Law trials and changes
-
I have a huge respect for Ross Tucker's views on safety aspects of the game. His opinion will be better supported by scientific evidence than what you'll read in the media.
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1616500353335234565
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1616504197460987922
-
I have a huge respect for Ross Tucker's views on safety aspects of the game. His opinion will be better supported by scientific evidence than what you'll read in the media.
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1616500353335234565
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1616504197460987922
@Stargazer sure good stuff there, I think I'm right in saying those trials are sternum, not waist? Waist is a completely different thing
-
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? -
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
-
@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.
@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
-
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'
-
@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
-
@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 there are certainly some rules they are harder on and much more decisive in thier decision making that lends to a better product.
Def think 15s could take some 'learnings' from 7s in the way thier rulings are.
-
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
-
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. -
https://twitter.com/SonnyBWilliams/status/1618928272435445761
Sexton has also commented about waist tackling being more dangerous in terms of concussions also.
Shall we just go to touch rugby? It's a contact sport, this is unavoidable when there is contact.
-
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1619091105320157186
So Tucker suggests that it's not going to happen?
-
Have no problem with the authorities looking at making the game safer and understand they need to manage the balance between player safety and keeping the physicality of the game, but fark me, they're making a right pigs ear of the tackle height issue.
And it can't be that bloody difficult to communicate what you are looking at, set out the options, trial them at several levels, publish the feedback, explain the decisions that have been made and then manage the roll-out out in a sensible manner. Oh, and a semblance of communications planning would be nice.
Instead we have a pig-ear of a situation where confusion reigns, players at all levels are pissed off, serious students of the game (the Fern can take a bow) are scratching their heads and the rugby public are shaking their heads in disbelief.
It's a total - and avoidable - omnishambles
-
Have no problem with the authorities looking at making the game safer and understand they need to manage the balance between player safety and keeping the physicality of the game, but fark me, they're making a right pigs ear of the tackle height issue.
And it can't be that bloody difficult to communicate what you are looking at, set out the options, trial them at several levels, publish the feedback, explain the decisions that have been made and then manage the roll-out out in a sensible manner. Oh, and a semblance of communications planning would be nice.
Instead we have a pig-ear of a situation where confusion reigns, players at all levels are pissed off, serious students of the game (the Fern can take a bow) are scratching their heads and the rugby public are shaking their heads in disbelief.
It's a total - and avoidable - omnishambles
@Victor-Meldrew Agree 100%.
-
Have no problem with the authorities looking at making the game safer and understand they need to manage the balance between player safety and keeping the physicality of the game, but fark me, they're making a right pigs ear of the tackle height issue.
And it can't be that bloody difficult to communicate what you are looking at, set out the options, trial them at several levels, publish the feedback, explain the decisions that have been made and then manage the roll-out out in a sensible manner. Oh, and a semblance of communications planning would be nice.
Instead we have a pig-ear of a situation where confusion reigns, players at all levels are pissed off, serious students of the game (the Fern can take a bow) are scratching their heads and the rugby public are shaking their heads in disbelief.
It's a total - and avoidable - omnishambles
@Victor-Meldrew Agree, seems pisspoor comunication, but I wondering how much we have looked at it, isn't it RU doing it in England and they seemed to stuffed up communicating with their clubs, they don't need to communicate it to me here in NZ!
Actually was just talking to Welsh mate and he was saying the laws are also going to cover players bending so low so they can't be tackled legally, buggered if I know how. -
@Victor-Meldrew Agree, seems pisspoor comunication, but I wondering how much we have looked at it, isn't it RU doing it in England and they seemed to stuffed up communicating with their clubs, they don't need to communicate it to me here in NZ!
Actually was just talking to Welsh mate and he was saying the laws are also going to cover players bending so low so they can't be tackled legally, buggered if I know how.@Dan54 said in Law trials and changes:
@Victor-Meldrew Agree, seems pisspoor comunication, but I wondering how much we have looked at it, isn't it RU doing it in England and they seemed to stuffed up communicating with their clubs, they don't need to communicate it to me here in NZ!
Actually was just talking to Welsh mate and he was saying the laws are also going to cover players bending so low so they can't be tackled legally, buggered if I know how.Have a read back in the thread. Covered in a good article. The law makers think it won’t be a problem just like you can grab near the head and shoulders near the line because it isn’t deemed dangerous unless you neck roll.
After a few times getting your face slammed into the ground and people landing on you it won’t be that attractive an option. -
Have no problem with the authorities looking at making the game safer and understand they need to manage the balance between player safety and keeping the physicality of the game, but fark me, they're making a right pigs ear of the tackle height issue.
And it can't be that bloody difficult to communicate what you are looking at, set out the options, trial them at several levels, publish the feedback, explain the decisions that have been made and then manage the roll-out out in a sensible manner. Oh, and a semblance of communications planning would be nice.
Instead we have a pig-ear of a situation where confusion reigns, players at all levels are pissed off, serious students of the game (the Fern can take a bow) are scratching their heads and the rugby public are shaking their heads in disbelief.
It's a total - and avoidable - omnishambles
@Victor-Meldrew Mate just out of interest on trialling and feedback etc, not sure if you saw this from NZR in November, and not sure where you reside mate, but we in NZ have been kept informed about this change quite well I thought.
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/reduced-tackle-height-the-focus-of-community-rugby-game-innovations-for-2023/
