New Concussion report

[Puja]

Surely the next step would be to more strictly enforce the existing laws, ie all and any hits to the head, regardless of point of initial impact, dominant etc are a red, rather than hitting the nuclear button for everyone but the players of the coaches would rather run the risk of 14 players than asking for passive tackling. All that is assuming the 14 dominant tacklers vs 15 passive tacklers is even the mindset - is there any evidence?

That would last for a week, before getting drowned in a sea of pundits and DoRs whining that it wasn't fair and he didn't mean it and ruining the game and this isn't tiddlywinks, etc etc.

Puja

I suppose the answer to that is to not listen to the DoRs and pundits.

Ref's're only human though.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

That would last for a week, before getting drowned in a sea of pundits and DoRs whining that it wasn't fair and he didn't mean it and ruining the game and this isn't tiddlywinks, etc etc.

Puja

I suppose the answer to that is to not listen to the DoRs and pundits.

Ref's're only human though.

Puja

Prove it.

[Mellsblue]

[Mr Mwenda]

My worry now is that anything good in the idea will be rejected out of hand. What a textbook terrible way to try to implement change.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/data ... b79de0f895

[Puja]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64395234

"We have missed a chance to use those who have played, coached or refereed the game a chance to help us get the wording of the law exactly right.

"If we can use the collective wisdom [of the clubs] to stress test the proposed law wording and suggested guidance over the next few weeks, we will get the right outcome, which is a safer game for everyone and more people wanting to play rugby in the future."

Hopefully this is a start of mild backtracking without admitting fault - "the wording was wrong" leading to "encouraging to tackle around the waist, but the law will actually be below sternum". I think that'd be a compromise that would allow legal tackles in the "green zone" while also not being too radical for the players.

Puja

[Banquo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64395234

"We have missed a chance to use those who have played, coached or refereed the game a chance to help us get the wording of the law exactly right.

"If we can use the collective wisdom [of the clubs] to stress test the proposed law wording and suggested guidance over the next few weeks, we will get the right outcome, which is a safer game for everyone and more people wanting to play rugby in the future."

Hopefully this is a start of mild backtracking without admitting fault - "the wording was wrong" leading to "encouraging to tackle around the waist, but the law will actually be below sternum". I think that'd be a compromise that would allow legal tackles in the "green zone" while also not being too radical for the players.

Puja

TBH the original presentation talked about naval height....chest height at least has a chance of being determinable.

[Cameo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64395234

"We have missed a chance to use those who have played, coached or refereed the game a chance to help us get the wording of the law exactly right.

"If we can use the collective wisdom [of the clubs] to stress test the proposed law wording and suggested guidance over the next few weeks, we will get the right outcome, which is a safer game for everyone and more people wanting to play rugby in the future."

Hopefully this is a start of mild backtracking without admitting fault - "the wording was wrong" leading to "encouraging to tackle around the waist, but the law will actually be below sternum". I think that'd be a compromise that would allow legal tackles in the "green zone" while also not being too radical for the players.

Puja

Yeah, that would be a common sense outcome. Below waist height will just make the game too unplayable for some older guys and bigger heavier guys. It's one of the beauties of rugby that those people can keep playing a part.

[Puja]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64395234

"We have missed a chance to use those who have played, coached or refereed the game a chance to help us get the wording of the law exactly right.

"If we can use the collective wisdom [of the clubs] to stress test the proposed law wording and suggested guidance over the next few weeks, we will get the right outcome, which is a safer game for everyone and more people wanting to play rugby in the future."

Hopefully this is a start of mild backtracking without admitting fault - "the wording was wrong" leading to "encouraging to tackle around the waist, but the law will actually be below sternum". I think that'd be a compromise that would allow legal tackles in the "green zone" while also not being too radical for the players.

Puja

Yeah, that would be a common sense outcome. Below waist height will just make the game too unplayable for some older guys and bigger heavier guys. It's one of the beauties of rugby that those people can keep playing a part.

I think that was one of the major mistakes that the RFU made in their rollout announcement actually. Emphasising how "rugby is a game of evasion" and "speed up the game" - listen, dickheads, it's already easy enough for nippy 19 year olds whose limbs look like a collection of sticks badly glued together to take the piss out of me on a rugby pitch and you're sitting here joyfully telling me to be excited about how you've made it even easier for them? Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty goalpost and take your new laws with you!

