Lineouts will certainly become a lottery!

This will in effect wipe out the participation of 2/3 of a clubs squad namely the forwards. The game will turn into 7’s or tag rugby with a bunch of fast runners only. 

Totally agree with the high tackle as it stands and protecting the head from stupid high tackles and no arm shoulder charges but this takes things too far and destroys the game. 

What happens when a player whose been in National 1 for several years & gets promoted to Championship? All of a sudden he’s getting tackled & having to tackle in a completely different way. 

In two years time we’ll be watching 5’5” players running directly at second & back rows knowing they won’t be tackled correctly & winning a penalty. 

Anything above shoulder height is a yellow & with force a straight red. Surely that can work if enforced? 

Already schools have indicated to RFU they will boycott it and play by IRB rules!!!

RFU total shambles

Is there another sport in which senior teams below level 2 play to different rules?

No doubt, as with the re-organisation of the leagues, the RFU will have consulted their members and then ignored them. Or a back door to ring-fencing? 

The RFU are pandering to the H&S lobby because the media are getting on the side of a few players who have issues that are effecting thier health. Whilst I have every sympathy for those players who are struggling (for reasons yet to be conclusively proven to be due to playing rugby), as a percentage of those who play our game, the numbers are minor.

Again, we have a situation where the majority are being disadvantaged becuse of issues with a few. I doubt that any of those players with issues were forced to pull on a shirt and play the game so, whilst they deserve all of the support that is possible, they should not be held up as a reason for ruining our game.

Our governing body is currently complicit in destroying the game it is supposed to support and defend. They should be ashamed.

https://chng.it/DcKJgWMYgc" rel="nofollow - https://chng.it/DcKJgWMYgc

The only thing that I totally disagree with both in France and England is having 2 different sets of laws for different levels of the game.  I'd apply that change to all rugby, everywhere, It's really nothing to be worried about

In effect, they are lowering the high tackle line from the shoulder to around the navel. Bend your knees and bend at the hips and you naturally lower yourself to about navel height.

Up until around 2000, the low body tackle was the pre-dominant form of tackling. It's still the way coaches are supposed to coach children how to tackle.

Simple solution at senior level - go back to coaching lower body tackling. Players and coaches who don't adapt will soon get found out.

As for how it's reffed, i hope referees will apply some leniency for those scenarios where a defender is caught 'off guard' e.g. drifting across the field, not expecting to make the tackle, ball carrier steps back in side at speed straight into the defender - likely outcome is both are upright at the point of contact.

 How can you tell if the player wasn't expecting to make the tackle? More often that not they'll lose the collision and will go backwards, even a little bit, absorbing the contact and making a passive tackle.

It is a farce though that it's been rolled out across the community game first. An environment in which training time is low and therefore less time to change behaviours and technique through coaching. You'd have thought it would make more sense for it to impact professional rugby first where the players would have significantly more time to prepare - though to do that it would need to be rolled out by the IRB to all nations, not just the RFU and England.

I don't know if this will have any effect but we should all sign it.

How long will it be before they introduce 'catch & kiss'?

The Rugby Football Union says it will soon provide "clarity for the game" regarding the radical new tackle laws amid fears of a mass player exodus. The tackle height will be lowered to the waist from next season for all levels apart from the Premiership and Championship. The RFU says "detailed guidelines" will be sent out to players, coaches and referees. "We understand this is a significant change," said a union spokesperson. However, numerous clubs, players, coaches, and officials have expressed their concerns to the BBC, branding the law change unworkable, lamenting a lack of consultation, and fearing a mass player departure from the sport. Manchester Rugby Club, in the fifth tier of the English rugby pyramid, say they have "real concerns" the move will "kill playing numbers for next year". Sam Williams, captain of Wasps FC, the amateur arm of former professional club Wasps, said the reaction from his squad members had been "overwhelmingly negative, with most suggesting it will change their commitment to playing or make them retire/change sports altogether". Meanwhile a petition calling for the RFU to reverse its decision has amassed more than 30,000 signatures in a little more than 24 hours. "Dropping the tackle height to below the waist will make the game a farcical spectacle to watch," said the petition founder Ed Bartlett, a player with Old Reigatian RFC in the level-six Regional South East 2. "I completely understand the need to make the game safer and where possible eliminate the head-on-head collisions, but no-one is forcing anyone to play rugby union." There is also concern about the pressure the law change will put on volunteer coaches and referees, with the new tackle height coming into effect on 1 July. "The implementation of it leaves the grassroots game way too little time to adjust," said Dickon Moon, the long-standing director of rugby at level-six London Cornish. "How I am meant to retrain our circa 100 players in time for the new season when we only train once a week and have to also use pre-season to get players fit?"

