Height of tackle

[drc_007]

There is a report in the Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... le-number/) regarding the analysis of injuries in professional rugby. Concussion is clearly a major concern accounting for 22 per cent of all match injuries, including 43 per cent of all injuries to tacklers.

The proposal is

“Put simply, we need to avoid head-to-head contact, head-to-knee contact and head-to-hip contact,” said Simon Kemp, the RFU’s medical services director. “The way we do that is by looking for the tackler to make contact with the ball-carrier between their waist and the line of their shoulders."

Does this mean no tackles below waist height, no tap tackles?

[TigerCam]

There is a report in the Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... le-number/) regarding the analysis of injuries in professional rugby. Concussion is clearly a major concern accounting for 22 per cent of all match injuries, including 43 per cent of all injuries to tacklers.

The proposal is

“Put simply, we need to avoid head-to-head contact, head-to-knee contact and head-to-hip contact,” said Simon Kemp, the RFU’s medical services director. “The way we do that is by looking for the tackler to make contact with the ball-carrier between their waist and the line of their shoulders."

Does this mean no tackles below waist height, no tap tackles?

No you will just need to get within touching distance and shout "you're tackled, now fall over". The TMO will then judge if you were close enough and tell the ref to shout "ruck" and the time the ball will be in play will only be 20 of 80 mins, so no player injuries and no fatigue - simples!!

[WirralExile]

This goes against the coaching messages I and others gave. The phrases “eye to thigh” to focus where to tackle, “cheek to cheek” and “what smells to what smells” to make sure the tackler’s head was in the right place, will be consigned to history.
Surely tackling the ball carrier around the thigh will slow or stop forward movement. A powerful player being tackled that way will go to ground. Tackling between waist and shoulders does not guarantee the player being stopped.
Will this change Tag rugby too? The lead into contact had the tags hanging from the waist to get the tackler to focus on tackling below the waist. Will the tags now hang around the chest?

[jgriffin]

This happens, I'm gone. The changes to rugby have mullered the game (ruck, scrum, offside) and that would be the last straw.

[strawclearer]

This happens, I'm gone. The changes to rugby have mullered the game (ruck, scrum, offside) and that would be the last straw.

Like you, I'm running out of straws to clear. The game gets more like League every year.

[mol2]

So all the ball carrier has to do is bend horizontally and there will be no gap between shoulders and hips to tackle!

There has been a trend for front on "hits" rather than technically proper tackles with the inevitable result of the head being in the wrong place more often and with it concussions.

Better to restrict tackles to below the waist, immediate release once the tackled player has put a knee to the ground (rolling, crawling, squeeze ball etc penalized) and allow rucking, with any player diving over the ball (from either side penalized) - pick it up or drive over it remaining on your feet.

[jgriffin]

So all the ball carrier has to do is bend horizontally and there will be no gap between shoulders and hips to tackle!

There has been a trend for front on "hits" rather than technically proper tackles with the inevitable result of the head being in the wrong place more often and with it concussions.

Better to restrict tackles to below the waist, immediate release once the tackled player has put a knee to the ground (rolling, crawling, squeeze ball etc penalized) and allow rucking, with any player diving over the ball (from either side penalized) - pick it up or drive over it remaining on your feet.

Amen

[BFG]

So all the ball carrier has to do is bend horizontally and there will be no gap between shoulders and hips to tackle!

There has been a trend for front on "hits" rather than technically proper tackles with the inevitable result of the head being in the wrong place more often and with it concussions.

Better to restrict tackles to below the waist, immediate release once the tackled player has put a knee to the ground (rolling, crawling, squeeze ball etc penalized) and allow rucking, with any player diving over the ball (from either side penalized) - pick it up or drive over it remaining on your feet.

Amen

Agree with it all apart from restricting tackles to below the waist.
Low tackles are just as prone to going wrong.
I was injured twice playing rugby which on both occasions was by the outside of a knee on the side of the head, and you just can't account for ball carriers switching angles on you after you have committed to the tackle, and a much earlier commitment is required when tackling low.
I'd add that tackling should go back to trusting the players judgement and skill on the best way to tackle in individual contact situations.
Once you take away the instincts of the players to make decisions then you are taking away their ability to do the right thing at the right time in my opinion.

