New Concussion report

[Which Tyler]

I've also found this, a full match played under the French initiative rules, so that we can see what that one actually looks like:



Level is the final of Fédéral 3 - 7th level for the French system; equivalent to mid-table in Regional 2 (6th level) of the English system - more-or-less playing to break into the top 200 teams.

[fivepointer]

BREAKING: Harlequins captain Stephan Lewies has received a two-week ban for his clean out on Chandler Cunningham-South against London Irish last weekend.

The ban will be reduced to one week if Lewies goes to tackle school.

The Pro game isnt remotely serious about dealing with this issue, are they?

[Which Tyler]

Right, having spent a couple of weeks thinking about it, and sifting through the evidence (that I can find) trying to apply common-sense packs etc; I've come up with what I would actually like to see (rather than a bunch of "not that"s)

I would drop the tackle height to armpit / nipple line, but I'd make it that the tackler's head needs to be below that target line OR the tackler's target line needs to be higher than the ball carrier's head.
I'd then encourage (or make law if taken up by WR) that shirt-companies put... something... at that line to make it more easily visible for refs.



The point is to get 1 players head away from the heads and shoulders of other players.
I don't really care which is higher, as long as they're not in the same place (as a trial, at least - but that trial needs to be at least 1 full season).

This still allows a buffer zone for misjudgements, between the armpit, and the bony top of the shoulder - about 3" (NB this is supposition. As far as I'm aware, the research hasn't differentiated between the bony top of the shoulder, and the meaty outside of the shoulder.)
I think heads are easier to see than shoulders at point of contact, especially at lower levels with no replays and no touch judges interventions.

I'm happy with "encouraging ball barriers not to dip into contact" - depending on the final wording and interpretations.
Bracing for impact should be fine; but not the "lunge & present shoulder" we see from some of the bigger wingers to bounce tacklers off them. The point here for me should be about showing the tackler where they can hit you, and then not deliberately changing that - height wise.

[p/d]

That is far more level headed. Though a tweak on the phrasing for the ladies game

[Puja]

I'm happy with "encouraging ball barriers not to dip into contact" - depending on the final wording and interpretations.
Bracing for impact should be fine; but not the "lunge & present shoulder" we see from some of the bigger wingers to bounce tacklers off them. The point here for me should be about showing the tackler where they can hit you, and then not deliberately changing that - height wise.

My preferred wording would be that ball carriers are not allowed to lead with their head into contact - so if there is a tackle in which their head is first in, it's dangerous play and a free-kick. That way it still allows for carriers to carry hard, but stops the current thing where players are taught to run head down into contact like a bull charging.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

That is far more level headed. Though a tweak on the phrasing for the ladies game

Fair point, well made.
We'll stick to the armpit / axilla then

My preferred wording would be that ball carriers are not allowed to lead with their head into contact - so if there is a tackle in which their head is first in, it's dangerous play and a free-kick. That way it still allows for carriers to carry hard, but stops the current thing where players are taught to run head down into contact like a bull charging.

For me, the rhino charge has it's place - at the pick-and-go it's... fine.
For the purposes of safety, as long as the tackler is using their torso to tackle with, I'd be fine with it, as no-one's head should be particularly close to anyone else's. They've already changed it so that, if held up, the defending team gets the ball, so I've no problem with further encouraging the soak tackle (and a well executed soak tackle that holds the ball up, is a thing of rugby beauty IMO).
In mid-field, having been upright, and then dipping down, then yeah, it's about refusing to allow a legal tackle - again though, I'm specifically allowing the soak tackle, although it's still advantage to the attacking team as it's granting them momentum (maybe exempt the soak tackler from the need to roll away could even thing up a little by slowing the ball? Thinking on my feet here)

[Puja]

That is far more level headed. Though a tweak on the phrasing for the ladies game

Fair point, well made.
We'll stick to the armpit / axilla then

My preferred wording would be that ball carriers are not allowed to lead with their head into contact - so if there is a tackle in which their head is first in, it's dangerous play and a free-kick. That way it still allows for carriers to carry hard, but stops the current thing where players are taught to run head down into contact like a bull charging.