As a counter, Nick Easter, Chinnor’s director of rugby, suggested he will be coaching his ball-carriers to do precisely the opposite, thus milking penalty after penalty. Ball-carriers have always set the terms of the tackle, which is why focusing all the attention on the tackler is not only unjust but utterly futile.

As for current players, they are certainly going to reconsider if they cannot wrap and tackle.

Have you ever looked at the late David Duckham's sidestep? Waist lowers as he moves left or right. 

John Inverdale refers to a very good article by Owen Slott in yesterday's Times but I missed it. Can anyone provide a link please?

Infact every single RFU Council Member voted for it.

The game will have to live with this and I'll bet by the end of the season World Rugby will roll this out across the world. Also all those saying there'll be a exodus to RL, quite sure that code will also have to re-adjust to a new tackle law.

Is the possibility of having dementia in the future now under the banner of woke?

Something must be done, whether this is the something is up for debate, but we can't carry on as now. 

If the game as a whole doesn't take action it will be open to more legal action and once the dangers are known and players can show nothing was done to mitigate them then the chances of successful legal action increases. 

Rugby League will also have to tackle, pun intended, the same issues and I would argue some of their challenges could be more dangerous.

How they go about it will be interesting. 

So those predicting a mass exodus are looking beyond the simple fact that of  Football of all codes need to change, Union aren't just doing it isolation.  Soccer is already addressing the heading issues for example. 

The change to outlaw and heavily police the head high tackle was the right move and despite some high profile Premiership players continuing to operate recklessly, in the community game the deliberate head high shots are disappearing.

Rather than the oft quoted "too little too late" surely this is "too much too soon".

I think we all agree that something needs to be done, but this isn't it.  If changes need to be made, it's at the elite level - I haven't seen a single red card for a high or dangerous tackle in the last six years of watching games at L5-9.  Plus, as Dickon said on the BBC website, he's got to train 100+ players to drastically alter their tackle technique while also getting them match fit, and all in one 90 minute session per week.

It may not be Mark but at least it is based upon studies and should carry some weight. 

However what I am reading is a reluctance to accept something must be done. 

No one seems to be offering alternatives. 

I am not seeing the acceptance that something must be do e on this board, can you point me to alternatives suggestions?

You will never stop the possibility of head to head collisions in rugby. Carry out a sensible  risk assessment and it will always be a likeley occurance in the game. No wants to clash heads but it will always happen and red cards will not stop it. 

.  

Romford .. overnight? from September 1st, 2023

No Richard, having dementia is not under the banner of 'woke' but what is happening to the laws of our game may be.

Dementia is a real issue for many who have never pulled on a rugby shirt.

Serious question as some 1st XV players are less than svelte!

That's quite a ridiculous thing to say. 

We already have laws governing our game. Tweaking them for the better is one thing. Ruining our game is another.

Just watched Antonio playing for La Rochelle.  He doesn't have a waist.

I'm still not clear on what you consider Woke and ridiculous Health and Safety laws? Please enlighten me. 

Dementia is a problem. Studies show players of contact sports are more likely to be at risk therefore something must be done. That should not be up for debate.

What can be debated is whether the proposals are the way forward. They are based on studies and not kneejerk reactions. 

I've yet to see alternatives suggestions other than implementing from the top first, which seems to acknowledge they are the way forward. 

Richard, the studies I can find relate to professional/elite rugby and top flight BUCS rugby. It would be useful if the RFU could post a YouTube presentation so that we all, as players, supporters and referees, could understand what evidence has been put forward

 It seems disingenuous to apply this from Level 3 down, rather than the whole game, especially as there are identified major risks in the Premiership

As ever, the RFU are bringing forward a fundamental change to rugby at short notice.

Or, everyone accepts that it is their choice to play rugby or not.

Richard,

'Woke', in my opinion, is disadvanraging the majority to appease the minority and the media.

The current scrummage laws are held up as making it safer to play the game but, as we see every weekend, the scrummage is a mess and no safer.

Some people believe the laws as they are, provide sufficient safety for the players today and, do not want the game to be further complicated in the name of H&S.

However, if the RFU want to do something positive about huge men running into huge men each week, they could reduce the number of replacements and substitutions allowed in a match at all levels. This would change the required fitness level of the player and change the game at levels 1 & 2.

Studies may show that players of contact sports are more likely to be at risk of dementia in later life but, what is not clear is whether those players would have developed this terrible condition anyway.

If the evidence derived from studies on tackling below the waist was that conclusive, this law would have been introduced at all levels. The RFU are using Level 3 down as a experiment because they are not sure, which is a disgrace.

The studies from what I have read were also conducted on French amateur rugby. 

1) I still don't see what is woke about trying to make the game safer? Who are the minority and majority in your definition? Where do the media fit in? 

2) The scrum laws have reduced the problem of collapsing and the injuries caused by that.  Are you arguing that they are less safe? Are neck injuries and spinal increasing due to the 'new' laws?

3) Repeating myself here but the studies show contact sports are MORE likely to suffer from dementia.  It's like saying you are at risk of a car crash every time you drive but you lessen the risk of injury by wearing a seat belt. These changes are Rugby’s seat belt laws.

4) I agree on replacement numbers but how does that change dangerous high tackles in the beginning of a game when every player is fresh? My view is high tackles aren't just a post 60 minute thing unless you have seen reports that suggest they increase as the game progresses? 

1: we currently have the correct laws in place they are just not used properly

2: The French trial appears to allow the second player to grab anywhere

3: Little experiment done at Blackheath 6ft 9 lock cannot tackle our 5ft 5 scrum half unless he starts on the ground as bending to the waist or on knees he is still tackling around the chest.

I’m sorry but this is a load of tosh

The attacking player goes well below waist height  so that the defending player cannot wrap arms or tackle below head height. Please, I know we have experts on here, tell me why I have missed something here and that should be a red card  .

Or is that another anomaly that Refs choose to ignore along with crooked feed at the scrum

1) Woke in this case is being part of, or influenced by, politically correct lobby for the sake of it rather than to make things better.

2) The current scrum laws were introduced to make the scrum safer and speed up the game. They haven't done either.

3) The 'seat belts' are already there ie the current laws on high tackles are suffcient. Many believe that the new law will increase occurrance of concusion as knees come into contact with heads. Interestingly, the current England Cricket Captain supports this theory. Time will tell.

4) Changing the number of subs will make the game safer from the start. The 24 stone monsters they use at the begining will be redundant and not likely to awkwardly fall on someone. 

Article in the Telegraph suggests (I think) just standing in the way and let the ball carrier bounce off you......I did that but was 20 stone at time - my mate on the wing couldn't stop laughing. The ball carrier was a 5 ft 6 in hooker.

1) I notice you skipped explaining who the minority, majority were and how the media were involved. 

Who are the Politically correct lobby you now refer to? 

2) The laws were to make scrums safe first and foremost. If you are saying they are not, please show me some stats saying there hasn't been a reduction in neck and spinal injuries. The speed element exists outside of International and Premiership rugby where players aren't trying to game the ref. 

3) They are obviously not sufficient as injuries still keep happening or are you on denial about this crucial point?

4) Are dangerous tackles or play only restricted to 24 stone monsters? I don't think Owen Farrell for example weighs thst much... 

Zero from the RFU.

Zero from the NCA.

Zero from County Rep.

The people who have voted this in have no mandate to do so.

Utter shambles only the discredited RFU could be involved in.

 

But he ran into me (but, we did have a bit of a barney going on in the scrum),

Surely, under new rules, he has to avoid me? 

I'm due the RFU guidance will clarify that.

I read that Stratford and Avon went on your to France where lower divisions are trialling this gave away over 60 penalties!

Well I have read one regular poster's views that those former players who are so incapacitated by head injuries suffered during their careers that they can no longer write their names should find someone else to object to this change on their behalf. 

On this thread I read another saying this change should not happen and it is an individual's choice whether they choose to play rugby or not. 

