Law trials and changes
-
the Technical zone/ water carrier working group.
Penalising players with hands on the floor to support body weight
Players who put their hands on the floor at tackles, rucks and mauls are subject to sanction, although judgement can be used if the player is using the ground briefly to maintain their own balance and stability.
- When has a player who puts their hand on the ground at a tackle been subject to sanction?
- Of course players briefly maintain their own balance and stability - that's the point: The whole reason they should be penalised is because they're gaining an advantage which ruins the game.
The word endeavour should be stricken from the maul laws. Refs should start looking at the attacking team at mauls. If it doesn't go forward (and sideways isn't forward), then hand over possession. It's a blight on the game.
Law definitions and relevant clauses:
Off feet: Players are off their feet when any other part of the body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
This one element alone could open up the game if they seriously implemented it.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
although judgement can be used if the player is using the ground briefly to maintain their own balance and stability.
bang! grey area.
-
@Toddy said in Law trials and changes:
They should get rid of the place kick and just go for drop goal conversation/penalties - 30 second limit after try/penalty given.
Nah, I like the place kick. I reckon there are more pressing problems where time wasting is concerned.
-
@mariner4life said in Law trials and changes:
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
although judgement can be used if the player is using the ground briefly to maintain their own balance and stability.
bang! grey area.
Interpretation will still be all over the place. The biggest part of that law not ruled is that when you are leaning onto a player on the ground, that is the same as leaning on the ground. Even in 7s the ball carrier gets immediately leaned on by there own supporting player which stops the contest. Materiality is then applied in that unless a defender is actively trying to get to the ball nothing gets called.
-
I think this is a better place for the discussion about the reduction of tackle height in England's community rugby.
Here's the official media release from the RFU.
RFU COUNCIL APPROVES LOWERING OF THE TACKLE HEIGHT ACROSS COMMUNITY RUGBY IN ENGLAND
To support player welfare, the RFU Council agreed on Monday 16th January to lower the height of the tackle across the community game from July 1 2023.
Designed to improve player safety and informed by data, this change aims to reduce head impact exposure and concussion risk in the tackle for both the ball carrier and tackler. Evidence from studies has consistently demonstrated that higher contact on the ball carrier and closer proximity of the ball carrier and tacklers’ heads are associated with larger head impacts (as measured by smart mouthguards) and an increased risk of concussion.
Lowering the height of the tackle and encouraging the tackler to bend more at the waist will minimise the risk of this occurring while maintaining the tackle as an integral part of the game.
The RFU Council’s unanimous vote will result in law variations from next season, 2023/24, with the tackle height being set at waist height or below.
Ball carriers will also be encouraged to follow the principle of evasion, which is a mainstay of the game, to avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.
The changes will apply across the community game (clubs, schools, colleges and universities) at both age-grade and adult levels - National One and below in the men’s game and Championship One and below in the women’s game.
Programmes to support players, coaches and match officials, including detailed law application guidelines are being developed to ensure players, match officials and volunteers will be ready for next season.WHAT TO EXPECT
Reduced tackle height for all community rugby
Tackles must be made at the line of the waist and below.
The aim is to put players’ heads in the safest possible place by defining in law where the line of the tackle may start.
A greater focus on the actions of the ball carrier
Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.
Match officials will focus on the actions of the ball carrier as well as the tackler when head contact occurs.
Further background to the change for next season
Player welfare remains at the heart of all decision-making. By making the decision now, the RFU Council has demonstrated its continued commitment to player welfare and recognised the importance of giving coaches, match officials and players time to prepare.
Based on extensive research and evaluations of law changes in England, South Africa, France and New Zealand and the findings of the Orchid mouthguard study carried out in Otago evidence demonstrates that a waist height tackle or below is the optimal height to provide a meaningful reduction in the height of contact on the ball carrier, a reduction in the risk of contact with the ball carrier’s head and a reduction in the risk of contact for the tackler’s head. A lower tackle height is also associated with a reduction in the magnitude of head impacts, a key target for reduction.
France, which introduced similar changes in its domestic game in 2019, reported a 63% reduction in head-on-head contacts. They also reported this move has led to a more fluid game with reduced levels of kicking, increased passing, offloads and line breaks.NEXT STEPS
The process of developing law variations and the law application guidelines is well underway. It is anticipated that new laws will be in place in the next few weeks. They will come into force from 1 July 2023.
A range of training and support will be put in place for players, coaches and match officials. This will include face-to-face workshops, webinars, e-learning and video guidance. Training will be rolled out from the spring, through the summer and into next season.
We understand this is a significant change and the game will have questions around the detail of the new law variation, what it means for coaches and players and how the tackle will be refereed during different phases of the game, for example close to the goal line versus counter attacks in open play.
Detailed FAQs and training materials will be provided over the coming weeks to give clarity for the game. This is the first in a series of communications to give the game sufficient notice of the law changes being made. -
-
Very good read and insights into the thinking. Interesting that France have combated ball carriers charging head first by legislation against it but England have decided to “encourage “ change.
I can’t see that working myself.
Anyone know the NZ approach? -
@Crucial The NZ approach is only aimed at lowering the tackle height to below the sternum (first tackler). I don't see anything in their announcement about ball carriers.
See my post above.
I quite like the French approach, although they chose to lower tackle height to the waist, not sternum.
-
If lowering tackle height makes a difference, happy days... But I think officials need to be really tight on ball placement or throwing it off the ground.
Good to see RFU looking at the ball carrier actions too, trying to keep them high and not dip into contact
-
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
@Crucial The NZ approach is only aimed at lowering the tackle height to below the sternum (first tackler). I don't see anything in their announcement about ball carriers.
See my post above.
I quite like the French approach, although they chose to lower tackle height to the waist, not sternum.
Some of this is semantics. The NZ approach is “below the sternum -aim at the puku” the others are “aim at the waist”
I don’t see much difference. -
Sensible discussion
What's not been talked about / I haven't heard or seen anything is what are the stats for HIA, YC & RC in 7s rugby?
If it's significantly less, then surely the RFU, World Rugby et al need to dissect this and determine where the biggest problem areas in the 15-man game are
It will come down to coaching, and the belief from the coaches and buy-in from the players that there's more to gain than lose by tackling higher than the nipple
-
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
Sensible discussion
What's not been talked about / I haven't heard or seen anything is what are the stats for HIA, YC & RC in 7s rugby?
If it's significantly less, then surely the RFU, World Rugby et al need to dissect this and determine where the biggest problem areas in the 15-man game are
It will come down to coaching, and the belief from the coaches and buy-in from the players that there's more to gain than lose by tackling higher than the nipple
For starters in 7s you don't get players flying into rucks. Apply the binding law with a stricter interpretation in 15s and that problem is left to complete idiots and becomes 'dangerous play'
-
@Crucial said in Law trials and changes:
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
Sensible discussion
What's not been talked about / I haven't heard or seen anything is what are the stats for HIA, YC & RC in 7s rugby?
If it's significantly less, then surely the RFU, World Rugby et al need to dissect this and determine where the biggest problem areas in the 15-man game are
It will come down to coaching, and the belief from the coaches and buy-in from the players that there's more to gain than lose by tackling higher than the nipple
For starters in 7s you don't get players flying into rucks. Apply the binding law with a stricter interpretation in 15s and that problem is left to complete idiots and becomes 'dangerous play'
That's where I was going, but didn't want to lead the jury
Coaching
-
Looks like the tackle height is going lower, not waist (stupid) but lower at pro level. Maybe the below the nipples idea? Be good for us fast paced off loading type teams, really
-
@Machpants I like you Mach think waist a bit too low, I do think NZR are about right with sternum. I am just sitting here watching a live game on tv Sale vs Bath from up north, and you know what I finding ineteresting? Most of the tackles (especially effective ones ) at thie level are actually at waist or below anyway. I know it's just one game etc and not saying anything is right or wrong but interesting anyway. Even pick and go the most effective tackles are around legs.
I also have a real thought that perhaps one of the big problems is too much training with tackle bags? Bare with me, when I coached kids back in 70s and 80s and I thaught them to defend, we alawys taught kids to go into tackles waist or below, with eyes open and head to side. I used to actually start at walking pace, then trotting and built up speed. I have noticed the thing to do for defence training from kids to club level seems to be get someone hold tackle bags, and let players fly into them, I watched a lot of junior teams training since I was involved at senior level etc, and always amazed how all defensive training seemed to require bags, and noone actually being taught the proper technigue. Even at senior club level I think players rely on hitting a tackle bag etc and aren't training good techniques.
