• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

RugbyReg

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Goosestep said:
This -
worrying about going for a “textbook” old school tackle when you’ve got some 120kg guy steamrolling towards you upright is going to create more injuries..

Contrary to the refs and rule book, sometimes the most effective and (safest for you) his a higher up wrestling style takedown ..

I feel these new laws could result in more injuries especially neck & shoulders.
Click to expand...

I hope World Rugby and RA take your feelings into account.
 
Ignoto

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
Alex Sharpe said:
If they had announced It at the end of the season we could already have referees calibrated and ready to go to club trainings to explain it to players and coaches
Click to expand...

My dude, it is end of season for the pacific teams. We've had the annual Rugby Cricket cross over which symbolises it is now summer and no longer rugby season.
 
S

Steve_Grey

Darby Loudon (17)
There are always some selective quotations from research, but the studies cited by RA and World Rugby from South Africa and UK infer the changes in law there [lowering tackle height] has shifted more danger to the tackler, but no reduction in concussion incidence rates, and in fact an increase in concussion rates [but to the tackler] - are we headed down a potential class lawsuit if tacklers [as opposed to the tackled] end up with increased SRC after these tackle law changes.....the research is public domain, and I have posted the links below:

Unexpectedly, compared with the control setting, tacklers in the intervention setting were themselves concussed at a higher rate as measured by; (1) incidence (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.45) and (2) concussions per 1000 tackles (2.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.80) than in the control setting.
Conclusions Legislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier’s head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting.

Discussion We found that the incidence rates for medical attention and time-loss injuries, head injuries and SRC did not differ statistically between 2018 and 2019. The tackle event was found to be the injury incident most associated with time-loss head injuries and SRC. The statistically non-significant reduction in SRC incidence of 31% during the lower legal tackle height condition in the present study could be postulated to be clinically relevant, but without another season of data under the tackle law variation, this remains speculative. Furthermore, the incidence rate ratio for tackle-related SRC was 0.99.
 
Last edited:
D-Box

D-Box

Cyril Towers (30)
One of the biggest limitations in sports injury prevention is that when there are lo numbers of injuries ( and these numbers are low) one injury can change the statistical significance.

It's going to take a few more years of data and the inevitable meta analysis to be able to actually say something meaningful
 
S

Steve_Grey

Darby Loudon (17)
D-Box said:
One of the biggest limitations in sports injury prevention is that when there are lo numbers of injuries ( and these numbers are low) one injury can change the statistical significance.

It's going to take a few more years of data and the inevitable meta analysis to be able to actually say something meaningful
Click to expand...
Very true - lies, damn lies and statistics.......

From the Rugby Australia website "Preliminary data in South Africa has shown a 30 per cent reduction in concussions" - but statistically non-significant [per the SA research that it is taken from] pending more data as you say........TBC.
 
The Phoenix

The Phoenix

Ward Prentice (10)
I often think back to the distant past when I was first taught how to tackle as a 5 year old and it was drummed into us to go low around the hips and most importantly make sure your head was on the side that wouldn't be landed on by the tackled player as he fell. I can't believe how many top players tackle leading with their heads now.
Rugby was free flowing then with offloads galore - great fun to play and watch. So I am all for a year's trial to see what effect lower tackle heights has on the speed of the game.
I am also for reintroducing:
rucking - hardly anyone got really hurt and the ball was recycled far more quickly.
Wingers should carry the ball with their outside arm so they can fend with the other
And backs should always sit at the front of the bus.
 
stillmissit

stillmissit

Peter Johnson (47)
Goosestep said:
This -
worrying about going for a “textbook” old school tackle when you’ve got some 120kg guy steamrolling towards you upright is going to create more injuries..

Contrary to the refs and rule book, sometimes the most effective and (safest for you) his a higher up wrestling style takedown ..

I feel these new laws could result in more injuries especially neck & shoulders.
Click to expand...
My understanding from about 10 years ago was that the most dangerous tackle is the front on tackle. Not so much for head issues as broken backs and paralysis.
 
Wallaby Man

Wallaby Man

Nev Cottrell (35)
Steve_Grey said:
There are always some selective quotations from research, but the studies cited by RA and World Rugby from South Africa and UK infer the changes in law there [lowering tackle height] has shifted more danger to the tackler, but no reduction in concussion incidence rates, and in fact an increase in concussion rates [but to the tackler] - are we headed down a potential class lawsuit if tacklers [as opposed to the tackled] end up with increased SRC after these tackle law changes.....the research is public domain, and I have posted the links below:

Unexpectedly, compared with the control setting, tacklers in the intervention setting were themselves concussed at a higher rate as measured by; (1) incidence (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.45) and (2) concussions per 1000 tackles (2.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.80) than in the control setting.
Conclusions Legislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier’s head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting.