For me, the rhino charge has it's place - at the pick-and-go it's... fine.
For the purposes of safety, as long as the tackler is using their torso to tackle with, I'd be fine with it, as no-one's head should be particularly close to anyone else's. They've already changed it so that, if held up, the defending team gets the ball, so I've no problem with further encouraging the soak tackle (and a well executed soak tackle that holds the ball up, is a thing of rugby beauty IMO).
In mid-field, having been upright, and then dipping down, then yeah, it's about refusing to allow a legal tackle - again though, I'm specifically allowing the soak tackle, although it's still advantage to the attacking team as it's granting them momentum (maybe exempt the soak tackler from the need to roll away could even thing up a little by slowing the ball? Thinking on my feet here)

I don't like it in any facet of the game personally. When I was young, we were always told not to drive into tackle bags head first in training cause you'd compress your neck. Now, I get told off in training if I don't. It seems an invitation to trouble to lead with the head in any contact, let alone relying on defenders to switch up and go where the attacker's head is not.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Now, I get told off in training if I don't.
Puja

What?!?!?!?!?

[Mellsblue]

MSc research on this very subject:

https://forgettingtest.org/?project=p1000_103

[Puja]

Now, I get told off in training if I don't.
Puja

What?!?!?!?!?

I know. I'm told that turning and hitting with my shoulder reduces momentum and that I should be driving in a straight line.

Our 1st XV is reasonably high level in the pyramid as well, so it's not a lower level coach talking shit. It's the technique that the pros are taught as well when you watch them.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Now, I get told off in training if I don't.
Puja

What?!?!?!?!?

I know. I'm told that turning and hitting with my shoulder reduces momentum and that I should be driving in a straight line.

Our 1st XV is reasonably high level in the pyramid as well, so it's not a lower level coach talking shit. It's the technique that the pros are taught as well when you watch them.

Puja

Oh , I see. I think I’ve misunderstood! I thought you meant hit the pad with your head when you said lead with your head! All the manuals I’ve read when learning how to coach at age grade have stated that you must drive in a straight line but first contact must, obvs (you’d hope), be with the top of the shoulder.

[Puja]

What?!?!?!?!?

I know. I'm told that turning and hitting with my shoulder reduces momentum and that I should be driving in a straight line.

Our 1st XV is reasonably high level in the pyramid as well, so it's not a lower level coach talking shit. It's the technique that the pros are taught as well when you watch them.

Puja

Oh , I see. I think I’ve misunderstood! I thought you meant hit the pad with your head when you said lead with your head! All the manuals I’ve read when learning how to coach at age grade have stated that you must drive in a straight line but first contact must, obvs (you’d hope), be with the top of the shoulder.

Not entirely. It's not headbutting the centre of a tackle bag as tackling practice, like I made it sound on second read. However, we have had exercises where we're training to carry into contact - Two defenders stand side-by-side and hold two tackle pads are held together and you're meant to drive between them, using your head as a battering ram to split them apart.

Puja

[Banquo]

I know. I'm told that turning and hitting with my shoulder reduces momentum and that I should be driving in a straight line.

Our 1st XV is reasonably high level in the pyramid as well, so it's not a lower level coach talking shit. It's the technique that the pros are taught as well when you watch them.

Puja

Oh , I see. I think I’ve misunderstood! I thought you meant hit the pad with your head when you said lead with your head! All the manuals I’ve read when learning how to coach at age grade have stated that you must drive in a straight line but first contact must, obvs (you’d hope), be with the top of the shoulder.

Not entirely. It's not headbutting the centre of a tackle bag as tackling practice, like I made it sound on second read. However, we have had exercises where we're training to carry into contact - Two defenders stand side-by-side and hold two tackle pads are held together and you're meant to drive between them, using your head as a battering ram to split them apart.

Puja

thats daft- more effective to attack between with your shoulder and safer.

[Mellsblue]

Oh , I see. I think I’ve misunderstood! I thought you meant hit the pad with your head when you said lead with your head! All the manuals I’ve read when learning how to coach at age grade have stated that you must drive in a straight line but first contact must, obvs (you’d hope), be with the top of the shoulder.

Not entirely. It's not headbutting the centre of a tackle bag as tackling practice, like I made it sound on second read. However, we have had exercises where we're training to carry into contact - Two defenders stand side-by-side and hold two tackle pads are held together and you're meant to drive between them, using your head as a battering ram to split them apart.

Puja

thats daft- more effective to attack between with your shoulder and safer.

Yep, plus easier to offload beyond the contact point.

[Mellsblue]

[Gloskarlos]

I know. I'm told that turning and hitting with my shoulder reduces momentum and that I should be driving in a straight line.

Our 1st XV is reasonably high level in the pyramid as well, so it's not a lower level coach talking shit. It's the technique that the pros are taught as well when you watch them.

