After England’s Rugby Football Union introduced drastic measures to lower the tackle height, Rugby Australia have followed suit by banning tackles above the sternum across all levels of community rugby.
From the Shute Shield to Hospital Cup and all levels of rugby outside of the professional arm, players will have to tackle below the sternum from February 2024 under the two-year trial.
The decision has been made to try and make the game safer and encourage young boys and girls to pick up a ball.
It comes after six years of research carried out by World Rugby, which has found that the move should see a significant decrease in concussions and, interestingly, an increase in offloads.
Indeed, across amateur rugby in France, where the tackle height was reduced to the waist, there was a 64 per cent reduction in head-on-head contacts and 23 per cent decrease in concussions.
In New Zealand, 90 per cent of first tackles dropped to below the sternum while there was a 65 per cent increase in offloads.
South Africa also recorded a 30 per cent decrease in concussions.
Samu Kerevi carried the ball into contact against Georgia during the 2023 Rugby World Cup. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
After the RFU was criticised for introducing the measures overnight and failing to include its stakeholders in the decision, RA reached the decision after engaging with its member unions after signing up in principle to support World Rugby’s endeavours to lower the tackle height.
The governing body is hoping that by doing so, they don’t get the push back other unions around the world have.
Nonetheless, they are bracing for some push back, particularly with studies showing that penalty counts do increase to begin with, before returning to pre-reform numbers.
“Research from around the world has clearly identified safety as the number one issue preventing fans and potential players from taking up the game,” Rugby Australia chief executive and former Wallabies captain Phil Waugh said.
“Obviously it is impossible to remove all risk from the game, however we firmly believe that promoting safer tackle techniques, and reducing the risk of head contact and concussion will lead to an even safer game. I am confident our players and coaches at all levels of the game will continue to work on safe and effective tackle technique.
“This is firmly in the best interests of the game, however there may be an adjustment period for players and match officials, and I would ask for patience and respect between all parties as we embark on this journey.
“In the French trial, they saw a significant increase in penalties in the first year of the trial, followed by a substantial drop in those numbers over the next two years as players and officials adjusted to the new measures.
“We will continue to ensure that any decisions that have the potential to impact the game are driven by research and evidence that prioritise player safety.”
The sternum tackle height legal limit was implemented because World Rugby has found that the safest part to make a tackle is between the hips and sternum.
“The research undertaken by World Rugby to date has shown there are three different risk zones for tackling,” RA general manager of community rugby Michael Procajlo said.
“The green zone encompasses the ball carrier’s torso from the sternum to the hips – this is the safest zone to tackle. Statistically, there is a little more risk once the tackle drops below the hips – hence it becomes amber. However, the greatest risk is present when tackles go above the sternum line and there is a higher risk of head-on-head or head-on-shoulder contact.”
Defenders who tackle an attacker between the sternum and shoulder will cop a penalty, with a referee able to show a yellow card if the infringement occurs several times.
The new law 9:13 reads: “A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerous. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the sternum even if the tackle starts below the line of the sternum.”
The new law will not change the ability for an attacking player to “pick-and-go” where the ball carrier typically starts and continues at a low body height.
Rugby Australia CEO Phil Waugh says tackle reform measures are in the “best interest of the game”. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images for Rugby Australia)
Former Wallaby turned Super W coach Scott Fava denied the game was going soft.
“No, the game hasn’t gone soft,” said Sava, during a media briefing on Friday.
“We’re looking to make sure that we’re creating a product that works for participating and for entertainment value.
“The stats already show that there’s 64 per cent more offloads, so if we adopt that from a game point of view and we see more offloads, and the entertainment increase as a consequence of these law changes, why not.”
Wallaroos skipper Piper Duck supported the measures.
“From my point of view, the biggest hits I have seen on the field are below the sternum, in that breadbasket, looking to pop that ball,” she said.
“I think it mitigates risk but it also doesn’t eliminate that physical battle.
“If you’re too upright, you can’t make a dominant hit because you don’t have the power to go through.
“Being taught that technique from a younger age, will therefore promote a more positive action in the upper levels.”
But former Wallabies Drew Mitchell and Berrick Barnes said the new laws could just make the game harder to officiate.
