The outrage that followed the red card dished out to Marika Koroibete was hardly surprising.
When you hear the normally measured Andrew Mehrtens sound off then you know there is something very wrong.
What was surprising is that a good section of rugby people, perhaps 30-40 per cent by my reckoning, supported Koroibete’s sending off. A couple of comments stood out to me as particularly trite and misguided:
“More than happy to be part of the problem of protecting players and making the game safer”.
“MK had the option to line him up lower but he didn’t.”
One of the repercussions of the new laws is that we now see rugby players feigning injury and rolling around like soccer stars. But we can just about live with that providing the laws make players safer.
Fact is, there is plenty of evidence the new laws do not reduce incidents of concussion and may in fact increase it!
That evidence has been lost in the trendy and ill-thought-out rush to “be part of the problem of protecting players and making the game safer.”
One of the most comprehensive studies to date took place over 90 games played in the English Championship during 2018-19.
In short, the reduction of concussions caused by high tackles when applying the new laws was noticeable, if arguably negligible.
However, the study also noted that “Unexpectedly, compared with the standard tackle height setting, tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting were themselves concussed at a higher rate.”
But don’t take my word for it.
The study was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine and can be found here.
BBC rugby union correspondent Chris Jones said this:
“I understand the trial saw approximately a 67 per cent increase in concussions, from an average of 0.6 a game in the regular Championship season, to one per match in the Championship Cup.
“The number of concussions from upright tackles did fall markedly – as was hoped – but there was a drastic increase in concussive incidents around the breakdown, when both the ball carrier and tackler were bent at the waist.”
It’s worth repeating. There was a drastic increase in concussive incidents when both the ball carrier and tackler were bent at the waist.
Not just that, there was a 67 per cent increase in concussions full stop as a result of the new laws and encouraging players to “aim lower”.
There is a vast and emerging body of research that augments this study but does not fit with the trendy “I care about players” narrative.
What is incredible to me is that any of this research should come as a surprise.
In my playing experience, which admittedly was almost exclusively fully amateur over some 15 seasons, I was concussed three times. Once by being punched in the head. The other two times by getting my head in the wrong position during a low tackle. I was never concussed by a high shoulder charge, swinging arm or tackle.
I felt far more vulnerable tackling than I did being tackled. I played league as an 8-12 year old and felt like I had a good technique when I started school boy rugby.
But the fact is that changes in direction and speed by runners make tackling quite a tricky past time! If I made 100 tackles, I was always going to get a handful wrong and therein lies the beauty of the game, it’s why many tries are scored.
I am certain that the majority of rugby players have similar experiences and stories.
So why this obsession with demanding tackles become lower and lower?
After all, poor old Marika who “had the option to line him up lower but didn’t” which would have increased his concussion risk by more than the risk of the ‘high’ contact to French captain, Gerard Depardieu!
For one, I think people are well intentioned but really like saying “I’m for player welfare.” The facts and the wider implications aren’t as important as the virtue signalling.
There is also an undeniable litigious aspect to all of this that has its origins in the United States.
Comparisons between NFL and rugby are misguided for too many reasons to cite in this article but they play out really well in courts with the ‘right’ experts giving evidence.
There is also an attempt to appeal to ‘soccer mums’, a demographic that probably would never have allowed their kids to play rugby anyway.
Marika Koroibete of the Wallabies (Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
It is this final point that the surprisingly eloquent and thoughtful Sonny Bill Williams was alluding to when he said “Very disappointing that the ref’s decision can determine the outcome of the game. We need to protect player safety, but we need to protect the game too.”
The new high contact laws have fundamentally altered the game. It is not just the inconsistent, muddled and quite frankly scared refereeing of the rules, but the rules themselves.
We want a game that is played hard in the right spirit but where foul play is stamped out.
You can’t play the game hard if players are being sent off like Koroibete was. The uncertainty and tentativeness that comes from decisions like that puts players at risk and may well be contributing to increased concussions to tacklers anyway.
You certainly can’t play the game in the right spirit when blokes like Anthony Jelonch, the French Captain no less, pull the sort of rubbish he pulled exploiting the current climate of TMO fever.
And the real foul play, the malicious stuff, becomes more and more trivial as red cards are chucked around.
It’s worth noting that this red card did not cost the Wallabies a win. However, it’s just a matter of time until a huge game is won or lost off the back of a similar call.
