Who are the authors?fivepointer wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 2:34 pm 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
I read something similar, re pros stay the same vs community changed, along the lines that you’re changing things for people who can just give it up based on their own risk assessment but not for people who will likely suffer more head/bread injuries at bigger forces but can’t decide to just give up as they have outgoings based on a wage they almost certainly can’t replicate outside of playing rugby.
This goes back to WT’s point that the RFU can’t act unilaterally at pro level but it is illogical when looking from that angle.
