monsieur Stuart Les Granges in the Sun Times:
The impacts of the Fédérale 3 trial were stark, including three times fewer injuries, a 60 per cent reduction in impacts to the head, a 58 per cent increase in the number of offloads, a 31 per cent rise in line breaks, and a 67 per cent reduction in kicking.
Crucially, 13.5 per cent of tackles were classed as dangerous, as opposed to 18 per cent previously.
The French Federation’s survey of amateur clubs revealed that 50 per cent thought the changes had made the game safer, while 29 per cent did not. An overwhelming 86 per cent reported there to have been a sizeable effect on the game.
Surely the game can only survive if they can ‘show figures’ that the game can be ‘safer’. And using the reduction of tackle height - on the surface - is the simplest gesture.
Reduced tackle height the focus of community rugby game innovations for 2023
1 November 2022 ...
The new initiatives were trialled in selected grades last year and Lancaster said feedback from players, coaches and referees confirmed the focus on reducing tackle height was the right approach for the community game.
“Our participants have told us that they want to see improvements made to the tackle and breakdown areas, so that’s been our focus. The resounding feedback we’ve received from this season’s trials is that the game is more enjoyable to play and safer when the tackle height is reduced to below the sternum, or what some people will know as the belly.”
Feedback from community grades trialling the reduced tackle height in the 2022 season found that 78% of participants believed it improved the tackler’s safety, 73% felt it made the game faster and 72% thought there were more opportunities for offloads. ...
ARTICLE CONTINUES