And these just appear to be echoing the views of others.

Such lack of compassion and simple common decency appalls me and frankly makes me ashamed to stand alongside them as a rugby supporter.

Whereas I am concerned about the effects of this change and wonder if there are better alternatives I am more concerned about preventing current players suffering in the same way many of their predecessors have.

I will therefore not return to any thread on this board on the subject as there is (in my opinion) far to much embarrassing self-interested nonsense being spoken. So others can feel free to call me woke or whatever they like whilst they congratulate themselves on totally missing the point of the great game of rugby.

1) the manner in which the RFU have done this. This is a major change affecting 100,000 ish people. We can all agree on that at least.  The RFU should therefore have been open in this change. It should have been widely publicised as an option they were considering (I do not think 1 article in the Telegraph presented as a rumour is such an effort), with the date of the vote again publicised and everyone told to contact their CB rep if they have a strong opinion. Given they are pushing for the change it is incumbent on them to convince people of the need for it.

2) The justifications used. Safety and balances of risks. There will still be concussions, dementia, CTE with these new rules.  By using this justification to rail road it through the game is open to further changes without any consultation at all.

Removing competitive scrummaging would save 100% of the injuries associated with them, many of which are gravely serious.  I ask the people whose view is that sympathy for the afflicted means the current change is justified if they are in favour of that at National league 1 too?  

The grassroots game plays by consent, the RFU have done literally nothing to assuage the concerns of players that these rules could be worse. They've forced the rules upon them.

"Anything that comes in to enhance player safety, because that is paramount in the game, it should be welcome," Owens told BBC Radio 5 Live. "The only issue is there are a lot of questions around this by the players who play the game, ex-players and officials and everybody involved in the game. So there's a lot of questions around this at the moment which we are finding it difficult to get answers to. "It's going to be very interesting to see how it all plays out, how will the game look and will it be a much safer game?" He added: "I don't think people are signing a petition not wanting to make the game safe. "They are signing it because they want to know how this is going to better the game, how is it going to make the game safer. "If the ball carrier is going to ground near the try-line, how are you going to be able to get below his waist to tackle him? "How do you now set up a maul? Because the ball-carrier is on his feet, the defenders wrap around him and you can't join a maul below the waist. "There are a lot of question marks and that is what needs to be addressed."

However, having read all of the postings on this thread I believe we all want the game to be safer but we are clearly split on how best this can be achieved.

One thing I think we are united on is that those who are suffering from the effects of this terrible condition deserve some support from the game even though all are not convinced that our game is the single cause of their problem.

If its gonna happen try and aid the incorporation.

I second that Sid. It was an excellent and informative post by Dumbape who clearly is not dumb!

Sid James wrote: That is an excellent posting dumbape, well said!

Yes very informative dumbape

Thanks for that

Plenty of evidence to suggest it has accelerated the demise of community rugby...

My theory would be from 1996-1997 when all clubs began playing league fixtures home and away that there has been a rapid decline in participation since then. This is around the beginning of professionalism and increased the size of players and in turn saw more of a likeness to tackle like Rugby League. I would argue the last 20 years has seen the sport move away from evasion and move more into a battle of attrition. 

However, I would again argue this is an issue at L1/L2, the further down the pyramid you go the game is (generally) played to evade.

I was a schoolboy player in 1958(?) when they got rid of the requirement for the first player arriving after a tackle, to play the ball with the foot. Now you could go in with the hands, up and away, speed the game up, they told us. It worked for us 14 years olds. Excellent.

Unfortunately, the adult players now dived on the released ball, where previously they had stayed on their feet and rucked it. This apparently simple law change led to 20 years of mud-wrestling, the Bill Beaumont era, typified by Terry Cobner, the 'gigantic Welsh mole'.

The second change was about 30 years ago, 'the use it or lose it', which initially applied to both ruck and maul. They quickly abandoned the ruck part, thankfully, but the game has evolved through all those other changes - professionalism, leagues, etc - under this law. I believe that, while it has made the game superficially more entertaining, and more marketable, rugby is not as much fun (certainly for us backs) as previously. The rugby league comparison is a fair one. Superficially entertaining, but boring and sterile, generally. 80 minutes of sameness. RL pass and crash; RU pick and drive. Away from this negative issue, skill-levels are through the roof, and the law-change can take credit for this. These issues are complex, shades of grey, no quick fix.

