DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102872--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: January 20, 2023, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It does answer a lot of your questions. This big one:
--- Quote ---
> So then are we trying to reduce numbers of head collisions
without regard for the severity of the ones we're potentially
going to see more of as a result and which are justifiable as
"rugby incidents"?
--- End Quote ---
has a very clear answer of "no". The studies look at this in
detail and it is definitely a consideration. Leg tackles are
more dangerous than waist tackles, but significantly less
dangerous than upper body tackles. If you have more leg tackles
and fewer upper body tackles, you will get fewer incidents
overall.
The severity of concussions should not hugely change if it's
knee or skull or shoulder your head is colliding with, and
there'll be other factors in play as well. It seems wise to
focus on reducing the number of head contacts as the priority.
#Post#: 102873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: January 20, 2023, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
TBQ - you definitely need to read the article Jammy linked. At
the very least it explains why relying on anecdotal outcome
evidence from coaches and players is misguided.
#Post#: 102874--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: Fursty
Date: January 20, 2023, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Jammy you're obviously quite well read on this - how do you
prevent a pick and go a couple of meters out from the line if
you have to go for the legs?
#Post#: 102876--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: January 20, 2023, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fursty link ---
>
> Jammy you're obviously quite well read on this - how do you
prevent a pick and go a couple of meters out from the line if
you have to go for the legs?
>
--- End Quote ---
Read the article. 🙂
#Post#: 102877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: January 20, 2023, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fursty link ---
>
> Jammy you're obviously quite well read on this - how do you
prevent a pick and go a couple of meters out from the line if
you have to go for the legs?
>
--- End Quote ---
I'll quote the article:
First:
--- Quote ---
> the French also proposed a "partner law change" that would
regulate the actions by ball carrier. That is, they said that
the ball carrier would not be permitted to drop their height
into contact, or to bend down and lead with the head. In their
words, the "defender must be able to tackle the ball carrier and
so have access to his pelvis".
--- End Quote ---
then, regarding this country:
--- Quote ---
> More concerningly, and relevant to this story, was the
negotiation about what to do when the ball carrier is low in
contact, leading with their head. This often happens near
try-lines, and also in so-called pick and go situations. Even
in the wider elite game, this issue came up a lot. People would
protest harsher sanctions, saying "It is impossible for the
tackler to avoid head contact if the ball carrier is in a pick
and go move".
>
> The thing is, if you watched rugby any time between 2010 and
2017, long before the high tackle and head contact focus came
along, you'd see 30 to 50 of these situations every match, and
they were never an issue. Almost always, the ball carrier would
duck down, lead with their head into the tackler, who typically
stayed upright and 'soaked' the player. This situation would
produce head contact, so strictly speaking, is a 'high tackle',
but they are never sanctioned, and nor should they be. The
involve a bent ball carrier against an upright tackler, and head
contact from the ball carrier's head to the tackler's torso or
arms, in a wrap tackle.
>
> We know that the risk from these is low, and so there's no
need, even from a risk perspective, to act on these. They were
never penalised, not before 2017, not since, but they became the
focal point of dispute. In the attempts to navigate this issue,
I believe a perception was created that the tackler had to be
lower than the ball carrier, no matter what.
>
> This was, in my opinion, an imagined or exaggerated problem,
but it became crucial, because the response by coaches and
players to lowering tackle height was to forget that these ball
carrier induced head impacts have always been quite common, and
instead, tacklers began reacting to the ball carrier in what
became a 'race to the ground' while still trying to 'hit' the
opponent in a dominant tackle. As a result, a lot of dangerous
tackles were created where tackles were trying to contact ball
carriers low, the result being that two heads were still sharing
airspace, but with both players charging into each other low to
the ground. An image of elephant bulls fighting for territory
comes to mind.
>
> It needn't have been like this. A tackler who remains upright
and "high" could safely and legally execute a tackle on a bent
ball carrier, even with the lower tackle height trial, but this
happened less and less often, replaced instead by something we
can predict would increase risk.
>
> The French solution, as I mention above, was to stop the ball
carrier from dropping into contact by creating a law for that
player too. And it worked.
