Rugby fans fume over new high tackle laws

The laws have always been in place - it's simply that the referees were not enforcing them - this is a backward step and will further reduce the appeal of the game with more i necessary stoppages, playing possum by players and another opportunity for grandstanding snowflake referees like Nigel Owens to make the game even more about him than he does now !

It's simple, add an agreement into every contract, your still covered by insurance but you agreed that the risk was there. No claims to be made..

I saw a fair bit of the Exeter v Saracens match where the Sarries prop R.Barrington was sent off for a shoulder charge to the head of an opposition player, Geoff Parling. A lot of NH punters on the match blog afterwards said that Brad Barritt should have also got a red card for a stiff arm tackle to Parling's head. Barritt was not sanctioned at all by the referee but has been cited and is likely to miss 3 games. Looking at the video afterwards, Parling carries the ball with head lowered to take the tackle but is hit flush on the chin by Barritt's arm (to me, that's red, no excuses, see ya later). He falls sideways, possibly already knocked out, and is creamed by an onrushing Barrington's shoulder. One could argue all day as to whether Parling's head was too low or Barritt's tackle is too dangerous but the fact is that Parling is carrying the ball with head lowered to avoid being held up in the tackle and Barritt is throwing his arm hard to stop Parling's momentum (not bring him to ground) and set him up for a maul. In the blog mentioned above, many people complained that although the intention of the new laws is correct, it does not take into account Law 17 (Mauls) that actually encourages high tackles and running low with the ball, and that THIS Law should have been changed (also). Remember that one of the criticisms of W.Skelton (and many other WB players) is that he charges into opposing tacklers too high and is often held up in the ensuing maul thus surrendering the ball. Many International teams, eg: Ireland, Scotland, NZ and England, have made the high "choke" tackle into an art form. My proposal is the Maul Law 17:6 (c) should be changed from "Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began." to "Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team IN possession when the maul began." This would immediately stop the propensity to run low and high tackles such as the "choke" tackle, as well as opposing players deliberately collapsing mauls to force the scrum. As an aside, in that Exeter game about 5 players were knocked out/concussed from heads bumping against hips. This is mainly due again to defenders drilled that they must tackle high to either prevent passing rushes and/or start a maul. The result is many players don't tackle to put the opposition on the deck and have forgotten how to tackle low.

Such a bollox headline, it's not a new law.

Perhaps the Idea for this legislation is driven by a need to avoid litigation.

Geez Donnacha Ryan could be in trouble for this. https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/818125559301623808 10 weeks at least

Making this game of rugby into a game for sooks and possibly ruined it forever as a spectacle!! big time joke!

I fear for International

It's already having an impact. Top contenders of the Aviva clash today between Saracens and Exeter Chiefs materially affected by a new laws red card for Saracens (probably the wrong player though!) after 10 minutes. It ended up as a draw for a game that Sarries would have been favourites to win.

I think the stats show something like 85% of head injuries that occur are to the tackler not the tackled player. So at best these laws can reduce them by 15%, but is more likely to increase injuries to players making the tackle.

I think you are drawing a pretty long bow with the idea that eliminating rucking is causally linked to high tackling. If anything it would probably be easier to make the opposite argument and say that broken field play makes for more desperate, less accurate tackling and will increase the likelihood of someone getting taken high. Everyone probably remembers the "greatest try ever" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbwSx-xw_NU)...there were two obvious high tackles in the lead-up to that try so rather than a passage of play that has and will be long remembered, play would instead have stopped and NZ lost their hooker to a red card. Rucking does provide an interesting analogue though. In both cases there was never a specific change in law, merely a change in application and interpretation of the existing law. Both were/are drawing a harder line with something already designated illegal play, although high tackling of the ball carrier is probably already less tolerated than was rucking in the day. So for any perceived unintended consequences there have been in removing rucking, there is likely to be no less in the change to how the tackle is officiated. The more so when rucking at least had a specific ruling stating that accidental contact with a player when attempting to ruck legally is OK, whereas with this change any such similar accidental contact when tackling is specifically being penalised. It is going to be an interesting ride.