The 1990s law-change also altered lines of running, added to high-speed impacts, and had a large bearing on the concussion issues of today. Prior to it, the defensive line across the field was unthinkable in RU. There was nearly always space to run into, though you got the ball less often.

And now this. Insanity. They can't possibly have thought it through. It must be opposed.

I think I agree with your analysis. The first ruck I saw in the professional era wasn't a ruck to me at all....I couldn't comprehend it. There was no space as the static 'ruck' tied in only 3 opposition forwards and the rest were strung across the field. I didn't recognise the game.

I wouldn't want to play according to todays rules. I got plenty of shoeings in my day and suffered scrapes and bruises from being on the wrong side but was never really hurt in an old fashioned ruck. It might not have looked good but it was never dangerous.

I did break a number of bones in my head in one bad bad incident but it wasn't in a ruck but was caused byy a kick to the head while I was gathering a ball

I would have been smashed to pieces if I had been hit by some of today's behemoths. I wasn't the biggest then and I had to tackle low but struggled to go low against some high steppers though....... I personally think the ruck is the biggest problem.

- this study by the BMJ (who I trust more on the subject than the RFU) is well worth a read - u can draw your own conclusions but puzzling that it wasnt mentioned in the RFU video  https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/4/220" rel="nofollow - https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/4/220  To save u time, one of the key points is this one - “Future studies should involve stakeholders (ie, players, coaches and referees) more closely and provide a longer preparatory period.”

- we do not yet have enough data from the few seasons with the current new tackle height but anecdotally, we have already seen a massive reduction this season compared with previous seasons

- around 100 players pull on a London Cornish shirt at least oncw each season and the majority of these dont train - given how little time we have to implement this change, wouldnt a more senible option have been to reduce the height to nipple level next season and down to waist the following one?

- why didnt the RFU consult and if it was so important, why did the RFU not give Council Members more time to prep? Why also did the Council Members vote down the sensible 11th hour amendment tabled to give the amateur game more time to adjust?

- why is there a disparity between differing levels and what drove that?

Plenty of questions and its right we should ask them of an RFU that seems to forget that the vast majority of players playing the game are not at 1st team levels and in the main do not train. Still, if the amateur game only gets the last 15 minutes as an afterthought at Council meetings, should we expect any more?

The complete sh 1 t show this has become is because......

The RFU led  on it, should have been World Rugby who will no doubt bring the Tackle Height change into all of the game post World Cup unless backed into a corner now.

The complete and utter failure of the RFU Communications Department to give even a slight heads up on the subject. The RFU Council Reps were briefed (I've seen the majority of the briefing and frankly I would vote in favour of the change) but it should have been made public prior to the decision being made. A lot of people are getting hot under the collar demanding the RFU Council resign, I've said before the its not the Council that come up with these ideas its the professional staff at TW2 who provide all the information for the council to review and approve or not. Council members are they for a short term anyway so making them fall on their swords seems a pointless exercise when the real culprits are the actual Board and its Departments not the Council.

I am reminded of Paul Whitehouse character in the "Fast Show", the guy who had no recollection because he was really "d r u n k at the time".....................................

The Kent rep on the council has published a few links and apparently was the only one on the council who voted in favour of delaying this to allow feedback to be gained from clubs. Everyone else on the council wanted to blunder ahead it seems, he was the only one who had any common sense

https://www.kent-rugby.org/news/rfu-council-votes-to-lower-the-tackle-height-from-the-commencement-of-the-2023-24-season/" rel="nofollow - https://www.kent-rugby.org/news/rfu-council-votes-to-lower-the-tackle-height-from-the-commencement-of-the-2023-24-season/

