New tackle laws have World Rugby courting disaster

I laughed out loud at that comment. My cats are looking at me like I am mad. I too have no idea what he is talking about.

Crotty has made an art form of getting knocked out by hip or knee, only times I remember Conrad Smith getting concussed was for the same. Maybe we should ban tackling below the belly button. Tackle will only be allowed between nipple and belly button.

Concussion and neck injury is the issue. However, the “recipient” of the tackle is 3 times less likely than the “deliverer” of the tackle to be concussed or paralysed. Hence, we will need to progress to a “body height in collision” discussion which addresses BOTH tackler and carrier.

You've lost me here ... I dont see what point you are trying to make.

its a trial and common sense will prevail ( i hope). Concussion is real issue. This has a flow on effect downwards at all levels - many parents may seriously re-consider enrolling their child in a sport where there is a future and real chance of brain injury. Run the trial, do the stats and see what comes out. If concussion numbers are no diffrent (of course we assume currently they are reported correctly) then scrap it. As for 'diving' - ducking head to win penalty, i think refs will catch on. Using aussie rules as an example where players started using a heads first apporach to milk free kicks, if you duck and lead with head then it is play on. I would also like to see concussion stats on pick and drive etc - i think anecdotally less concussions arise from this than a rampaging players and a tackling player getting caught in the wrong position, shoulder charge (now banned) or a swinging arm

Under Policing them fails duty of care. Perhaps if players wouldn't "Push the Margins" in safety matters, this wouldn't be an issue.

"Aww, Deal with it Bru" Raises another one of my rant topics, "everything is legal if you don't get caught" Common sense? Every other sport would call this a charging foul, in fact, the Rugby laws do too, it just isn't enforced. If you are there there first, you get to stand your ground. Lifting is fine. It should be the "Charger"'s responsibility to do it safely, the simple answer - Vertical leap only. It is safe and maintains the contest. Folau personally caused 3 concussions this season, his yellow card was inevitable as far as I'm concerned.

Training players in how to tackle correctly, particularly in Australia where even internationals place their head on the wrong side, would also help.

If the game dies, it dies. Bring back amateurism.

over policing 'high shots' is already bad as it is..rugby needs less penalties not more..sometimes you wonder if the people at the top of the sport actually play, watch or know anything about rugby..so out of touch..

I agree John. When I read the proposed changes last week I watched an NRL game with the view about how they would implement such a change. What stuck out was when a player was going to score in the corner he put his head down when approaching the line. There was no way the opposing player who was in front of him could have tackled him anywhere than above the shoulders. There is good intent here and we all want players to play without injury but I am not sure if this is possible without taking away from the sport whether it is Union or League

Timbo, my 2c worth ... "My second injury was from a ball runner leading with their elbow at neck height." What if any was the referee's interpretation of this? Leading with the elbow is consider foul play so should have resulted in a card. the player on the ground is collided with and then penalized for standing their ground If the player is stationary and standing their ground then they shouldn't be penalized. The common issue we see if the player being out jumped and taking the man in the air, but both players are in motion. There is an argument to be made that lifting in all forms should be outlawed again. No lifting or supporting at the line-out or from the restart. That should help to eliminate the aerial clashes we see with pulling people down. Lifting was allowed because supporting was allowed, but some teams, exploited this at the line-out. The trick to catching them out was to judge how slowly they returned to ground ... if the jumper was being supported, then it looks unnatural i.e. too slow.

It is a great discussion topic, one I have attempted a few times but has always been met with polarized responses, Ranging from personal insults about how much of a snowflake I am, to, how Rugby should be banned on the grounds of safety. I hope the games administrators can navigate the minefield of public opinion and player welfare and come up with a solution that doesn't leave a large number of players with either a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) or Post Concussion Syndrome (PCS) at the end of their careers. Lawsuits will likely end the game if it isn't addressed. I think the steps taken to date are positive but have had a negative impact on the game in general. In short, the spirit of the rules are good, but they need some refinement. I am with you, I believe that the ball carrier has a personal responsibility to avoid putting themselves in a dangerous position, to gain advantage. Using your head as a battering ram is a good example. Penalize the Ball carrier? Or Play on? In the spirit of player safety, the Ball carrier must be penalized as a deterrent. I am thinking a short arm penalty is probably enough. It isn't an easy fix to legislate nor referee, I never said it would be easy. I sit typing my thoughts, with a sore back and a large bruise on my collar bone after 2 separate incidents from my Over 35's game on Sunday. It reinforces my view that stationary players are most at risk, whether it be a driving tackle as you receive a pass or a forward running into a ruck to effect a clean out with an impact. A significant number of injuries are suffered here. My second injury was from a ball runner leading with their elbow at neck height. which raises the topic of "Intent to Harm", another safety related matter. A third windmill I tilt at is the Folau style "Flying Through" catch, where the player on the ground is collided with and then penalized for standing their ground waiting to catch the ball. This can be resolved with a simple requirement for a vertical leap into any aerial contest.. I end my comments, melting into the pavement as the snowflake that I am, asking the question: With teenage youth leaving the sport in droves, skyrocketing insurance premiums due to injury rates and a trail of broken bodies, can the game survive without some practical, safety related law changes? Is our Bloodlust as spectators worth the welfare of the players?

I'd imagine they'd approach it as they currently do.

This trial has been devised thanks to research that actually shows that in terms of head injury it is the tackler and not the tackled player who is at the higher risk. I really don't understand all the conjecture here. It's a trial. If it works (which I suspect it will) then great. Player safety and welfare both while active and in the years after playing the sport should be of primary importance. If it doesn't then back to the drawing board. But regardless it needs to be given an opportunity to determine its worthiness. For Rugby to survive and thrive this is something we need to take very, very seriously. None of this 'back in my day' BS. Because today isn't your day. American Football is still grappling with this. Many in its admin throughout the differing stages are hoping that it will eventually go away but the declining numbers in participants particularly at the youth levels are beginning to tell. I for one support WR efforts in this endeavour.

" Then there is the pick-and-go manoeuvre around the fringes, often close to the tryline. So how can a legal tackle be made when the only part of the body presented to the tackler is the head and shoulders? " ^ That right there is why it wont work.

Indeed. Concussion numbers aren't going to change while the tackled player is free to shoulder charge and intentionally make the contact as heavy as possible. As stupid as it might get, if WR was serious they would be banning changing lines after the tackler is committed, applying the same height restrictions to the fend as the tackle, and punishing use of shoulders and elbows. Anything less is window dressing, as nothing is going to change while the tackled player can behave in ways that would get the tackler a ten minute to three week rest.

"Simple really" I don't have a clue what you're talking about. ?

Ive no firm figures for this but anecdotally I suspect far more tacklers are injured than tackled, getting their head on the wrong side or catching a knee or hip from the tackled player. So I'm not sure about this, one of the things I increasingly like about league is the reticence to card players, this super rugby and June season has seen some ridiculous cards given that have wildly changed the course of the games, no more so than aerial challenges, which is far too grey an area. Itd be nice to return to a time where if a player caught a bad or clumsy one, it was a penatly and we move on, if its malacious: punch, kick, shoulder straight to the head/neck, dump tackle then cards are considered

Agreed. I’m all for sensible changes to improve player safety, but when the degree of risk aversion is such that unworkable laws like this are introduced, the quality of the spectacle will inevitably suffer. Participants know that rugby is a dangerous game but still choose to play it and with the risks known, the authorities should be able to insure against legal expenses. It’s heading down a path where we may as well give up on it and play touch footy to compete for the Bledisloe.