Law trials and changes
-
https://www.world.rugby/news/790960
-
Enhanced playing experience and player welfare at the heart of recommendations being made to the World Rugby Council in May
-
Independent research supports lowering of the legal tackle height as a means of reducing the number of head impacts and concussions in the community and youth game
-
Recent pilot trials in France also show positive outcomes in terms of, player experience and community game participation
-
Unions will be encouraged to opt-in to a global law trial reducing the legal height of the tackle at Community and youth levels.
-
Unions will be able to determine the exact tackle height within their jurisdiction but World Rugby will recommend a reduction to below the sternum
-
The lower tackle height is aimed at increasing accessibility, safety and enjoyment.
World Rugby’s Executive Board has recommended that Unions participate in an opt-in global trial of lowering the tackle height in the community game to below the sternum (also known as a “belly tackle”).
National unions are now encouraged to consult with their community rugby game regarding the recommendation. Any future adoption of a lowered tackle height will be underpined by a comprehensive roadmap of education and resources that will support implementation locally at all grassroots levels of the game. Unions will also be encouraged to undertake formal research into the impact of the intervention, enabling World Rugby to fully evaluate the trial and determine future steps.Supporting a safer more enjoyable game
World Rugby-endorsed pilot trials of lower tackle heights have been conducted in the community game in France and South Africa. These trials have been proven to deliver positive advancements in terms of player safety – reducing the number of head impacts and concussions - and the overall game experience – supporting increased ball in flow. The changes have helped to increase player participation in France.
Change driven by emerging science and evidence
In line with its six-point plan to make the sport the most progressive in the world on player welfare, World Rugby continues to be guided by science and research as part of a relentless focus on reducing injury risk via education, sanction and law change. A reduction in the legal tackle height to below the sternum demonstrates increased safety outcomes while retaining the unique characteristics of the game.
Rigorous independent research shows that the tackle is responsible for 74 per cent of all concussions. Reducing the height of the tackle protects both players. The ball carrier is protected directly because head contact leading to injury can be significantly reduced, while the tackler is protected because their head will be in what is known to be a safer proximity with the ball carrier’s torso/upper body. Tackles where the tackler’s head is in proximity to the ball carrier’s body above the sternum are more than four times more likely to result in a head injury, and so bringing tackle height down will benefit both players.
In light of this compelling evidence, including research using the latest smart mouthguard technology, World Rugby is recommending the legal tackle height be lowered on an opt-in global trial basis. Several unions have already announced their intention to support it.:right_arrow_curving_up: England and New Zealand have already announced the reduction of tackle height in community rugby
‘Rugby for everyone’ – tackle height action plan through to World Rugby Council in May
-
World Rugby will continue to consult with unions on lower tackle height implementation and guidance around key tackle elements, including double tackles and tackling near the try line
-
Guidance will be provided and linked to Game On Global, World Rugby’s Community Game modified law variations and Tackle Ready the best practise tackling resource, both of which are already available to unions
-
Implementation would be approved on the proviso that tackle technique education is undertaken by respective unions for players, coaches, match officials and disciplinary personnel
-
World Rugby will promote a new non-contact game and other modified contact games
-
World Rugby will continue to seek and listen to feedback from everyone who loves the game
World Rugby Chairman, Sir Bill Beaumont, said: “It is important that we continue to explore ways that we can make our game as enjoyable and safe to play as possible. The community game is the lifeblood of our sport, representing 99 per cent of our participants, and the proposed tackle height adjustment has already delivered positive game shape and playing experience outcomes in pilot trials – this is essential to the sport’s future. The evidence we have, from France in particular, shows that not only does reducing the tackle height make the game safer but it increases numbers playing as well. That has to be the aim for everyone involved in our game.”
World Rugby Chief Executive Officer Alan Gilpin added: “If our sport is to continue to grow, we must ensure that we are accessible and relevant to more people around the world. That means never standing still when it comes to advancing player welfare and experience. With compelling emerging evidence showing that a lower legal tackle height means a lower head injury risk, as well as more people playing, we are compelled to act.
“Change can be difficult. We appreciate that there will be sections of the community game who will question this move, but we must not lose sight of the fact that such a change has the ability to enhance enjoyment, reassure parents and welcome many new participants to the sport we all love.
“While this is a community rugby initiative, we would be open to discussions with unions who may wish to explore the possibility of a future closed trial at the elite level which would broaden research data. It must be noted that the elite and community environments are very different, they are essentially different playing experiences and sports.”
