Is it time to lower the dangerous tackle line from below the shoulders to below the chest?
Tackles to the chest area are increasingly dangerous in professional rugby – not just because they have a high chance of moving to the player’s head, or causing a head clash, but because chest-high tackles are dangerous in themselves.
The number of players who have been injured by legal chest-high tackles is growing, and the number of head injuries caused by tacklers aiming too high is a contributing factor in the growing spate of concussions.
The traditional rugby tackle is taught to younger players to be aimed between the knees and chest.
Ball-and-all tackles from the front may need to be changed in technique so tacklers are less upright. Wrap around, choke-hold tackles are one of the contributors to head clashes and head injuries, as tacklers attack at chest height and any error moves them towards the head.
The Guardian made a positive argument that such a law change would cause attacking players to have their passing arms free more often, causing more passes and likely more tries. Hardly a bad result?
Secondly, there are increasing calls for the reserves bench after this World Cup to be reduced from seven players to five, the aim being to have players staying out longer and getting more fatigued.
The NRL is conducting a comprehensive review of interchange rules in a move aimed at making the game safer and more exciting, including reducing the number of substitutions on the four-man bench from the current ten to either eight, seven or six.
Reducing the reserves bench in rugby union would inevitably mean a three-two backs-forwards split, with the players being more utility than the specialists they currently are.
This may in turn make it less likely for coaches to put them on early and lead to more fatigue for the starting XV.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
As an explanation: - ball carrier bends down low and runs into you with his head and shoulders. You can of yours tackle him on his shoulders and chest and you will also incidentally touch his head. - Ball carrier runs in upright. You aim towards his chest (in an upwards motion) there is a high chance (1 in 5 maybe?) your tackle can slip up to his jaw concussing him. But that is what many players actually go for. The "I rocked his world" tackle. haha
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Then they would also be penalised for a head high tackle. There is a lot of head and shoulder contact in such pich and go forward play but they are not treated the same as a head high tackle. Head high tackles are only enforced when the player is standing upright or semi-upright and the player swings above their shoulders. There are also penalties for forearms/elbows/shoulders that aim or connect to the head regardless of the position of the ball carrier. There was a recent case in the Pro12 where Nick Williams hit a player who was severely concussed who was part of a driving maul. Williams was I believe suspended and red carded. Changing the high tackle line to the chest would affect standing tackles only as it is a way to further protect the ball carriers head from uncessary hits.
tinfoil hat
Guest
Drowning is a serious risk. I have a pile of 'a bloke down the pub told me' type evidence to support my theory.
tinfoil hat
Guest
All respect others opinions? That is funny. You can listen to them, and respect that they can have their own opinion. But if the opinion itself is dumb, stupid or just pie in the sky rubbish that has zero chance of being implemented, how can people seriously be expected to 'respect' the idea itself? At this point you are not respecting Ben's opinion, are you?
tinfoil hat
Guest
Golf will have to be banned because people die from lightning strikes whilst playing. In fact, lets just ban all sport because we need to minimise injury risk, and then we can get to work on high risk activities like driving, walking and breathing. Zero risk is the only thing that matters, apparently
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
Scarborough Park down in Monterey was a special after heavy rain - I loved playing there 'cos everyone else was brought back to my pace. You'd slide for yards across a pond of water when making a tackle. I don't recall ever having to simply go home again due to cancellation of a match by rain. I assume they don't permit that now because it would be way too dangerous. Somehow.
Golden
Guest
In 15 years of playing rugby union I never got injured when being tackled. However, I received numerous injuries due to heavy contact with the ground. So why don't we just have all the grounds put a soft foam underlay below the grass to save us from getting hurt? And whilst we're at it, why don't we just limit games to 20 minute halves because that would reduce the amount of time that players could potentially get injured. Okay, now seriously. Rugby is a contact sport and if you don't feel safe playing it, that's fair enough. The solution is simple - just don;t play rugby, or any contact sport for that matter.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Watched the games last night with this in the back of my mind. My thoughts were: - practically every 'pick & go' would result in a penalty as players are nearly always tackled around the chest / upper body as they drive forward. - getting within 2 metres or so of the try line would almost result in a try if a defender can not tackle around the chest to stop momentum. - the impracticability of enforcing such a law.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
I feel as though this article was meant to have the comedy tag but the editor didn't get it.
bennalong
Guest
Great idea. And there are many who want to take "grass cutter" tackles out too Take out the head, the chest and the legs and that leaves the groin. So it be cool to aim for the nuts! What a dumb bloody namby-pamby society we've become when a "Roar guru" comes up with this. Let's make it a 'virtual' game. Completely 'safe'! You could even get to choose the winner at the start!
Al Capone
Guest
NO!!!!! Go play netball because basketball can be just as dangerouse. Maybe apply that rule in womans rugby but that would be stupid because woman don't hit anywhere near as hard as Willem Alberts.
superba
Guest
If the tackle zone was up to a line drawn between the armpits that might make things safer while still retaining the intensity of combat in the tackle .
Ozee316
Guest
The reduced substitution idea was also suggested on a news article from Europe. Another interesting idea they had to eliminate tactical subs and speed up the game was for subbed players to be forced to automatically miss the next weeks match. This would almost eliminate tactical substitutions making players more aerobic and a more free flowing game rather than the league style hit ups it's becoming.
mania
Guest
agree piru. i played gridiron and as a running back often had guys aiming flying head butts at me. just meant i had to be more aware and ready to speed, step or fend to make it harder for them to smash me.
Johnno
Guest
piru Well said, often a vocal minority charge into a sport and trash it's history and have never been part of it, and takeover, NRL a good case in point about haveing too many people outside the game making experts decisions. Not sure Snickometero , but maybe you right.
Snickometero
Guest
Social/recreational play is fairly normal in Ice Hockey.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
Which is pretty much the reason for the change tp tactical subs in the first place. Remember the good old days when props would do the hammy at the 60 minute mark so often you could sort the watch by it?
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
All good questions. 1. tackles are judged from point of contact. That's how you get knocked out. 2. ball carriers who are not standing upright (i.e. leaning into a tackle, crouching) will then mean the tackler has some buffer zone most likely 10-15cm below the shoulder or some other mark. 3. Under current rules there is no buffer zone. A slight miscalculation and a player get's legally knocked out. And players get penalised for what would 9 times out of 10 be a legal tackle. 4. In a pro game sensors would alert the TMO. In regular games the ref would just judge along with the touch judges. Now they look at tackles that hit the head. Under a chest regime they would penalise front on tackles that contacted within 10-15cm of it. High tackles have always been a judgement call. That can never be taken away. loweringthe line of the demarcation makes the tackles safer on average.
ben
Guest
ben, the Roar is a place where we respect others' opinion. Careful. Mods
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I think you didn't see the part in the article where it says tackles should be made between the knees and chest for a front on player. Trampling was banned in rugby long ago. Hurled? fine!