Chapel House Motor Company Limited Advertising Banner
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: The tackle question

  1. #1
    Got A Replica Shirt
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    73
    Rep Power
    0

    Default The tackle question

    The Rugby Football Union says it will soon provide "clarity for the game" regarding the radical new tackle laws amid fears of a mass player exodus.

    The tackle height will be lowered to the waist from next season for all levels apart from the Premiership and Championship.

    Is this something that Rugby league needs to fear? There seems to be almost universal opposition amongst RU players about this new rule. I know it is a different game with very different ways of playing but the basic idea of tackling the ball carrier is fundamental to both codes. Has health and safety gone too far, and if the RFU stick to their guns will the new rule eventually drift into rugby league?
    Bringing it all back home.

  2. #2
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,856
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Peters View Post
    The Rugby Football Union says it will soon provide "clarity for the game" regarding the radical new tackle laws amid fears of a mass player exodus.

    The tackle height will be lowered to the waist from next season for all levels apart from the Premiership and Championship.

    Is this something that Rugby league needs to fear? There seems to be almost universal opposition amongst RU players about this new rule. I know it is a different game with very different ways of playing but the basic idea of tackling the ball carrier is fundamental to both codes. Has health and safety gone too far, and if the RFU stick to their guns will the new rule eventually drift into rugby league?
    I’ve just been reading this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64353316

    I’m not sure we can follow this because of the offloading game and the need to smother the ball. I also think that exclusively low tackles could result in more concussion injuries. There’s more risk of the tackling player getting it wrong and catching the hip with the head.

  3. #3
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,522
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suttoner View Post
    I’ve just been reading this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64353316

    I’m not sure we can follow this because of the offloading game and the need to smother the ball. I also think that exclusively low tackles could result in more concussion injuries. There’s more risk of the tackling player getting it wrong and catching the hip with the head.
    Arron Smith being a prime example of head in the wrong place.He got clattered a few times with us and also with Leigh

  4. #4
    Learning All The Songs WA10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    St Helens
    Posts
    1,565
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    If this is followed through, it could be the death knell for union.

    My lad plays union over the winter and they're up in arms over this decision, it will ruin the game.

  5. #5
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WA10 View Post
    If this is followed through, it could be the death knell for union.

    My lad plays union over the winter and they're up in arms over this decision, it will ruin the game.
    I can see what you’re saying but the number of head injuries resulting in long term brain damage is profoundly worrying. I wouldn’t want my son playing either code for any length of time. But then, I’m being hypocritical because rugby, especially league, has given me decades of pleasure and I don’t want to see it die out. Also society has changed dramatically, if incrementally, and what was considered ok 20 years ago is now unacceptable and the answer to everything seems to be litigation

  6. #6
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    8,872
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    There will be a penalty at every ruck and maul, the ball handler leads with the head going low to the ground to set up a quick ruck, the defenders won't be able to make contact at waist level. Also there is enormous pressure on the neck in the scrum with 8 players opposing each other, to reduce that pressure Union would have to go to 6 players with a "looser" scrum.

  7. #7
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STIDDY View Post
    There will be a penalty at every ruck and maul, the ball handler leads with the head going low to the ground to set up a quick ruck, the defenders won't be able to make contact at waist level. Also there is enormous pressure on the neck in the scrum with 8 players opposing each other, to reduce that pressure Union would have to go to 6 players with a "looser" scrum.
    I can see that as a possibility! I’m more concerned about the potential change in league and what it could mean

  8. #8
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,211
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    I can see what you’re saying but the number of head injuries resulting in long term brain damage is profoundly worrying. I wouldn’t want my son playing either code for any length of time. But then, I’m being hypocritical because rugby, especially league, has given me decades of pleasure and I don’t want to see it die out. Also society has changed dramatically, if incrementally, and what was considered ok 20 years ago is now unacceptable and the answer to everything seems to be litigation
    We know far more about this than we did 20 years ago, what we should be doing is being completely transparent about the risks involved and allowing people to make their decision to play based on their knowledge of the full facts. Maybe we should be looking at reducing the force involved in tackles, maybe by reducing the 10 metres to say 5, or speeding the play the ball up so there is far more broken play rather than players running at set defensive lines.

  9. #9
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomsepho View Post
    We know far more about this than we did 20 years ago, what we should be doing is being completely transparent about the risks involved and allowing people to make their decision to play based on their knowledge of the full facts. Maybe we should be looking at reducing the force involved in tackles, maybe by reducing the 10 metres to say 5, or speeding the play the ball up so there is far more broken play rather than players running at set defensive lines.
    This feels like a well measured response. Let players decide - knowing the risks. Also let's look at ways to reduce risks without sanitising the sport - and the elements we like about it.