And I say that as someone who understands they had good intentions with this. "Rejoice, for running around you is about to get even easier" is not a selling point for a large chunk of community players and should not be emphasised in your launch documents!

Puja

[Banquo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64395234



Hopefully this is a start of mild backtracking without admitting fault - "the wording was wrong" leading to "encouraging to tackle around the waist, but the law will actually be below sternum". I think that'd be a compromise that would allow legal tackles in the "green zone" while also not being too radical for the players.

Puja

Yeah, that would be a common sense outcome. Below waist height will just make the game too unplayable for some older guys and bigger heavier guys. It's one of the beauties of rugby that those people can keep playing a part.

I think that was one of the major mistakes that the RFU made in their rollout announcement actually. Emphasising how "rugby is a game of evasion" and "speed up the game" - listen, dickheads, it's already easy enough for nippy 19 year olds whose limbs look like a collection of sticks badly glued together to take the piss out of me on a rugby pitch and you're sitting here joyfully telling me to be excited about how you've made it even easier for them? Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty goalpost and take your new laws with you!

And I say that as someone who understands they had good intentions with this. "Rejoice, for running around you is about to get even easier" is not a selling point for a large chunk of community players and should not be emphasised in your launch documents!

Puja

I think the evasion thing is just a sales pitch to deflect from....we have a real problem with these head knocks but we don't want to overemphasise this and want a positive connotation. IMO just make sure the sanctions are consistently applied and give longer suspensions for reckless play for head shots, and apply ruck laws to stop scatter rucking would be miles better.

[Which Tyler]

How to make this mess even worse; lesson 1





SGM would be fine - and I'd suggest one should have been called ahead of the announcement, to discuss the options with representatives of the clubs, get the science advisors (and lawyers) out there explaining things.
But a vote of no confidence?

[Puja]

How to make this mess even worse; lesson 1

Your second pic is not showing?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Your second pic is not showing?

It's a pic or a paragraph from the article (which I can't get behind the paywall for yet)
Basically saying that the evidence was so compelling that the council members felt they'd be legally vulnerable if they voted against the changes.

[Banquo]

The RFU board and Bill Sweeney, the chief executive, are set to face a vote of no confidence after 246 rugby clubs joined forces to call for a special general meeting.

The grassroots revolt was triggered by the RFU council’s unanimous vote to outlaw tackles above the waist in community rugby from July 1, a decision taken without any consultation with players, coaches or referees.

The clubs in Staffordshire have demanded their RFU representative, Michael Proctor, table a motion calling for the “unforgivable” decision to be overturned. Some council members are at risk of being ousted.

The Community Clubs Union, an independent group set up this week, is finalising the wording and technicalities of its resolution for an SGM before posting it to Twickenham. The document, which required the backing of at least 100 clubs, will outline the clubs’ intent to hold a vote of no confidence in Sweeney, Tom Ilube, the RFU chairman, and the board at Twickenham.

However, the RFU has stood firm in the face of the widespread criticism — including opposition from three influential directors of rugby in the Gallagher Premiership — and doubled down on its commitment to push ahead with plans to lower the tackle height.


One council member told The Times they would be “legally vulnerable” if they had voted against the “compelling” evidence presented, hence the unanimous decision. The RFU, Welsh Rugby Union and World Rugby are being sued for negligence by former players who have been diagnosed with neurological issues, such as early onset dementia and probable CTE.

“We understand the rugby community has a range of questions in reaction to the recent announcement that the tackle height is to be lowered across the community game from next season,” the RFU said in a statement.


“We recognise the change is challenging and the community game has understandably provided significant feedback on the change. However, the large body of scientific evidence strongly indicates that it will reduce the incidence of head injuries in the community game and, given the French experience of it over the past few seasons, suggests it is a more exciting game to play and watch.”

The law change was announced last Thursday without any detail or effort to try to engage the community game, which has triggered much of the confusion and anger. Twickenham officials have not even defined exactly what “the waist” means.

The decision was based on research from similar law trials in France and South Africa, plus a study undertaken by the University of Otago in New Zealand that is yet to be peer reviewed and has therefore not been published.