>
--- End Quote ---
My own personal view on it is this:
1) Players diving for the line are entitled to dive for the line
without risking head injury if they're not deliberately aiming
their head at something hard. "Rugby is a game of inches" is
just a saying, it's not the actual law. IMO the sport goes too
far in encouraging actions that are unsafe purely to prevent
something from happening; for example, massive clean outs
because "we might lose the ball". The risk of such an action is
far too high especially in service to such a small thing.
2) If you are in a position where you are unable to soak them or
grapple them, and cannot effect a legal tackle, it's a try.
3) I would not be against making 10m the distance for scrums and
lineouts, not 5m
4) The pick and go game is an absolute mess of illegality as it
stands and could use harsh focus tbh
#Post#: 102878--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: poorfour
Date: January 20, 2023, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fursty link ---
>
> Jammy you're obviously quite well read on this - how do you
prevent a pick and go a couple of meters out from the line if
you have to go for the legs?
>
--- End Quote ---
Go for the waist. Also, refs always have been and always will be
a bit more lenient on tackles near the try line because both
players are generally trying to get lower.
In terms of the risk of head-to-knee contact, I think it's a
strawman.
To put your head at knee height, your head basically needs to be
lower than your own knees (or the player needs to be
high-stepping. But David Campese retired ages ago). That is very
hard to do if you're actually driving with your legs. Unless
you're skilled enough to chop tackle (in which case you know
what you're doing), your head is only going to get to that
height if you trip or fall into the tackle - and that can happen
regardless of tackle height.
One of the earlier studies on injuries in rugby found that
(especially at amateur level) tacklers are injured more often
than the tackled player, usually by getting their heads in the
wrong place. One thing the French experience reportedly found
was that the risk to the tackler was much reduced.
#Post#: 102890--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: Rocker
Date: January 20, 2023, 6:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The actual data from the French trial doesn't really "prove"
anything. The difference in the number of concussions/Head
Injuries is statistically very small, especially in such a large
sample. It is all about the RFU and other unions running scared
of litigation.
Bloody lawyers screwing life up for everyone as always 🤬
Rugby is inherently a dangerous game as a contact sport, but no
more so than many other full contact sports. Probably safer than
horse riding still.... Maybe the RFU would just be happier is we
all sat in the stands and watched, while supporting whatever
fashionable cause they've decided to champion. I'm not really
sure that they like rugby or rugby players/fans.......
I do definitely get the feeling that it's just more PC bs to
satisfy the twitterati 🙄 The trouble is you can never
win because unless you eviscerate yourself entirely, they still
don't like you as you represent something they don't like. Why
isn't the FA banning heading the ball as there is evidence (at
least as good) that that can produce "brain injury" ?
#Post#: 102892--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: Yareet
Date: January 21, 2023, 2:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Rocker link ---
>
> The actual data from the French trial doesn't really "prove"
anything. The difference in the number of concussions/Head
Injuries is statistically very small, especially in such a large
sample. It is all about the RFU and other unions running scared
of litigation.
> Bloody lawyers screwing life up for everyone as always
🤬
> Rugby is inherently a dangerous game as a contact sport, but
no more so than many other full contact sports. Probably safer
than horse riding still.... Maybe the RFU would just be happier
is we all sat in the stands and watched, while supporting
whatever fashionable cause they've decided to champion. I'm not
really sure that they like rugby or rugby players/fans.......
> I do definitely get the feeling that it's just more PC bs to
satisfy the twitterati 🙄 The trouble is you can never
win because unless you eviscerate yourself entirely, they still
don't like you as you represent something they don't like. Why
isn't the FA banning heading the ball as there is evidence (at
least as good) that that can produce "brain injury" ?
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2022/jul/18/fa-to-trial-banning-deliberate-heading-by-children-under-12-in-england
HTML https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/scottish-football-to-ban-heading-the-day-before-and-after-matches-3933256?amp
#Post#: 102894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: January 21, 2023, 4:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Very much enjoying Rocker's commitment to the 'bit'.
#Post#: 102952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby
DIR By: Kermitpower
Date: January 21, 2023, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ChiddQuin link ---
>
> Me too! That must date us.
>
--- End Quote ---
My lad is 15 this month. He's still coached to take the legs.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page