    I think Nick Fozzard's (along with Rob Burrow's) view is how I would feel. He played and enjoyed the physical aspects of the game. He doesn't put blame anywhere - and knew the risks, and would probably make the same decisions over again. Rather than let lawyers take over and portion blame - let the risks be known and players can make informed decisions about playing or not

  10. #10
    Got A Season Ticket Laner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    260
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    I am all for making sport safer but we all know that nothing is guaranteed in life. I would imagine this decision is a mixture of safety and fear of continued prosecution. In rugby union can you imagine a six foot six second row trying to tackle a five foot five scrum half below the waist? They would have to be crawling along the floor to do that. I see an opportunity for RL here (as long as we don’t follow this ruling) particularly in the North where most RU players have access and experience of RL. If you follow this through to the the end, in several years RU will become a game of tag rugby with zero contact at all.

  11. #11
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sthelens
    Posts
    669
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laner View Post
    I am all for making sport safer but we all know that nothing is guaranteed in life. I would imagine this decision is a mixture of safety and fear of continued prosecution. In rugby union can you imagine a six foot six second row trying to tackle a five foot five scrum half below the waist? They would have to be crawling along the floor to do that. I see an opportunity for RL here (as long as we don’t follow this ruling) particularly in the North where most RU players have access and experience of RL. If you follow this through to the the end, in several years RU will become a game of tag rugby with zero contact at all.
    The top 2 leagues premiership & championship aren't enforcing this rule (for now)

  12. #12
    Starting A Programme Collection
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    597
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    How long before head gear is compulsory?

  13. #13
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,443
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by notawiginfan View Post
    How long before head gear is compulsory?
    It's been shown to be ineffective at stopping blunt impact trauma, they're more for stopping cuts. I can't see them making them compulsory as there's no relevance to concussions.

  14. #14
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    I’m fairly sure that in the past people were told that a man can’t run without his legs and a tackle should start around the waist and slide down. Grappling and clamping arms to stop ofloads came in relatively recently. I’m not sure that stopping ofloads with the grappling has made the game a better spectacle. Getting the head in the wrong place is bad technique which I assume can be coached. I watched Saints v Cas from 1994 on highlights and Sullivan and Hunte got 7 tries between them. I’m not advocating no contact or even no wrestling but the game evolves, improves, suffers a setback and is fluid. I’m not sure where we are now with superfit, 100kilo athletes powering into each other is always the way to go.

    In any case, high tackles have always been illegal. Sonny Nickle got ten minutes in the bin in the match I watched from 1994 somethings stay the same!

  15. #15
    Got A Season Ticket Laner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    260
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philthompson View Post
    The top 2 leagues premiership & championship aren't enforcing this rule (for now)
    I’m aware of that. I mean’t that it is an opportunity for RL in general to increase the player base from the lower levels and ranks of RU. I can see amateur RU players who enjoy the physical side of the game moving to local RL clubs.

  16. #16
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,388
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BackrowSaint View Post
    It's been shown to be ineffective at stopping blunt impact trauma, they're more for stopping cuts. I can't see them making them compulsory as there's no relevance to concussions.
    Interesting Ted Talk by Emer Macsweeney in a link from the Nick Fozzard thread, a simple head band that prevents at least 60% of rotational brain movement during impact. A lot more is known now than 3 years ago, there will be changes what we are left with only time will tell.
    Denying young, predominantly men, the chance to test themselves in physical confrontation sports, especially ruled and refereed team sports may produce more problems than solutions.

  17. #17
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,672
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    As a kid I was always taught to tackle around the legs with my head behind the attacking player. The odd time you would get it wrong but it is definitely coachable. It would change the game very quickly and perhaps radically but it could only produce a more exciting attacking spectacle I think. A well timed powerful tackle round the legs will knock a man to the ground in no time so its not like an offload would be possible in every tackle. In fact the less effective tackles would be the ones punished and the play the ball would be lightening quick in comparison. I think we will come to the point of taking drastic action as the more evidence of injury presents itself the less players will want to play and the less parents will want their kids to take up the sport

  18. #18
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallaght Tiger View Post
    Interesting Ted Talk by Emer Macsweeney in a link from the Nick Fozzard thread, a simple head band that prevents at least 60% of rotational brain movement during impact. A lot more is known now than 3 years ago, there will be changes what we are left with only time will tell.
    Denying young, predominantly men, the chance to test themselves in physical confrontation sports, especially ruled and refereed team sports may produce more problems than solutions.
    Thanks for that. It’s a fascinating Ted Talk. She comments that “ We are at the tip of a CTE iceberg “ and that subconcussions are worse than concussions for increasing Tau protein. Also the idea that subconcussions are far more frequent in both codes of rugby than they are in American Football is significant in my mind. I’m all for freedom of choice within reason but we impose the use of seatbelts in cars, ban smoking in public and don’t allow people to carry guns.

    Rule changes can be very unpopular for fans and there is the so called “law of unintended consequences” but even so knowingly allowing young men to risk a much increased likelihood of severe brain injury seems unacceptable to me. Whether forcing people to tackle round the legs would reduce the frequency of rotational brain injury, which seems to be the decisive issue, is another matter.

  19. #19
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,443
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallaght Tiger View Post
    Interesting Ted Talk by Emer Macsweeney in a link from the Nick Fozzard thread, a simple head band that prevents at least 60% of rotational brain movement during impact. A lot more is known now than 3 years ago, there will be changes what we are left with only time will tell.
    Denying young, predominantly men, the chance to test themselves in physical confrontation sports, especially ruled and refereed team sports may produce more problems than solutions.
    I'll have to have a watch of that!