[Tiglon]

I think it's worth noting that this is an independent report which has been asked to report on safety only - it is not for them to take into account anything else when making recommendations, only player safety. They are looking at statistics and concluding which kinds of tackles are most and least safe.

I think most of you are overreacting just a bit.

[h's dad]

I think it's worth noting that this is an independent report which has been asked to report on safety only - it is not for them to take into account anything else when making recommendations, only player safety. They are looking at statistics and concluding which kinds of tackles are most and least safe.

I think most of you are overreacting just a bit.

Except that if you commission and receive a report on player safety and then fail to deal comprehensively with its recommendations you open yourself up to paying out a huge amount of money. What is needed is a report saying that competent and legal tackling is perfectly safe and that it is the responsibility of coaches to ensure that their players are fully competent in this aspect of the game before taking to the field. Flippancy aside, it is certainly something to be concerned about.

[Tiglon]

I think it's worth noting that this is an independent report which has been asked to report on safety only - it is not for them to take into account anything else when making recommendations, only player safety. They are looking at statistics and concluding which kinds of tackles are most and least safe.

I think most of you are overreacting just a bit.

Except that if you commission and receive a report on player safety and then fail to deal comprehensively with its recommendations you open yourself up to paying out a huge amount of money. What is needed is a report saying that competent and legal tackling is perfectly safe and that it is the responsibility of coaches to ensure that their players are fully competent in this aspect of the game before taking to the field. Flippancy aside, it is certainly something to be concerned about.

Governing body asks someone to look into what is statistically the safest way to tackle.

Independent report says "X is statistically the safest way to tackle".

This does not mean governing body has to ban all other types of tackle, or face big lawsuits. That's not how the law works. The word "reasonable" is critical when it comes to tort law. It would not be reasonable for World Rugby to ban all but one very specific method of tackling, simply to lower the risk of injury by a small amount.

[h's dad]

I think it's worth noting that this is an independent report which has been asked to report on safety only - it is not for them to take into account anything else when making recommendations, only player safety. They are looking at statistics and concluding which kinds of tackles are most and least safe.

I think most of you are overreacting just a bit.

Except that if you commission and receive a report on player safety and then fail to deal comprehensively with its recommendations you open yourself up to paying out a huge amount of money. What is needed is a report saying that competent and legal tackling is perfectly safe and that it is the responsibility of coaches to ensure that their players are fully competent in this aspect of the game before taking to the field. Flippancy aside, it is certainly something to be concerned about.

Governing body asks someone to look into what is statistically the safest way to tackle.

Independent report says "X is statistically the safest way to tackle".

This does not mean governing body has to ban all other types of tackle, or face big lawsuits. That's not how the law works. The word "reasonable" is critical when it comes to tort law. It would not be reasonable for World Rugby to ban all but one very specific method of tackling, simply to lower the risk of injury by a small amount.

Is that what the governing body asked?
Is that what the report said?
Isn't it reasonable for players to expect WR to address the tackle types most likely to cause injury?
There is precedent for big lawsuits for negligence resulting in player injury. Unless you don't consider $50 million as big. The lawsuit doesn't even have to be lost for it to cost rather a lot.

[BFG]

I think it's worth noting that this is an independent report which has been asked to report on safety only - it is not for them to take into account anything else when making recommendations, only player safety. They are looking at statistics and concluding which kinds of tackles are most and least safe.

I think most of you are overreacting just a bit.

What is the conclusion?
It appears that the recommendations from the stats could be a hip to shoulders target area is wanted.
That is interesting because just a few days ago we witnessed Malouf aim for and miss that area, and May get banged by a ball carrier who's forearm was in that hip to shoulders target area.
There is cause and effect in moving target areas.
Personally I believe that WR are missing the most important factor in safety which is that in setting limited tackle target areas they are limiting the players ability to react in individual situations to try and avoid injury.
That forearm on May would've done no damage had May been able to lift his head and wrap Wade up, but May could not try and mitigate the risk factor because of the head on head rule, and if May with some of the quickest reactions in the sport can get caught out then that does not bode well.

[mol2]

Technically the waist starts immediately below the ribs (at least that's the definition used by other sports) rather than the belt or hip line.

[strawclearer]

Technically the waist starts immediately below the ribs (at least that's the definition used by other sports) rather than the belt or hip line.

As the late, great Victoria Wood once said...

"I haven't got a waist. I've just got a sort of.......place - a bit like an unmarked level crossing."