In a watershed moment for the game, the Rugby Football Union will ban tackles above the waist for all rugby union matches below the elite level from July 1.
A unanimous vote from the RFU on Monday saw the drastic changes implemented, with the governing body intent on reducing “head impact exposure and concussion risk”.
The changes will apply across the community game in clubs, schools, colleges and universities, as well as in the women’s game and Championship one and below.
Nigel Gillingham, the RFU president, said: “Evidence from our own research and from around the world clearly shows that lowering the tackle height will reduce head impact exposure and the risk of concussion.
“The tackle will remain the primary method of stopping the ball-carrier using safe techniques that are taught from an early age.”
The RFU based its decision based on data gathered alongside World Rugby since 2016, including a mouthguard study conducted by Otago University which measured head impacts. Law trials carried out in England, South Africa and France also influenced the decision.
In the face of dozens of lawsuits, the RFU fundamentally wants to change the nature of the tackle away from head-on-head contacts.
Ball-carriers will also be “encouraged to follow the principle of evasion” and to “avoid late dipping”, while referees will be asked to “focus on the actions of the ball-carrier as well as the tackler when head contact occurs”.
Unlike France, two-person tackles will be allowed. The unintended consequences of two tacklers colliding heads remains to be seen.
Similarly, more offloads are likely to occur too, perhaps allowing rugby to open up more in the loose.
“Research [from the French trials] also found that offloads increased, from 12 per match to 19, the average number of passes increased from 178 to 193, and kicks fell from 16 per match to just 11,” former England hooker Brian Moore pointed out in a column for The Telegraph.
The Rugby Football Union will ban tackles above the waist in all amateur levels. (Photo: David Rogers/Getty Images
The radical change follows studies in France, who introduced similar measures in 2019 following a spate of rugby-related deaths, and reported a 63 per cent reduction in head-on-head contacts.
The RFU’s decision, which was announced at noon on Thursday, came as 55 former amateur players joined the class-action lawsuit against rugby’s governing bodies, including the World Rugby, the RFU and Welsh Rugby Union, saying they were not adequately protected from permanent brain injuries.
World Rugby chief executive Alan Gilpin applauded the RFU’s proactive move.
“This is a prime example of the sport, once again, putting our words into action,” he said.
Unsurprisingly, the move has received massive pushback from former players and observers.
Nick Easter, the former England No.8 turned coach, slammed the decision. “I don’t think this is the solution,” Easter told The Times.
“My players come in two nights a week and you can’t be spending all that time on retraining a logged-in, long-term muscle memory.
“You take away the very fabric of the game, which is a contest of possession. It’s going to be very difficult for referees who have enough problems as it is.”
While Joe Marler, the England tight-head prop, reacted on social media by issuing an exploding head emoji.
Premiership-based Wallabies prop, Oli Hoskins, who was a part of a law trial in the Championship Cup in 2019, which banned tackles above the armpit, too hit out at the new measures.
“Tackle choice is situational and forcing low tackles in all cases is even more dangerous. I think the trial showed this,” Hoskins said.
While Maro Itoje’s brother, Jeremy, who plays for Harrow RFC, said the “RFU have made the refs life a lot harder”.
He added: “[It’s] killing the sport through ruining grassroots.”
Moore, however, said rugby officials could not ignore the evidence being found in rugby.
“Rugby’s duty is to take all reasonable steps to reduce foreseeable risks that could cause damage and loss. And, by the way, if it is a legal requirement, there must also be a moral imperative to act within its strictures,” Moore wrote in The Telegraph.
“Once rugby set out to research the issue of concussion, which is a damn sight more than many other sports have done, it cannot ignore the findings.”
Phil
Roar Rookie
I’d hate being a ref trying to work through this! How can they look at both ball carrier and tackler every single carry?!
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Head gear has no effect, because it doesn’t stop the brain rattling around inside the skull, which is what causes concussion, not the actual contact.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Yes, but what percentage of tackles are high and what percentage are low ? It’s the rate of concussions per tackle attempt that is important. I would suggest that the rate of concussions per low tackle attempt is much higher.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
But Andy’s point is that this rule has been implemented for legal reasons, not for the aesthetic of the game. If they are saying now that tackling about the waist causes concussions, then they can’t turn around and reverse that decision, now can they.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
So what’s the alternative, we eliminate all forms of risk in our lives ? That’s not living.