The RFU insisted there would now be a consultation period with clubs, players and referees. It stated that the concussion rate at National One level and in age-grade rugby is one in eight games, dropping to one in 15 games further down the pyramid.

“We consider the decision to reduce the tackle height to be the start of the process, to allow for a period of engagement in the coming weeks with groups of coaches, players and referees, drawn from across the country and from all levels of the game,” the RFU said.


There will be many opponents of the claim that more offloads, more tries and higher scores equals more exciting rugby. James Buckland, the former Leicester Tigers hooker who is now head coach at Aylesbury RFC, predicts the law change at community level will lead to more knock-ons and therefore more scrums.


Other grassroots coaches have questioned how they are expected to retrain players when they only have one session per week. There is a widespread fear that rugby union, which is already suffering from falling participation, will lose more players.

The RFU said it would publish further information and guidance in the coming days and roll out a training programme. The RFU pushed the law through now to give players, coaches and referees time to try to adapt before the start of next season.

World Rugby is working on a similar process, which is likely to lead to the introduction of a global law trial from January 1, although no decision has yet been made on whether the proposed tackle line will be the waist or the sternum.


Lowering the tackle height is designed to reduce the number of head-on-head collisions in rugby. Mark McCall, director of rugby at Saracens, and Alex Sanderson, who holds the same role at Sale Sharks, both questioned whether the move would make the game safer by reducing concussions.

“I don’t understand the process of what they have decided to do,” Sanderson said. “I understand their intent, which is right, but what I have been told is that 70 per cent of the concussions occur to the tackler.

“To my understanding, all you are doing is increasing the risk of the tackler getting more concussions because of where he is putting his head, around the hard bits of the ball carrier’s body. To do such a drastic law change could yield more concussions than it could save and put the tackler in more harm.”


Rob Baxter, the Exeter Chiefs director of rugby, could have to change his policy of loaning out academy players to local clubs to further their development if the laws are so fundamentally different.


Baxter has long expressed concerns about rugby’s “addiction” to “knee-jerk” law change decisions. “We are consistently tinkering and changing with laws. It makes it harder and harder for the same game to be played all the way to the top,” he said.

“In football you can go to the park and play the same game. Rugby is getting harder and harder to do that. And it will become harder and harder to referee. We need to be careful.”

Rugby Australia has said its priority is to educate players in correct tackle technique rather than introduce a new law. Andy Farrell, the Ireland head coach, made the same point earlier this week.

Johnny Sexton, the Ireland captain, echoed McCall and said he “strongly disagreed” with the law change.

[Banquo]

Hope the above helps- I've seen the emails flying around between club chairmen from NL1 and below, and they are very cross indeed . As I think I said before, this is a straw that has broken their backs around the RFU, consultation, money and generally feeling very challenged (revenues and player numbers are ugly). Originally they were after a SGM, and not a vote of no confidence, so its ramped up a bit.

[Puja]

This whole thing about "what even is a waist lol" is nonsense. I'll accept it if it's the figleaf the RFU need to bring things up to sternum without officially backtracking, but everyone heard "waist and below" and assumed that meant just above the line of the shorts.

If the RFU had come out and said that tackle height was being reduced to below sternum and that carriers would be barred from lowering and leading with their head, this would all have been fine and probably applauded. Instead, they led with a single press release saying "waist or below", "game of evasion", "no dipping into contact", "changing the way the game is played to make it faster," and let people draw their own interpretations about how the RFU were basically banning forwards and carrying the ball into contact.

It's an incredible set up fuckups and frankly does probably require Sweeney going, especially after his recent run of embarrassments.

Puja

[Banquo]

This whole thing about "what even is a waist lol" is nonsense. I'll accept it if it's the figleaf the RFU need to bring things up to sternum without officially backtracking, but everyone heard "waist and below" and assumed that meant just above the line of the shorts.

If the RFU had come out and said that tackle height was being reduced to below sternum and that carriers would be barred from lowering and leading with their head, this would all have been fine and probably applauded. Instead, they led with a single press release saying "waist or below", "game of evasion", "no dipping into contact", "changing the way the game is played to make it faster," and let people draw their own interpretations about how the RFU were basically banning forwards and carrying the ball into contact.

It's an incredible set up fuckups and frankly does probably require Sweeney going, especially after his recent run of embarrassments.

Puja

as before, the RFU original vid was talking about 'naval height'.....maaaad.

[Puja]

This whole thing about "what even is a waist lol" is nonsense. I'll accept it if it's the figleaf the RFU need to bring things up to sternum without officially backtracking, but everyone heard "waist and below" and assumed that meant just above the line of the shorts.

If the RFU had come out and said that tackle height was being reduced to below sternum and that carriers would be barred from lowering and leading with their head, this would all have been fine and probably applauded. Instead, they led with a single press release saying "waist or below", "game of evasion", "no dipping into contact", "changing the way the game is played to make it faster," and let people draw their own interpretations about how the RFU were basically banning forwards and carrying the ball into contact.

It's an incredible set up fuckups and frankly does probably require Sweeney going, especially after his recent run of embarrassments.

Puja

as before, the RFU original vid was talking about 'naval height'.....maaaad.

Quite apart from anything else, with some of the larger-bellied lads I've played against, navel height can be a moving target!

Puja

[Banquo]

This whole thing about "what even is a waist lol" is nonsense. I'll accept it if it's the figleaf the RFU need to bring things up to sternum without officially backtracking, but everyone heard "waist and below" and assumed that meant just above the line of the shorts.

If the RFU had come out and said that tackle height was being reduced to below sternum and that carriers would be barred from lowering and leading with their head, this would all have been fine and probably applauded. Instead, they led with a single press release saying "waist or below", "game of evasion", "no dipping into contact", "changing the way the game is played to make it faster," and let people draw their own interpretations about how the RFU were basically banning forwards and carrying the ball into contact.

It's an incredible set up fuckups and frankly does probably require Sweeney going, especially after his recent run of embarrassments.

Puja

as before, the RFU original vid was talking about 'naval height'.....maaaad.

Quite apart from anything else, with some of the larger-bellied lads I've played against, navel height can be a moving target!

Puja

Yep, at least the chest is tad clearer. Hips even more so, but aiming players at the hip carries its own risks (as that is normally how things work out in interpreting rules).

Have to say though, my initial reaction was that aiming players lower (as in fairness us older cheps were coached to do) would lead to more head knocks, and as Sanderson said, 70% of the injuries/risk (sort) lie with the tackler....BUT you then have to factor in that you are twice as likely as the tackler to get a head issue going high, as opposed to aiming at the thigh (say). Its not quite as simple as saying that instead of going high, you go low and then halve your chances of a head problem, but you can infer it if doing it properly.
Mind, the other thing was in producing the stats for the FFR study, there was more than just lowered tackle height- they stopped assisted tackling and boosting players into contact, as well as coaching before the trial started. So a few factors.

[Which Tyler]

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 of 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.

[Banquo]

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.

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 don't 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 observe 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.



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" 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.

Yep, its not really rocket science. Its just been poorly introduced in an autocratic too short a timescale way. I have quibbles about refs trying to spot navel height, so below sternum seems most sensible; some of the commentary from the pro game does seem a bit ill informed and just fuels the ire from the junior clubs, which is mostly about the timescales and lack of consultation (which is a general beef- 'the RFU doesn't care about us').

[Oakboy]

Has anything been said about sanctions for tackles that are high by a small margin? Let's face it, even at lower club level, with two players running flat-out, things happen quickly. Is a tackle just below nipple height on a short guy, for example, punishable by just a penalty or what? I have great sympathy for refs trying to apply the suggested changes.

[Which Tyler]

As far as I'm aware, we're still waiting for clarity.

Best guess would be some sort of sliding scale.
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

[Banquo]

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.

[Mellsblue]

I’ve sympathy with adults not being allowed to make their own risk assessments on whether they want to play under the current laws. I still going skiing even though Schumacher is a vegetable and someone has broken a bone on approx 60% of the trips I’ve been on. A good friend is currently dating a three day event rider who has more metal in her body than the original terminator and yet she still competes.
I do have sympathy for those who thought the waist meant waist. I am conscious at work not to use too many technical terms with non construction people, especially when it could be misleading. 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’.
All that said, something had to be done but, boy, do I understand the frustration both with the new laws and the comms around them.