Forget replacing players 20 minutes after a red card. Make it harder to get a red card.
The game, especially in Australia, can’t afford to be a laughing stock.
Sinckler for the rules
Roar Rookie
I disagree that players will do that. I'm saying players will prepare for contact just as they always have done sometimes that involves getting lower to power through the tackler. The premise of your argument is that because of the high tackle framework the attacking player is going to drop their head but I'm saying they are going to drop their head just as much as before. It has nothing to do with the high tackle framework. Ball carriers will crouch just as they always have done, think once the player crouches it is obvious to the defense what is going to happen. Within 5m of the try line the players are basically running 5cm off the floor anyway. My point is the high tackle framework has nothing to do with that and rugby players should be able to safely perform a round the legs tackle or hit the back. At any rate in a couple of years we can look at the stats and see who is right.
Sydney Slug
Roar Rookie
You are still missing the point. If they continue these rules, big ball carriers will run in a far more crouched pose as they come into contact. The incentive is they are far harder to tackle under these interpretations. Nothing to do with self preservation or not. Tacklers of a fast moving big man will have no choice but to aim at the knees. Number of incidents is a good measure but not the only one. Any tackler being kneed by a Tongan Thor is going to be hurt. Badly. Any crouched ball runner who meets a tackler who doesn’t get it right will be hurt. Badly.
Sinckler for the rules
Roar Rookie
The high tackle frame work is not saying you need to tackle at the knees you can tackle at any height but not to the head or neck. It is really a question about tackle technique look at players like tom curry and sam underhill their technique is to tackle low and hard. To my memory I don't remember either of these players suffering concussions from making tackles. I also doubt many players are going to say I'm going to lead with my head to get someone sent off, they may go low to try and win the contact but that comes back to good coaching of tackle technique. I'm pretty sure most rugby players understand the issue of concussion and would not want to endanger themselves. For now the data bears out that the number of concussions are reduced
Sydney Slug
Roar Rookie
You didn’t address at all the issue of tacklers being kneed, and an incentive to lead with the head is that you are much harder to tackle. If no one tackles you there is no challenge to be had. My point remains the current rules may well not lead to a safer game re head injuries.
Pickett
Roar Rookie
That is an old one. There is a more updated one dated March 2021. I attached link in another article. The latest law clearly states contact to head which is NOT foul play is neither red, yellow nor even a penalty. It is play on. Imo, Koribete tackle was not remotely foul play. It shouldn't have even been a penalty. Judiciary vindicated this.
Sinckler for the rules
Roar Rookie
Agree the play acting needs to stop, in my mind there should have been a penalty maybe even a yellow for simulation for the frog. The other way to sort that out is a captains challenge. If your team can challenge the decision there is no incentive for the players to perform a 8.5 dive. My understanding is the frog did go for HIA. Regarding Tate did the forearm go to the throat? Was his arm bracing for impact and then pushed out because that’s all legal. Tate choose to tackle high to try and smother the ball to prevent grounding. A brave play and probably the right call but he put himself in that position and I didn’t see foul play.
jeznez
Roar Guru
The study Wre01 cites in the article compared regular competition to an “under the armpit” trial set of laws. Very similar to the nipple line suggestion. That’s what they found didn’t reduce concussions. I’m utterly confused. Fa’amausili made a similar legal first contact that slid up and got suspended. Marika has been told he’s fine. There is no consistency from the judiciary.
jeznez
Roar Guru
I’m feeling a little strange myself Ken!
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
Marika’s hearing decided he is free to play. Red not upheld. Which leaves all four neutral officials in a strange position.
liquorbox_
Roar Rookie
Tackling lower does not mean he needs to aim at the hips, he could simply aim at the chest/ribs/stomach and not get sent off. Maybe the "nipple line" rule should have been used. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/aussie-coach-welcomes-nipple-law-but-calls-for-common-sense-20180527-p4zht9.html
Sydney Slug
Roar Rookie
Sinckler, there is a second derivative problem or two to consider. Firstly, there was clear reward for egging the pudding and neither the cheat nor Tate would have appeared in statistics although more damage was likely for a direct elbow to the throat. Secondly, ball carriers are now incented to drop their heads a la gridiron. We don’t have data on that yet, but if that incentive persists then the game is precipitating some devastating injuries firstly to tacklers aiming at knees and getting walloped and secondly ball carriers being severely hurt by their own postural choice when a tackler gets it wrong. The incidence of tackle concussion data does not measure severity, my uneducated view is that while incidence may reduce, severity could very well skyrocket. Ball carriers should not be incented to lead with the head, in gridiron they give them helmets and they all still go gaga.
Sydney Slug
Roar Rookie
There was no discussion in the article about whether the card was wrong although that was the implication. The article was about whether the new rules are going to create a net safer game. The answer is clearly no, MH01 you should maybe think about that.
jeznez
Roar Guru
The study you cited compares pre-High Tackle Framework competition to an experimental law variation of below the armpit tackling. The variation was never implemented why do you think they are going to not only implement the change and then lower the height even further? Please read the link from Sinckler below, it covers the broader historical context including your study and the stats in my link. They aren't changing the tackle law, just being tougher with cards on what was already a penalty offence and trying to formalise the way decisions are made. And they believe it's working.
wre01
Roar Guru
Jez : we’ve never met but I often find myself nodding and agreeing when reading your posts. Just can’t agree on this. Been around the game a lot in both hemispheres and people are genuinely turning Rugby off over this. It’s becoming unplayable and a laughing stock. I think it was Drew Mitchell who said if you tackle someone chest to chest or shoulder to shoulder, their head is obviously going to come forward and down. How is that avoidable? My understanding of the WR numbers you cite is that they focussed on justifying the rule changes after they were made (ie expectation bias) and heading off litigation rather than actually prioritising player’s welfare and the game’s best interests. I think this passage is revealing “ saw yellow card sanctions at RWC 2019 increase by 74 per cent and red cards by 138 per cent versus the 2018 elite competition average. This tough deterrent was a direct contributing factor to a 28 per cent reduction in overall concussion rates.” I don’t think increasing red cards has had that effect at all. What I do think is that kids will be taught to tackle lower and lower and in 5-10 years time we will see rugby where tackles are banned above the rib cage and in 10-20 years we may not see tackling at all. It is notable that the study I cited has never been followed up - ie a close look at the risks to lowering body height to tacklers.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Thanks for that link Sinckler. Clearest write up I’ve seen on this yet.
Sinckler for the rules
Roar Rookie
Disagree with the premise of your article. Article linked below shows you what the current high tackle framework and rules of the game achieves. Indeed they reference the study you have shown saying that the armpit tackle rule is flawed. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/10/527 In regards to Koroibete my personal view was that it wasn't clear on whether it was direct contact to the head and also I believe there is mitigation in the player dropping down so personally I thought it was indirect contact to head and therefore should have been yellow. One part I think they need to look at is that they say if the player has a clear line of sight and attempt a dominant tackle no mitigation can be applied but I think in this situation because the contact to head and neck was pretty marginal the fact he dropped should have meant mitigation was applied.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Wreo1, here are figures from WR saying that the 2019 RWC delivered a "37 per cent reduction in tackle concussion incidence compared to 2018 elite competition average" https://www.world.rugby/news/564966 The study you linked compared 2018/2019 laws and interpretation to a competition played under an experimental law set where "the maximum tackle height was lowered from the line of the shoulders on the ball carrier to the line of the armpits" I haven't heard too many people calling for the experimental armpit law to be implemented have you? So maybe look at the reductions being seen under the high tackle framework that genuinely seem to be working based on the numbers out of WR?
No Arms
Roar Rookie
Contact was marginal in the head & neck region. There was no malice. The theatrics were not in the spirit of the game. Anyone who truly loves a good game of rugby will disagree with you.
PeterK
Roar Guru
That study is very interesting. What has been ignored is that tacklers get concussion more than the ball carrier and this before the law changes which have made it worse. So if they do nothing about the tackler future law suits, since they have the data, will still occur.
Glenn
Guest
Firstly it was initially shoulder to shoulder then moved up the body mechanics under impact show that with head moving forward first then back as the tackle progressed. Secondly, they were both significantly bent down, in fact Jelonch first act was to significantly lower his body height in preparation of the impact, so significant mitigation. Lastly, the rule mustn't be simple in it's interpretation and application by the officials as seen in the missed application with the impacts on several other players including those foul tackes on McDermott (french leading with a forearm to the neck) and Lolesio (swinging arm to the face).