The recommendation was endorsed by World Rugby’s Community Rugby Committee and follows consideration by the national union Development Directors group in October 2022. -
-
Nothing published about this policy change (not: law change) on the WR website yet.
-
What a stupid decision. I’m colour blind (not the type affected by this) but its a fact of life, and you work around it.
SA made great point about all the other fans that are negatively affected.
@Kirwan Yeah, in that Springboks v All Blacks example, you only have to look at the shorts and the difference between the two teams is clear. Alternative solutions could also have been letting - for example - the Springboks wear golden armbands or add golden cuffs to their sleeves.
-
Nothing published about this policy change (not: law change) on the WR website yet.
@Stargazer said in Law trials and changes:
Nothing published about this policy change (not: law change) on the WR website yet.
WR getting in front and solving problems that don't actually exist. What a wonderful age we live in.
-
Nothing published about this policy change (not: law change) on the WR website yet.
-
-
@canefan the 1st comment is gold....then some people with colourblindness weighing...
-
I have long thought that the biggest problem rugby has as a viewing spectacle is that the jerseys are too close
So bravo to world rugby for actually fixing their biggest issue
-
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarification/2023/1/
In a recent World Sevens Series fixture in Hong Kong an attacking player carrying the ball into in-goal, placed the ball down on what he believed was the ground, but actually placed the ball on the corner post which had been dislodged by the tackler and was now lying in in-goal.
Could the referee have awarded a try?Had the ball carrier placed the ball on a non-player - the referee’s foot, a physio, or an encroaching spectator - then law 6.12 gives the referee the power to determine what would likely to have happened next and to rule accordingly. We think this should be the same outcome for this situation. Therefore, the referee may award a try if they believe a try would have been scored had it not been for the flag in the way.
The same would be the case if some other item had been left/discarded/blown into in-goal and the ball “grounded” on it. In the next law cycle, World Rugby will look to amend 6.12 to include other objects as well as non-players. -
Something I have been thinking about for a while and the scenario raised it's head again last night. Player from Team A commits an offence that earns a yellow or red card. Player from Team B is not able to take the field again owing to an injury inflicted by the Team A Player. Therefore Team B has to use one of it's subs earlier than planned. This is probably not so much of an issue when a red card means the Player is lost for the remainder of the game, but for yellows and especially 20 minute Reds Team B is disadvantaged because of Team A's actions. I wonder whether in such instances Team A should lose a like for like sub as well?
-
Not a law trial or change, but an upcoming policy change:
This section is currently guidance for all competitions.
From 1st January 2025, this will become policy applicable to all World Rugby run competitions. It will remain guidance for all other non-World Rugby competitions.
https://twitter.com/worldrugbymedia/status/1699313648877830444
Media release:
https://www.world.rugby/news/837995
Document with guidelines/policy:
https://www.world.rugby/organisation/accessibility/colour-blind/intro
I've only skimmed through it, but this is an interesting document.
-
@Machpants Maybe South Africa will wear their alternate jersey?
From the media release:
In some rare cases, an alternate kit may still pose a challenge if there is not enough colour or design differential. Such was the possibility for the Portugal v Wales Group C encounter on 16 September in Nice where the Welsh alternate kit (black) would have clashed with Portugal's primary kit (dark red). In a move applauded by World Rugby as a positive display of the sport’s values and support for inclusivity, both Portugal and Wales have confirmed they will each wear their alternative kit in support of the cause. Other participating teams have also committed to show their support by wearing alternate jerseys for certain games including Georgia, Ireland, Tonga and South Africa.
-
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
-
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
@MiketheSnow said in Law trials and changes:
Watching the matches over the weekend with an old school friend (45 years since we first went to the 'big school') he made the following comment / observation
Why are you able to call for the mark in your own 22?
That's the first thing I'd get rid ofI'd never really thought about it - it's one of those things that's always been there and seems sensible
I'm sure back in the day when balls were heavier and it was harder to clear your lines it allowed teams to relieve constant pressure and the feeling that they were being entrenched in their own 25/22
But today?
If we did get rid of the mark would we see more kicking?
Would we see more counterattacking?
Would it make any difference?Thoughts on a postcard to the usual address
Haven’t got the time to go into all the details but there are a few articles on the web on the history of the mark. Originally you could take a mark anywhere and score points from the subsequent kick. It’s only in the 22 since the 70s I think.