  20. #20
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    near leigh
    Posts
    3,057
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    I waited for someone mentioning it and then pasty did followed by more , that is how tackles always were and people in those days would say the game was better ,certainly to watch.

  21. #21
    In The North Stand With All The Old Folk Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    11,184
    Rep Power
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Day View Post
    As a kid I was always taught to tackle around the legs with my head behind the attacking player. The odd time you would get it wrong but it is definitely coachable. It would change the game very quickly and perhaps radically but it could only produce a more exciting attacking spectacle I think. A well timed powerful tackle round the legs will knock a man to the ground in no time so its not like an offload would be possible in every tackle. In fact the less effective tackles would be the ones punished and the play the ball would be lightening quick in comparison. I think we will come to the point of taking drastic action as the more evidence of injury presents itself the less players will want to play and the less parents will want their kids to take up the sport
    I played for more than 20 years most of the time at a decent level. I started in RL then switched to RU. When I first switched I got lots of comments about how more effective my tackling was coming from League. In those days League tackling was predominately round the thighs. In RU at that time in a lot of tackles you tried to hold the man up and turn him toward your own line, allowing someone to rip the ball. I'm not sure we can go back to those days and if we do, I think it will take a while for everyone to be accustomed. It will certainly be a different spectacle and though not certain, I think it could be more entertaining with players able to break more tackles.

  22. #22
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Day View Post
    As a kid I was always taught to tackle around the legs with my head behind the attacking player. The odd time you would get it wrong but it is definitely coachable. It would change the game very quickly and perhaps radically but it could only produce a more exciting attacking spectacle I think. A well timed powerful tackle round the legs will knock a man to the ground in no time so its not like an offload would be possible in every tackle. In fact the less effective tackles would be the ones punished and the play the ball would be lightening quick in comparison. I think we will come to the point of taking drastic action as the more evidence of injury presents itself the less players will want to play and the less parents will want their kids to take up the sport
    I agree, I think it could be a good move

  23. #23
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,338
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    I agree, I think it could be a good move
    I don't. Fold the sport if they ever get to the point where it's being seriously considered, there just isn't any point to the sport with those rules. The whole issue is being blown out of all proportion because of very tragic and horrible stories coming out about former professionals. But all those diagnosed with issues so far played in an era of ignorance as to the effects of head knocks. I've cheered players like Fozzard and Graham as they've stood up after being blatantly and obviously knocked out. Those players have then taken the next ball and got clattered again, then played the rest of the game, then taken painkillers and trained and played as if nothing happened the following week with no rest. We know more now and at junior, amateur and professional level, all head injuries are given manditory rest periods. I'm all for enforcing that more or extending the period to match the suggestions of scientists, but to ban tackling above the waist is just a daft idea. It will protect the ball carrier, but all you are doing is transferring the risks to the tacklers. Broken necks, concussions, knees to the skull etc. There will be tons of that. Sprint at the man and it's virtually impossible to complete the tackle as you don't have time to get to the side and tackle from there and if you tackle low head on you're going to get trampled. Imagine being a 5 foot, 10 stone winger or half back and trying to tackle a prop marauding onto the ball near the line. You can't. You may as well let them score. You might as well fold the sport and promote tag rugby instead.

  24. #24
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,287
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saddened! View Post
    I don't. Fold the sport if they ever get to the point where it's being seriously considered, there just isn't any point to the sport with those rules. The whole issue is being blown out of all proportion because of very tragic and horrible stories coming out about former professionals. But all those diagnosed with issues so far played in an era of ignorance as to the effects of head knocks. I've cheered players like Fozzard and Graham as they've stood up after being blatantly and obviously knocked out. Those players have then taken the next ball and got clattered again, then played the rest of the game, then taken painkillers and trained and played as if nothing happened the following week with no rest. We know more now and at junior, amateur and professional level, all head injuries are given manditory rest periods. I'm all for enforcing that more or extending the period to match the suggestions of scientists, but to ban tackling above the waist is just a daft idea. It will protect the ball carrier, but all you are doing is transferring the risks to the tacklers. Broken necks, concussions, knees to the skull etc. There will be tons of that. Sprint at the man and it's virtually impossible to complete the tackle as you don't have time to get to the side and tackle from there and if you tackle low head on you're going to get trampled. Imagine being a 5 foot, 10 stone winger or half back and trying to tackle a prop marauding onto the ball near the line. You can't. You may as well let them score. You might as well fold the sport and promote tag rugby instead.
    I’m afraid this completely misunderstands the nature and degree of brain damage that is now the issue of concern. Watch the Ted Talk listed in posts above Saddened and it makes it clear

  25. #25
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,522
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    No matter what laws they pass regarding tackling,there will always be an element of risk involved. The only way to eliminate it is to do away with tackling altogether and no one wants that. The waist high rule is stupid imo and is unworkable. Punish high tackles more with fines and suspensions,the repeat offenders will have to adapt or lose money.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •