Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

BFG
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3347
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by BFG »

ellis9 wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:09 pm
jgriffin wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:50 pm
ellis9 wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:31 am

Neon tackle line on shirts?

Sorry but that's just way over the top.

Also, a 5 metre offside line means the two backlines are further away from each other. Therefore, the contact would be harder as more momentum can be built up.
Tackle line already trialling, neon to make it obvious, and if you read the argument against bulking up it is the proximity of lines that is thought to be an issue. Distance gives attacks time to develop and actually depowers a rush defence, funny how that seemed to work OK back in the old days before RL defence emerged.......if you want me to go through the argument I will
So you're saying that if the backlines were even further apart from each other as they are now, you'd see Tigers use Manu as a creative player more so than using him to run into the opposition?
Sorry, I don't buy that. He'd have even more yardage to build up pace to smash his way through the defence, which would be great to see but not what your idea is planned to do.
It's about evening up the gain line challenge.
The general idea is to give attacking players a bit more time and space in front of those defensive lines.
Where the defensive offside line is currently set is right on the attacking gain line and encourages a defensive rush tactic.
A slightly deeper set defensive offside line would give attacking teams more time and space to create more doubt and whether to choose to rush as a defensive line or drift would become more mixed automatically creating more mistakes and resulting spaces to attack.
You only need look at how prominent the chop tackle has become in the current game to see how much of an advantage defence currently possesses.
Currently as the ball is played from the ruck the rush is the dominant tactic.
You are still going to get contact and rugby is a contact game so it'll never be entirely without risk and regarding attackers charging it up into the defence I don't think that players could really come together any harder than they currently do anyway and at least it would even up any advantage, that itself would automatically make the side tackle the more suitable type of tackle.
What we need is defensive doubt rather than the current hard and fast tactic.
LittleBigG
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:00 pm

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by LittleBigG »

Big Dai wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:06 pm Are high tackles responsible for all concussion injuries? Low tackles (Chop tackles) where the knee impinges on the head are equally dangerous. Likewise head to hip. Likewise head to head in a friendly fire double tackle.
I've always hated the "chop" tackle, I always wince when someone does one either for the safety of their own head/neck or that of the attackers knees/ankles. I wouldn't be surprised if these were the cause of what seems to be an increase of ACL/MCL injuries - if not directly from the tackle, but the tackle causes a stress/weakening that gives up later. The only saving grace is that they appear to be a little less common now than a couple of years ago...

A detailed breakdown of the causes of the concussions would be very interesting, if for no other reason to vindicate the RFU's decision to increase the sanction for high tackles... like Big Dai said, is it the high tackles causing the issue, or is it the "easiest" course of action to be "seen to be doing something". (That being said, I'm 100% sure that the RFU do care about player welfare)

I'm all for increased sanctions to "modify" player behavior/technique but I cannot endorse the current situation of a red card for what is essentially an accident in the majority of cases that I've seen this season. I would propose that there should be a new card whereby the offender can take no further part in the game, and any sanction is dealt properly with the citing commissioner, but the team is allowed to bring on another player after 10 minutes (assuming they have remaining substitutions). Too many games are being drastically by early red cards; the permanent loss of a player in rugby is so much more noticeable than in other sports, such as football.
Big Dai
Super User
Super User
Posts: 6033
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:04 pm
Location: Abergavenny

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by Big Dai »

LittleBigG wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:08 pm
Big Dai wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:06 pm Are high tackles responsible for all concussion injuries? Low tackles (Chop tackles) where the knee impinges on the head are equally dangerous. Likewise head to hip. Likewise head to head in a friendly fire double tackle.
I've always hated the "chop" tackle, I always wince when someone does one either for the safety of their own head/neck or that of the attackers knees/ankles. I wouldn't be surprised if these were the cause of what seems to be an increase of ACL/MCL injuries - if not directly from the tackle, but the tackle causes a stress/weakening that gives up later. The only saving grace is that they appear to be a little less common now than a couple of years ago...

A detailed breakdown of the causes of the concussions would be very interesting, if for no other reason to vindicate the RFU's decision to increase the sanction for high tackles... like Big Dai said, is it the high tackles causing the issue, or is it the "easiest" course of action to be "seen to be doing something". (That being said, I'm 100% sure that the RFU do care about player welfare)

I'm all for increased sanctions to "modify" player behavior/technique but I cannot endorse the current situation of a red card for what is essentially an accident in the majority of cases that I've seen this season. I would propose that there should be a new card whereby the offender can take no further part in the game, and any sanction is dealt properly with the citing commissioner, but the team is allowed to bring on another player after 10 minutes (assuming they have remaining substitutions). Too many games are being drastically by early red cards; the permanent loss of a player in rugby is so much more noticeable than in other sports, such as football.
I think I posted this elsewhere, either that or it was one of my many conversations on the topic with posh Richard. 2nd row, Cambridge blue and Gloucester fan.

I've only been spark out four times on a rugby pitch. Twice for head on head. (Diving for a ball on the ground and meeting a mate head on on the other side of a tackle) Twice for a knee. Once when I was too low and once when the scrum collapsed when I was hooking and I kneed my own nose! (Embarrassed about that one. Our prop thought their second row had done the deed and sorted him out later in the game.) Still think basic laws need sorting before they start mucking around with the tackle.

From my experience too low is as bad as too high.......we'll draw a veil over my hooking talents.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by ellis9 »

Big Dai wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:22 pm
LittleBigG wrote: Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:08 pm
Big Dai wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:06 pm Are high tackles responsible for all concussion injuries? Low tackles (Chop tackles) where the knee impinges on the head are equally dangerous. Likewise head to hip. Likewise head to head in a friendly fire double tackle.
I've always hated the "chop" tackle, I always wince when someone does one either for the safety of their own head/neck or that of the attackers knees/ankles. I wouldn't be surprised if these were the cause of what seems to be an increase of ACL/MCL injuries - if not directly from the tackle, but the tackle causes a stress/weakening that gives up later. The only saving grace is that they appear to be a little less common now than a couple of years ago...

A detailed breakdown of the causes of the concussions would be very interesting, if for no other reason to vindicate the RFU's decision to increase the sanction for high tackles... like Big Dai said, is it the high tackles causing the issue, or is it the "easiest" course of action to be "seen to be doing something". (That being said, I'm 100% sure that the RFU do care about player welfare)

I'm all for increased sanctions to "modify" player behavior/technique but I cannot endorse the current situation of a red card for what is essentially an accident in the majority of cases that I've seen this season. I would propose that there should be a new card whereby the offender can take no further part in the game, and any sanction is dealt properly with the citing commissioner, but the team is allowed to bring on another player after 10 minutes (assuming they have remaining substitutions). Too many games are being drastically by early red cards; the permanent loss of a player in rugby is so much more noticeable than in other sports, such as football.
I think I posted this elsewhere, either that or it was one of my many conversations on the topic with posh Richard. 2nd row, Cambridge blue and Gloucester fan.

I've only been spark out four times on a rugby pitch. Twice for head on head. (Diving for a ball on the ground and meeting a mate head on on the other side of a tackle) Twice for a knee. Once when I was too low and once when the scrum collapsed when I was hooking and I kneed my own nose! (Embarrassed about that one. Our prop thought their second row had done the deed and sorted him out later in the game.) Still think basic laws need sorting before they start mucking around with the tackle.

From my experience too low is as bad as too high.......we'll draw a veil over my hooking talents.
If it were up to me, you'd still get picked ahead of Dylan Hartley! :smt023
strawclearer
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4109
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:13 am

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by strawclearer »

Pat Lambie is set to announce his retirement from rugby due to the effects of an accumulation of concussions.

https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/head-knock ... to-retire/
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
strawclearer
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4109
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:13 am

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by strawclearer »

Former Samoa Under 20 flanker Faiva Tagatauli has passed away on Thursday morning following a head injury that he sustained while playing for his club last weekend.

The 27-year-old suffered the blow while representing Vaimoso Rugby Club during a Senior A competition in Tuana’imato and was replaced in the final 10 minutes of the fixture.

Just as he was receiving attention on the sidelines, Tagatauli felt unconscious and was rushed to the National Hospital where he has kept in the high dependency unit.

However, the efforts made to revive him went in vain as he eventually lost his life four days later.
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
drc_007
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:28 am

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by drc_007 »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47000468

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has prematurely ended the trial of a new tackle height law after an increase in the number of concussions.
Matches in the Championship Cup were subject to new rules with players not allowed to tackle above the armpit.
But instances of concussion rose among players tackling opponents who were bent at the waist carrying the ball.
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by ellis9 »

drc_007 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:45 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47000468

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has prematurely ended the trial of a new tackle height law after an increase in the number of concussions.
Matches in the Championship Cup were subject to new rules with players not allowed to tackle above the armpit.
But instances of concussion rose among players tackling opponents who were bent at the waist carrying the ball.
Austin Healey got it right when he said it's up to players to take responsibility for getting their tackling technique correct. If players tackled like they're taught as children, concussion would be less common.
northerntiger
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 852
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by northerntiger »

ellis9 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:31 am
drc_007 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:45 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47000468

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has prematurely ended the trial of a new tackle height law after an increase in the number of concussions.
Matches in the Championship Cup were subject to new rules with players not allowed to tackle above the armpit.
But instances of concussion rose among players tackling opponents who were bent at the waist carrying the ball.
Austin Healey got it right when he said it's up to players to take responsibility for getting their tackling technique correct. If players tackled like they're taught as children, concussion would be less common.
Easy to say, but in the heat of the match, with players coming at you at unexpected angles, can't always take the time to set yourself. You can't pull out of a tackle just because you aren't in the correct position
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by ellis9 »

northerntiger wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:24 am
ellis9 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:31 am
drc_007 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:45 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47000468

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has prematurely ended the trial of a new tackle height law after an increase in the number of concussions.
Matches in the Championship Cup were subject to new rules with players not allowed to tackle above the armpit.
But instances of concussion rose among players tackling opponents who were bent at the waist carrying the ball.
Austin Healey got it right when he said it's up to players to take responsibility for getting their tackling technique correct. If players tackled like they're taught as children, concussion would be less common.
Easy to say, but in the heat of the match, with players coming at you at unexpected angles, can't always take the time to set yourself. You can't pull out of a tackle just because you aren't in the correct position
There we have it! Sport hurts. You can train and practice as much as you like but sometimes, situations change and you have to react differently. This means that you may have to adjust your technique from what you know. This could lead to being injured. People who decide to play rugby, know this and put their body at risk.
Last edited by ellis9 on Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
JP14
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7484
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:37 am

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by JP14 »

ellis9 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:31 am
drc_007 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:45 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47000468

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has prematurely ended the trial of a new tackle height law after an increase in the number of concussions.
Matches in the Championship Cup were subject to new rules with players not allowed to tackle above the armpit.
But instances of concussion rose among players tackling opponents who were bent at the waist carrying the ball.
Austin Healey got it right when he said it's up to players to take responsibility for getting their tackling technique correct. If players tackled like they're taught as children, concussion would be less common.
This links back to players being selected by size over skill, and also perhaps mediocre investment in coaching in mini rugby
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
fleabane
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: Occitanie

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by fleabane »

JP14, absolutely correct.
Valhalla I am coming!
Big Dai
Super User
Super User
Posts: 6033
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:04 pm
Location: Abergavenny

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by Big Dai »

fleabane wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:29 pm JP14, absolutely correct.
I remember being taught to tackle rather than hit? Perhaps this is rose tinted glasses.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by ellis9 »

JP14 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:56 am
ellis9 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:31 am
drc_007 wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:45 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47000468

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has prematurely ended the trial of a new tackle height law after an increase in the number of concussions.
Matches in the Championship Cup were subject to new rules with players not allowed to tackle above the armpit.
But instances of concussion rose among players tackling opponents who were bent at the waist carrying the ball.
Austin Healey got it right when he said it's up to players to take responsibility for getting their tackling technique correct. If players tackled like they're taught as children, concussion would be less common.
This links back to players being selected by size over skill, and also perhaps mediocre investment in coaching in mini rugby
Mini rugby coaches have always been volunteer coaches so investment in them isn't an issue.
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Severity of injuries and high tackles (official figures)

Post by ellis9 »

Big Dai wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:26 pm
fleabane wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:29 pm JP14, absolutely correct.
I remember being taught to tackle rather than hit? Perhaps this is rose tinted glasses.
Me too. I was taught various techniques. The traditional tackle technique, the technique of how to start chest height and slide down to the legs and the front on technique.
Post Reply