Puja

Oh , I see. I think I’ve misunderstood! I thought you meant hit the pad with your head when you said lead with your head! All the manuals I’ve read when learning how to coach at age grade have stated that you must drive in a straight line but first contact must, obvs (you’d hope), be with the top of the shoulder.

Not entirely. It's not headbutting the centre of a tackle bag as tackling practice, like I made it sound on second read. However, we have had exercises where we're training to carry into contact - Two defenders stand side-by-side and hold two tackle pads are held together and you're meant to drive between them, using your head as a battering ram to split them apart.

Puja

It’s a dangerous drill that, saw u14’s doing it at our club and I had to have a word, players who were shy to keep their head straight got frightening angles on their neck as the head caught on the tackle pad and the whole body then turned. Over zealous pad holders smashing players backwards with the head not smack into ‘the gap’ that doesn’t exist could’ve caused horrendous injuries. Not sure what it teaches, pads introduced for safety and confidence building but promoting terrible technique

[Mellsblue]

Email from the RFU:

Tackle height consultation

The RFU will be launching a series of initiatives to listen to and learn from people across the game by consulting on the process around implementation of a lower tackle height in the community game. The consultation will allow the game to discuss why this is happening, what the optimal tackle height should be, and what needs to be factored in to make it a success.

The RFU is seeking the support of the community game to implement change in a way that ensures rugby remains the sport we all know and love.

The consultation will formally launch at the beginning of March with a survey giving everyone across the game the chance to have their say. There will also be an extensive series of online and face to face consultations across the country.

Working with Constituent Bodies the RFU will ensure the consultation reaches a broad and representative cross-section of people – from players and coaches, through to match officials and disciplinary officials, and to club volunteers and parents representing both the adult and junior male and female games.

Changing the tackle height is an important step in reducing the risk of player head injuries and concussion in the community game. It’s backed by a large body of scientific evidence, and is aligned with recent steps taken by France, other Home Nations and New Zealand.

After external analysis of the data, we will listen to your feedback and this will be taken back to the RFU Council to determine the way forward.

[Which Tyler]

Just received the same

[Puja]

Hopefully not too little too late. That approach would've worked a blinder had it been brought out at the beginning, but they may have hardened people's anti-change positions and prevented them from listening with their original high handed approach.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Hopefully not too little too late. That approach would've worked a blinder had it been brought out at the beginning, but they may have hardened people's anti-change positions and prevented them from listening with their original high handed approach.

Puja

Yeah, my club's groups are full of replies along the lines of "That's great, I'm glad they're consulting, I've nothing against lowering the tackle height, I look forward to seeing their evidence... and I refuse to countenance the suggestions made in January"

[Banquo]

Hopefully not too little too late. That approach would've worked a blinder had it been brought out at the beginning, but they may have hardened people's anti-change positions and prevented them from listening with their original high handed approach.

Puja

Yeah, my club's groups are full of replies along the lines of "That's great, I'm glad they're consulting, I've nothing against lowering the tackle height, I look forward to seeing their evidence... and I refuse to countenance the suggestions made in January"

Frankly, just think the way it was done just added rocket fuel to general junior rugby anger with the RFU. Big old bandwagon then was built and started rolling.

[Puja]

Hopefully not too little too late. That approach would've worked a blinder had it been brought out at the beginning, but they may have hardened people's anti-change positions and prevented them from listening with their original high handed approach.

Puja

Yeah, my club's groups are full of replies along the lines of "That's great, I'm glad they're consulting, I've nothing against lowering the tackle height, I look forward to seeing their evidence... and I refuse to countenance the suggestions made in January"

I mean, if the RFU are halfway competent (stop laughing at the back), they'll take advantage of their earlier abysmal communication. I've been doing my own bit of outreach amongst players at my club and literally everyone I've spoken to thought "below the waist" meant that the whole tackle had to be below the waistband of the shorts and is taken aback when I note that I thought that too, but the RFU's definition of waist is effectively the same as below sternum.

Blame the January "below the waist" suggestions on Derek the Intern (who has since been let go), tell everyone that that nonsense has been abandoned in favour of consultation and then lead everyone to the much more sane compromise of almost exactly what they originally wanted under a different description.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Having realised fairly quickly that they had screwed up, England Rugby is now trying to do it properly and has released a survey for all players, coaches, parent of players etc to complete.

https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... nsultation

It has some good videos which explain the issues and than some questions to answer. It is both informative and welcome. I would encourage anyone who has a view on this (which should really be everyone on this board) to complete the survey.

[Which Tyler]

[Mellsblue]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/rugby-u ... 5crmn.html