“I think it’s just going to make things more complicated, more difficult for referees and there will be more conjecture over what was and wasn’t the right thing. It’s a can of worms,” Mitchell told The Roar.
“Safety has to be paramount, but we’ve got to keep the integrity of the game.
“It’s already a difficult game to referee and, as we’ve seen with Wayne Barnes, the referees cop plenty as it is.”
Berrick Barnes says rugby needs to remain a game for all shapes and sizes. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
Barnes, who suffered several concussions throughout his career, agreed.
“Well, it’s perfect for me. I never went over the waist, so it won’t bother me too much,” he quipped.
“Are the jerseys going to have a black mark on them or something?
“It wouldn’t have affected me because all I did was go low. If I went high, I would have just got bounced. But I wasn’t 6ft 7′ [player] trying to tackle a little bloke. There still should be a place in the game to be able to hold people up.”
Rugby Australia’s head of community match officials Graham Cooper admitted there was a level of apprehension about how the games would be played out in reality.
“I think with any law change from a refereeing perspective there’s some anxiety about it,” he said.
“At the end of the day, the majority of our referees enjoy the role because of the challenge it presents. I haven’t heard someone who isn’t behind the change.
“Is it going to be an adjustment? Yes, it is, around decision-making framework, how they see the game where they’re going to stand within the game potentially.”
The law isn’t likely to be introduced to the professional game anytime soon, with World Rugby the governing body who have the power to change the laws at the international level.
“It could do, it could do,” Procajlo said.
“We’re not across trials at the professional level, we’ll have to see how things go at the community level over the next two years.
“Anything in that area would be led by World Rugby and potentially target professional competitions at a starting point.
“Ultimately, there is a difference between the community and professional game with the support the professional teams have with on game day with matchday doctors, concussion spotters, professional referees, third match officials, all the cameras that come within it, there’s a lot more support so if there is head impact and suspected concussion it can be managed a lot tighter than in the community game.”
Monorchid
Roar Rookie
This is a good point KF. And it's been raised before. My understanding is that, while this technology may limit the effect of an impact, CTE occurs because of many concussions over time irrespective of severity. If that's right, then these helmets may be useful for a bang or two, but not huge numbers over many years.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
I’ve read your comments on this article. You agree safety is important, but you don’t offer any solutions to reduce head contact. You make a distinction between intentional and unintentional head contact. Player safety wise it’s a distinction without a difference. A head knock can cause CTE whether the knock was intentional either or not. The number of concussions need to be reduced. They found by lowering the tackle height they lowered the instances on concussion significantly. That is what the primary aim should be, not keeping the game from loosening up a bit (to probably the level it was in 2010-2015). You infer that the bench is contributing to injuries, having half the team fresh and the other half fatigued no doubt contributes; I think that the number of replacements should drop to four, but number on the bench should stay at eight. If they get an injury after four replacements, bad luck, go down to 14. I think that removing rucking was backwards step. Rucking resulted in: red marks, the odd bit of blood/stiches, and the very occasional broken hand. But now players are bent at the hip with the back of their head and neck exposed to a flying clean out. That’s got to a factor in the concussion debate. I think part the reason why they’ve set the tackle height at the base of the sternum is that a slightly high tackle would now hit the upper chest or shoulder. They won’t have to give a yellow for that. I also think that they will be comparatively lenient on tackles only marginally about the sternum (not blowing a penalty for hitting slightly too high) as the associated risk will be less. After an adjustment period there will, hopefully, be less stoppages for high tackles, and especially cards which can really affect the quality of the contest. You state “I don”t like a loose game and prefer a tight contest”. It is rare that a tackle will result in a scrum turnover. Mostly it stops and offload and/or slows the recycle of the ball. You seem like a genuine ‘old school’ rugby fan. But it seems that your thoughts regarding lowering the tackle height are more related to keeping rugby tight rather than reducing head contact. If lowering the tackle height resulted in less concussion, but no increase in offloads would you still oppose it?