Premiership head coaches have expressed concern about new laws on tackle height due to be implemented in the community game. The Rugby Football Union (RFU) announced players will only be able to tackle from the waist down from July. The rules affect clubs in divisions below the Premiership, Championship and Premier 15s. "I don't think it's smart," Gloucester head coach George Skivington told BBC Radio Gloucestershire. "I don't think it's been well-received and rightly so, if I'm honest. I think some more adjustments will need to be made because I don't think that's a practical solution. "The tackle height could come down and that could be a real solution, possibly you go below the nipple or something like that. But I think you're asking for trouble going below the waist like that." The RFU said the changes were being made to improve player safety, particularly around the issue of head injury and concussion, which has been a point of concern at all levels of rugby. However there is scepticism over whether the rules will make tackling any safer, especially for the player doing the tackling. "I think it might be much better for the ball carrier, maybe not necessarily for the tackler," Bristol director of rugby Pat Lam told BBC Radio Bristol. "I understand the intent to improve the safety of the game. I think the key is the flexibility of making a change, seeing how it goes but not being afraid to reverse that or change it again to make it safer. "I 100% agree that we want to make the game safer - [but] not sure if this law change will make it safer for the tackler." Clubs in the Premiership, like the community organisations who will be affected, were not included in the RFU's consultations. The RFU have since stated that they will seek guidance from clubs after the announcement was greeted poorly by those in the community game. The subject will be discussed again at an RFU council meeting on 13 February. "I think we need to know a lot more around the structure of what the rules will be around the ball carrier, what the rules will be around assist tacklers," Exeter director of rugby Rob Baxter told BBC Sport. "There's an awful lot more we have to know in context before we make too many decisions on how it would suit the community game." 'Don't lose the essence of rugby' While the rules will not be brought into the elite level of rugby, Baxter said a trickle effect would mean it would still impact the Premiership when it comes to recruiting young players and those on dual registration deals with other clubs. "Will it affect how we look to use loan clubs, build up players to come into the professional environment? Of course it will, because we have to try and prepare in the best way we can," Baxter added. "Once we know the full outline of all the rules and regulations, and what's happening around it, then we will assess that very closely." For Bath head of rugby Johann van Graan, the biggest concern was how the changes would impact the spirit of rugby. He reiterated that all the stakeholders need to be involved in decision-making. "The main thing from my side is we've got to make sure we don't lose the essence of our game," Van Graan told BBC Radio Bristol. "It's a game for all shapes and sizes, and the way it's played is the reason why we coach it, watch it and play it, and we've got to make sure we look after the game. "Make it safer, yes, but we are playing a collision sport. Get all stakeholders involved and do what's best for the game, and we've got to make sure we look after the game."

It does say "It was also felt that any delay could be very harmful to the game, hence why there wasn't any consultation with the game as a whole". It would have been more accurate to say "we knew if we had taken this to the game as a whole, it would never have been accepted".

Maybe at the end of the day that's what they want - drive the community game out of existence so they can focus all their time and efforts into the top level

Not sure why the RFU have gone out on a limb and nothing much by way of input from the other home unions.

I'd class reports by well-connected writers as a bit more than rumours FR.

As I wrote on 20 Jan: "Owen Slot in today’s Times forecast that these measures would be introduced globally by World Rugby (IRB as was) - probably before the end of this year. And that the pro game would follow ‘soon enough’…"

Wasps/Worcester debacle

Ignoring own rules which should see them relegated to the bottom of the pyramid - plenty precedent for previous miss-managed clubs! 

Proposed restructure to keep Worcs & Wasps in the top 20 with no regard to those clubs shunted down the ladder as a result

Virtually no funding for the clubs below Level 2

Scathing DCMS report

Announcing game changing alterations to the laws without consultation

How much more do you need?? 

... Meanwhile, a number of grassroots clubs are hoping to force through a vote of no confidence in the RFU board at an SGM. A group called the Community Clubs' Union [CCU] has been set up, with more than 250 clubs declaring their intention to call an SGM. The CCU says a number of RFU Constituent Bodies are now looking to rescind their backing of the law change. "Things have moved significantly," said the CCU. ...

... Schmidt suggestion worth considering - Bowe Bowe discussed a proposition by former Ireland boss Joe Schmidt, which he feels is a better option than the new law, although he does concede it will be a long process to find the long-term solution which will work in the professional game. "I was chatting to Joe Schmidt about this recently, and he felt that another good option is that the attacking player can't duck into the tackle," Bowe explained. "If you put the emphasis on the attacking player, they have to stay upright and it is very hard to get to someone's head. "You see the great minds of the game are trying to come up with different ideas. It's the case of finding a solution that does eventually fit."