AndyS
Guest
Sure, on changes to speed up the game, etc. But they have said, right at the start of the article, that this change is made on the basis of studies by themselves and others and will reduce concussions. So to drop it later could only mean they were choosing to increase concussions again, or that those studies were actually all wrong and not worth the paper they were written on. Think they'll opt for either of those, or stubbornly double down?
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
In a word, yes. That’s the risk. As a society we’ve become so risk averse.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
How do the Irish handle this when evaluating young players from Northern Ireland ?
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
Well that just shows how little they understand their own game, Rugby isn’t a game of evasion, it’s a game of collision. Imagine a coach yelling his players to go out and avoid all heavy contact wherever possible.
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
But as I said, the speed of the game makes even those margins pretty small. The reality is that both Rugby codes are collision sports, not contact, collision. If you don’t win the collisions in either code, you don’t win the game. In League it’s in the first contact, if your constantly losing that, you’re not winning many games. In Union the collisions are a bit different, but the same deal. So whilst winning the collision is so vital to winning, concussions will continue to be a factor
Brett Allen
Roar Rookie
I’m not a rugby expert, but would that come under the category of “tackling” ? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Nick
Roar Rookie
You'd have to be allowed to sack maul?? How do they do it in France? I'm starting to feel like they're really trying to ruin the game I love. If this goes to further into internationals I'd consider "quitting"...
Wal
Roar Guru
I think you'll find Rugby has a long and storied history of changing, dropping and enhancing Laws that either didn't work, teams found a work around or had unforeseen consequences. Admittedly for World Rugby it is normally under the PR guise of Law Clarifications. But local bodies like RFU trail new laws all the time. Bin the rubbish ones and lobby WR to enforce the successful ones. There are even 2 global trials underway now. https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/global-law-trials And Queensland ran trials in Oct https://www.theroar.com.au/2022/09/28/law-the-players-hate-most-in-spotlight-as-world-rugby-sanctions-trial-aimed-at-speeding-up-the-game/ There are dozens of examples of lower grade law variations aimed at making the game safer some will survive many won't.
AndyS
Guest
Which is perhaps really why this has only been rolled out at amateur level, thinking they'll be able to manage a fall-out at that level one way or the other. Worst case turn a blind eye to everyone being forced to play 'local interpretations' of the tackle law and then claim they'd done their part, an approach which obviously wouldn't fly at a professional level.
AndyS
Guest
So you think they'll say, "Hmmm, not liking how this makes the game play or look, everyone's allowed to tackle higher again (or at least, we'll turn a blind eye)"? They'd essentially make themselves 100% liable for every subsequent concussion after that - imagine the lawyers queuing up to represent the victim of the first accident victim after the government increased the speed limit. It is why they always double down on restrictions, even though it means they have to go build more roads and put in bypasses. Or claim ideological success as total numbers drop, even if it is because people have stopped driving altogether.
Wal
Roar Guru
Mainly because Govts aren't liable for the Road toll. If this doesn't work either by reducing concussions or makes the game unplayable 100% chance RFU will go back a make changes,
AndyS
Guest
Indeed, so the question becomes where trying to completely remake all tackling and being tackled falls on that spectrum of mitigations. Is simply a minor speed reduction and headlights, or is it trying to drop the maximum speed limit to 40km/hr everywhere all the time? And it begs the question where it will go next if it doesn't meaningfully reduce concussions or just reassigns them - motor vehicles they just keep lowering the speeds and increasing the fines, they don't go back and revisit the approach once it's set...
AndyS
Guest
I guess we'll see; they'll be a much easier target to bring down from the side than from front on. Exactly as Jonah showed, not even needing to be on balance to beat a man with his head down low. But then I see one of the new articles has Nigel Owens noting that "The law change mentions, too, that ball-carriers who drop their body height when approaching a defender will be penalised". Didn't think it could get much sillier, but I suppose penalising any attempt by the ball carrier to protect himself or brace for impact probably does it. Might even things up though if the ball carrier gets blown up for instinctive reactions as often as the tackler. Real outcome could be a lot of kicking, if the tackle becomes a raffle.
Phil
Roar Rookie
Not sure technique will be enough when it is head-on and the tackler can only guess which way the runner is going to step and where to put his head I think that’s part of being a good defender in space. I think it was the fact Jonah was stumbling and losing momentum that he chose to go straight for Catt. Most outside backs will go for space to beat a fullback.
WhoDis
Roar Rookie
At this rate the 2027 RWC in Brisbane will probably be OzTag