KFar
Roar Rookie
What about the motorbike and MTB helmets that have MIPS etc. Yes they don't fully protect the head, they designed to help absorb the shock from the impact and limit the brain being jolted around. I have an ABI, so am well aware about brain injuries and concussion.
Bobby D
Roar Rookie
The game was much slower then and the size and strength of the players were totally different. Small men with ability could survive easily. And there weren't many (if any) Polynesians playing the game. And generally, one defender was responsible to take on the ball-carrier, not multiple defenders like today. Although, I recall all types of tackles being effected with halves and five-eighths not wanting to be on the ground too long or caught in rucks hence it wasn't wise for them to tackle low or even tackle at all. Tackling low in the modern game is fraught with danger to the tackler. This latest rule change is ridiculous and unnecessary and the integrity of the game will be challenged.
scrum
Roar Rookie
Maybe but there is a lot of truth in my statement. When the revised “ tackling in the air” Law was changed there were statements that the game was ruined. When the NRL banned shoulder charges the game was ruined, incidentally now more popular than ever. Furthermore these Law changes are a trial to determine the effect they will have. I do not know what is expected of WR. Considering the threat of litigation it would be incompetence in the extreme not to address the issue. WR are going about this in a scientific manner, taking advice from experts and then introducing trial Laws to study the impact. But even then my statement does not close down the conversation as you have proven.
AgainAgain
Roar Rookie
I think I have explained what I think and why. I don’t feel like spelling it all out again. I have written in some detail my point of view and answered all the questions you raise. You are welcome to come to what ever other conclusions you want and let’s leave it there. As far as making the game more entertaining, there are lot of other areas I would address, but you weren’t interested when I bought those up (refer your comment regarding the bench). You seem to think dropping the tackle height is a silver bullet that resolves everything. I think it is more complex than that and would not like to see the contest for the ball reduced further and create more opportunities for the whistle to be blown.
AndyS
Roar Rookie
If I had to guess at the effect at a professional level, I think it will be to increase player size and impacts across the park. You mention the size of PSdT - that is what it would take to be dominant as a tackler. More importantly though, it will place a premium on players big enough to take that first tackle and stay upright to get the pass off, especially as there will be almost no space for a second tackler to get involved. Every tackled player will look to dominate the contact, again favouring speed and size. First action will be to go full 'Jonah', and then if the tackler survives that, look to get the pass away.
Cec
Roar Rookie
It had to be done otherwise our game would become uninsurable. We’re probably one large class action lawsuit away from going down the path of not being able to reinsure our game. This rule change can actually speed up the game if a more prevalent off loading game comes to fruition. I think give it a chance and worse case revert back to below the armpits. One can still be dominant at lower tackles. I think of PSdT from the Boks at 6’7; wasn’t it something crazy like 27 text book tackles at the RWC finals, with a few nearly cutting Jordie in half. This will make everyone sharpen their technique on the player rather than targeting the pill. Guys like Farrell may be in strife :laughing:
W Evans
Roar Rookie
Your words: “I think you might be grossly over reacting. If there is an increase on off loads in contact that is going to hugely benefit the spectacle. There are always gloom and doom merchants when the law changes. The majority tend to be unfounded.” Not exactly conducive to opening up the conversation or respecting those with other well founded views….
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
Your comments seem to just be disagreeing with other people comments and not offering any alternative ideas. On making rugby more following. You don't agree that is needs to get more flowing. So, I don't expect you to offer any solutions there. But do you agree that head contact needs to be reduced? If you do there are a limited range of solutions. Either stronger punishment: more cards, longer suspensions, fines etc. Or to lower the tackle height. If you want to reduce head contact the solution is probably going to come from those ideas. If you have other ideas I'd be interested to know. If you're happy to accept the current level of harm you should also make that clear. Look at the current litigation. Do you cab World Rugby have demonstrated methods to reduce head contact - and not imperilment them? They would be asking to lose court cases. Is part of the reason you don't like the idea of dropping the tackle height limit is because it might make rugby a more flowing game?
