• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Concussions and Protecting Our Players

The Ghost of Raelene

Steve Williams (59)
The counterpoint is that it could make the game more appealing to juniors (more specifically their parents) if it's perceived as 'safer' than League.
Yeah that’s a good point but your going to see club’s collapse when their seniors just decide that’s enough.

Rugby might just become a game like Junior soccer that a lot of kids have played before moving onto other sports.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Yeah that’s a good point but your going to see club’s collapse when their seniors just decide that’s enough.

This seems like hyperbole to me. A whole heap of players are going to quit the game because a small percentage of what were legal tackles are going to have to be lowered slightly.

You'd think from commentary like this that the bulk of tackles were chest high and the game was being fundamentally changed.
 

LeCheese

Jim Lenehan (48)
Yeah that’s a good point but your going to see club’s collapse when their seniors just decide that’s enough.

Rugby might just become a game like Junior soccer that a lot of kids have played before moving onto other sports.
As Braveheart implied, I don't think the change is going to be anywhere near as dramatic as what's being thrown around. Good tackles shouldn't be above the waist anyway - forcing players to improve tackle technique, from a junior level, has every chance of actually improving the spectacle imo
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
I really don't think that's going to be the case.

It creates some leeway between a legal tackle and a potential red card offence whereas currently that threshold is minute.

The new framework seems to be that a tackle at the sternum will be a penalty offence and higher than that is probably a card. The waist is pretty much the belly button so isn't nearly as low as some people are thinking.

At the community level at least I don't think you're going to see referees trying to penalise a tackle as soon as it might be a cm or two above the waist. There's leeway there where it isn't dangerous.

If this eventually comes into the elite game it should largely do away with watching a dozen replays and listening to the TMO and referee debate whether or not something is entirely legal or a red card. There should be a clear distinction between what is just play on and what constitutes a dangerous tackle which doesn't exist now.
Guess we'll see. I remain unconvinced.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Steve Williams (59)
As Braveheart implied, I don't think the change is going to be anywhere near as dramatic as what's being thrown around. Good tackles shouldn't be above the waist anyway - forcing players to improve tackle technique, from a junior level, has every chance of actually improving the spectacle imo
It’ll still be called Rugby but it won’t be the same (old man opinion again) it’s also an old school way of approaching the game to say the pure legs tackle is the correct method.

Interested to see where it leads. Will the clean out be wiped out eventually because you can’t do that without above waist contact. Can’t attack a maul because you might go above the waist. Does it become Soft Rugby League which nobody will watch, no TV, no money, dead game.

Very extra, very dramatic. I know
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
It’ll still be called Rugby but it won’t be the same (old man opinion again) it’s also an old school way of approaching the game to say the pure legs tackle is the correct method.

There's a big difference between saying to aim below the chest and that meaning that you need to only tackle around the legs.
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
I really don't think that's going to be the case.

It creates some leeway between a legal tackle and a potential red card offence whereas currently that threshold is minute.

The new framework seems to be that a tackle at the sternum will be a penalty offence and higher than that is probably a card. The waist is pretty much the belly button so isn't nearly as low as some people are thinking.

At the community level at least I don't think you're going to see referees trying to penalise a tackle as soon as it might be a cm or two above the waist. There's leeway there where it isn't dangerous.

If this eventually comes into the elite game it should largely do away with watching a dozen replays and listening to the TMO and referee debate whether or not something is entirely legal or a red card. There should be a clear distinction between what is just play on and what constitutes a dangerous tackle which doesn't exist now.
Nah, unfortunately can't see that happening BH. There will still be debate and confusion around the distinction between a high shot penalty and a red card that TMOs will be only too willing to drag out. And whether or not a marginally above the belly button tackle is penalised will still bring protests and claims of bias if left to individual referees' discretion (which it must, of course).

I'm a bit with Derpus. I think the change will detract from spectator enjoyment. The game will probably again resemble the old amateur style where defence was optional (or even discouraged looking at some efforts) but this time it will simply be because an offload can and will be made in almost any tackle situation.

I wonder where the science is on head injuries occurring from tackles around the chest area?
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
It’ll still be called Rugby but it won’t be the same (old man opinion again) it’s also an old school way of approaching the game to say the pure legs tackle is the correct method.

Interested to see where it leads. Will the clean out be wiped out eventually because you can’t do that without above waist contact. Can’t attack a maul because you might go above the waist. Does it become Soft Rugby League which nobody will watch, no TV, no money, dead game.

Very extra, very dramatic. I know
Fuck I hope it means that outlaw mauls.

Instant improvement.
 

zer0

John Thornett (49)
I'm a bit with Derpus. I think the change will detract from spectator enjoyment. The game will probably again resemble the old amateur style where defence was optional (or even discouraged looking at some efforts) but this time it will simply be because an offload can and will be made in almost any tackle situation.

Blues back to party like it's 1997. Let's fucken gooooooooo.
 

stillmissit

Chilla Wilson (44)
I suspect our efforts to get away from concussions will do little to reduce them. A tackle around the ankles can result in the ball carrier's head hitting the ground, a tackler attempting to tackle around the waist can hit the hip and another issue, a tackler attempting to tackle low and getting his head in front of the attacker can not only get a concussion but a broken neck.
So let's see how we go, with any luck it will be like broken necks in the front row and disappears as an issue but I doubt it.
 

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
It might, and I say might, alter how players carry into contact. If the arms are always free, wouldn’t offloads be an easier way of going forward than a million pick and goes at waist height? if it happens that way, the breakdown and how teams approach it should change. I wonder how defensive teams will combat more offloads and less rucks? Would the loosies stay the same mix? Or would 2 x 7s (or 6s) work better? I’ll say this, forwards getting the ball moving forward through quick hands and offloads would be a better spectacle than the mid field bombs and box kicks that seem the easiest way to go forward at present.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Steve Williams (59)
Faster the game becomes the smaller (fitter) the player will be. Since the NRL brought in the 6 again rule the number of really big men has gone down. Interchange also played part in this.
 

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
^Agreed. You wonder where the set piece would come into it? Also, would it result in the same as in league, where every team tries to plays to the same formula? To me 15s has drifted in that direction too. Or would some teams play fast and loose and others tight and brutal? Like I say , it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out if/when it happens
 

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
It might, and I say might, alter how players carry into contact. If the arms are always free, wouldn’t offloads be an easier way of going forward than a million pick and goes at waist height? if it happens that way, the breakdown and how teams approach it should change. I wonder how defensive teams will combat more offloads and less rucks? Would the loosies stay the same mix? Or would 2 x 7s (or 6s) work better? I’ll say this, forwards getting the ball moving forward through quick hands and offloads would be a better spectacle than the mid field bombs and box kicks that seem the easiest way to go forward at present.
Another option would be having all of your players be exceptionally tall, they will be able to offload easily.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
This seems like hyperbole to me. A whole heap of players are going to quit the game because a small percentage of what were legal tackles are going to have to be lowered slightly.

You'd think from commentary like this that the bulk of tackles were chest high and the game was being fundamentally changed.
i thought the new rule was specific to first contact.
first man must make contact below nipple line, second man in is permitted to come over the top.
am I wrong again?
 
Top