the game was buggered when they took out rucking. Rucking was the best way to keep rucks clear and play moving fast and free. As soon as this law went into effect the rucks become slow and thus ball getting out to the back line became stagnate allowing defensive lines to set and slow down attack. (worked out great for the NH sides as they like their rugby slow). This allows for the bigger hits and the now more common two man tackle (one low and one high) to be more prevalent. You do not need a new law to stop a hit to the head, you need laws that speed up the game and promote the fast free flowing game that rugby once was. My 2 rule changes are simple: No more subs - Players should only be swapped out for injury and blood. take out the "fresh legs" aspect and fitness becomes key. The big boys cannot and will not be as fit and strong to continually smash and bash each other. Players will need to be more technical and rely on skill more than size to last the full 80 min. Bring back rucking - Self policing the rucks always worked and will again in the future. you only had to be offside once and take a good bit of tap dancing to know you screwed up and made sure not to be caught there again. - Place harsh bans for stomping and illegal rucking. with 1 ref and 2 x touchies this should not be hard to police during the game. I love this game but find myself loosing excitement a little each year as some new law comes in that tweaks a little here and a little there. Rugby use to a game of hard blokes going at it for 80 min... Sorry.... ranting now.

Try watching old videos of games 30 years or more ago and you might notice that brutality and casual violence was part of rugby. Times change and attitudes to safety Improve . This rule change might work and one day people will be aghast at the current big high tackle brain rattling that is now almost seen as acceptable.

Another article that strikes some of the same chords in me: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/sydney-isnt-a-big-retirement-village-it-cant-be-perfectly-safe-20170105-gtmgud.html

Unfortunately intelligent comment regarding the high tackle, will always received an onslaught of opinion but not all analysis is sensible and reflects a situation, that normally happens in mille seconds. Such law changes, regardless of the reasons or category can only be effective if all involved interpret with the same due diligence. Using perfectionism as a guide, referees, law makers, administrators, players and the viewing public will always have differing opinion, hence the rub. Protecting the player from dangerous, reckless or unintentional play appears to be policed appropriately at this time by most top levels refs. Therefore, the referees association needs to be looking at their members in finer detail to have all involved singing from the same tune sheet. In fairness most unsavory tackles are not intentional; the issue is understanding the difference. Will the new law assist with that determination, I don’t believe so. The game administrators continue to tinker and be out of step with the game, as it is finely balanced in most areas. In certain countries the game is played with pace, with increased skills and precise ball procurement expertise. Opposition teams will always struggle under such pressure, players will spinning, twisting and try to protect the ball. Therefore accidents will happen. This level of commitment is what rugby fans like. For example in recent matches NZ have received a high negative penalty count. The main reason is the pace of their game and their desire to procure and recycle the ball quickly. Players are cognizant regarding the fine line between hero to zero but if the game is over policed it will become a zero.

I don't want to be alarmist and happy to wait and see how it pans out but I have concerns about these head-protection rules. Contact is the very essence of rugby. And players are supposed to go to ground so heads don't stay 5-6 foot away from the ground - a player could be diving for the corner, putting their head down to barge through a defender, bending down to pick up a ball, spinning out of a tackle, on the way down in a tackle, etc. Contact with the head is unavoidable. Accidents are going to happen. Players get hit in the head by their own teammates sometimes. This seems too much like making a law against unavoidable accidents.

Or people don't want to see contact they can watch soccer. Rugby already has strict enough rules on dangerous tackles. This is a joke.

I agree. In recent years the game has become too much about collisions and brutal tackles. As a result there seems to be way more head injuries and concussions than ever before. Something had to be done. Whether the new laws work or not remains to be seen but at least World Rugby are trying to address the very obvious problems in modern rugby union. If the rules need to be evolved and tweaked as they progress to remove the potential for feigning injury then so be it. However, potential stumbling blocks shouldn't discourage positive change.

It might ,eventually, lead to a more open game. It also might be a refs nightmare trying to Interpret. Suck it and see .Can always spit it out.

Brilliant law. Keep the skills and reduce the major injuries. If people are keen on keeping head high tackles they should play nrl where most head high tackles are condoned.