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
One source. You can find many saying similar things. But this article (Stuff NZ) makes reference to a lot of different statistics and quotes where they get them from. “According to data from Opta, there are now fewer offloads per game than at any point in Rugby World Cup history, while the average number of phases per possession plummeted to 1.8 in 2023, compared to 3 in 2019. Box kicking, meanwhile, has continued to rise, with 25% of all kicks now classified as box kicks, compared to just 5% in the first Rugby World Cup in 1987. Ball-in-play time at the Rugby World Cup in France was 34.18 minutes per game, Opta said, a marginal decrease from the 34.21 recorded at the 2019 edition, the highest on record. While 34.18 per game is still historically high, the decrease will still be a concern to the game lawmakers as some games at the Rugby World Cup took more than 100 minutes to conclude, excluding the halftime breaks. The decrease in offloads throughout Rugby World Cup history has been stark. There were 30 offloads per game at the 1987 Rugby World Cup, Opta said, but that has now fallen to just 13.8 at the 2023 Rugby World Cup, down from 17 in 2011, 16 in 2015 and 15.1 in 2019. “Teams are now opting to play a lower risk form of rugby,” Opta said. “The inaugural World Cup saw 30 offloads per match – over double the total of the 2023 tournament – and passes out of contact have declined almost every year, except for a slight resurgence in 2011. “Unsurprisingly, there has been a strong correlation with this risk-averse style of play and the number of turnovers conceded per game. “Once again, the total conceded in the 2023 Rugby World Cup was less than half of the 1987 edition – though this has remained steady since 2007.” Opta did not release the number of kicks per game, although Warren Gatland noted in a column after the first round of games that the average number of kicks per game had gone through the roof. ”Across the eight games of the opening round, there was an average of 56.9 kicks per game, the highest total since the 1995 World Cup in South Africa,” Gatland wrote. There were 39.3 kicks per game at the 2015 Rugby World Cup record, the lowest on record. The risk-free approach adopted by teams in France was also reflected in another statistic – the tackle count. Tackle numbers exploded in 2023, leaping to 169 per game, up from 129 in 2019 and 119 in 2015. Remarkably, there were only 48 tackles per game at the 1987 Rugby World Cup. Trends in the game are moving in the opposite direction to the way the All Blacks want to play. Trends in the game are moving in the opposite direction to the way the All Blacks want to play. “Tackle success rates have also risen over the course of the nine editions of the Rugby World Cup, the inaugural edition seeing 70% of attempted tackles completed, peaking at 88% in 2011 and remaining well above 80% since,” Opta said. “Again, increases in the size and physicality of players could partly explain the improvements in this area. “…Defensive systems have improved too, helping defenders to come out on top more often than before, utilising greater line speed to snuff out early attacks and improving general organisation within open play.” The statistics make worrying reading for the future of the game, with research showing the tackler is at greatest risk of head injury – and the volume and intensity of tackles is clearly rising. World champions South Africa only ranked 7th in the tournament for line breaks and defenders beaten, and 8th in offloads.“
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of many. One of the recent themes regarding rugby is that it is becoming too stop start and too defense dominated.
AndyS
Roar Rookie
Would have to disagree. 'In the guts' is about the easiest description there is for anyone to visualise, even at speed.
Paul
Roar Rookie
It might have been easier to state below the collarbone or armpit. Easier to visualise, and still a large surface area to aim at, and a generally an OK place to wear a tackle.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Actually, I think looking back the ruck used to be MUCH more of a bottleneck than it used to be. Remember, back in the day, with bodies piling in, if the ball didn't come out, it was a scrum. That was it. So rucking wasn't that much of a deterrent, because the attacking team took it in, and if it didn't come out, the attacking team simply got a scrum. A reset for defence. So aside from the stripes you got, there was not a heap of incentive to shift out the way.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Your comment on Cane makes the point exactly. While he didn't intend to hit illegally Kriel high, he did because he was careless and made no effort to tackle low. It shows how easy intending to make a legal tackle can result in a dangerous tackles because the margin for error is so small.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
We have adjusted laws and interpretations to make defending easier and there's been minimal complaint. Making attacking better is a welcome side affect of a change for a different reason.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Agree on below the armpits because its a simple and clear reference point. Drops in attacking height are already addressed in the mitigation process.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Broken bones result on being crippled later in life?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
But it heals. Brain injuries tend to not heal