Discussion We found that the incidence rates for medical attention and time-loss injuries, head injuries and SRC did not differ statistically between 2018 and 2019. The tackle event was found to be the injury incident most associated with time-loss head injuries and SRC. The statistically non-significant reduction in SRC incidence of 31% during the lower legal tackle height condition in the present study could be postulated to be clinically relevant, but without another season of data under the tackle law variation, this remains speculative. Furthermore, the incidence rate ratio for tackle-related SRC was 0.99.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. This data is damning if it’s the case, it would show that they are essentially playing a perception game and been highly selective of the data they present. I’d like to see another study from someone completely independent and not WR (World Rugby) sponsored or from lobby groups.
 
S

Steve_Grey

Darby Loudon (17)
Wallaby Man said:
Very interesting. This data is damning if it’s the case, it would show that they are essentially playing a perception game and been highly selective of the data they present. I’d like to see another study from someone completely independent and not WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) sponsored or from lobby groups.
Click to expand...
Increasing safety and mitigating SRC risk; of course, a no-brainer - but RA decision making based on potentially flawed reasoning and misinformation?

Selective RA and World Rugby Statements, have been made out of context - I wonder if RA CEO Phil Waugh actually read any of the research himself, before putting his name to the statements (which after fact-checking, make the RA look less than infomed).

I have attached the RFU PDF where the "risk of concussion is four times higher" statement is lifted from:

4.1 To date there have been four important real-world evaluations of a lowered tackle height:
4.2 All four were informed by the 2016 World Rugby video analysis that showed that the chances of either the tackler or the ball carrier receiving an HIA is 4.2 times more likely when the tackle occurs above the line of the sternum.
4.3 The Championship Cup arm-pit tackle height evaluation showed a number of promising results; including a 30% reduction in the number of tackles that resulted in contact to the ball carrier’s head or neck. Whilst the overall combined concussion rate for the ball carrier and tackler did not increase, there was an increase in concussion risk for the tackler. This was a small-scale study where the impact of 12 concussions in a single week had a disproportionate effect on the overall concussion rate.
4.4 The Stellenbosch evaluation of an arm-pit tackle height in 116 men’s university level matches in 2019 also showed some promising results (a trend to a reduction in all injuries, head injuries and concussion) but also failed to show a significant reduction in the overall risk of concussion.

The RFU comment on their own sponsored study:
4.1 (c) an RFU/Bath University evaluation of the effect on concussion risk following a change to an arm-pit tackle height in all age-group rugby in England in 2021-22 that showed no significant change in concussion risk as measured by youth injury surveillance programme (Y-RISP).

The RFU English Champiniship Cup study [4.3 above] actually had to be abandoned due to safety reasons - "this was a small-scale study where the impact of 12 concussions in a single week had a disproportionate effect on the overall concussion rate."
Are we to ignore that the increase in concussions actually happened, or is it an attempt to discredit their [RFU] own sponsored research?
 
Last edited:
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

Michael Lynagh (62)
Steve_Grey said:
Increasing safety and mitigating SRC risk; of course, a no-brainer - but RA decision making based on potentially flawed reasoning and misinformation?

Selective RA and World Rugby Statements, have been made out of context - I wonder if RA CEO Phil Waugh actually read any of the research himself, before putting his name to the statements (which after fact-checking, make the RA look less than infomed).

I have attached the RFU PDF where the "risk of concussion is four times higher" statement is lifted from:

4.1 To date there have been four important real-world evaluations of a lowered tackle height:
4.2 All four were informed by the 2016 World Rugby video analysis that showed that the chances of either the tackler or the ball carrier receiving an HIA is 4.2 times more likely when the tackle occurs above the line of the sternum.
4.3 The Championship Cup arm-pit tackle height evaluation showed a number of promising results; including a 30% reduction in the number of tackles that resulted in contact to the ball carrier’s head or neck. Whilst the overall combined concussion rate for the ball carrier and tackler did not increase, there was an increase in concussion risk for the tackler. This was a small-scale study where the impact of 12 concussions in a single week had a disproportionate effect on the overall concussion rate.
4.4 The Stellenbosch evaluation of an arm-pit tackle height in 116 men’s university level matches in 2019 also showed some promising results (a trend to a reduction in all injuries, head injuries and concussion) but also failed to show a significant reduction in the overall risk of concussion.

The RFU omitted to comment on their own sponsored study:
4.1 (c) an RFU/Bath University evaluation of the effect on concussion risk following a change to an arm-pit tackle height in all age-group rugby in England in 2021-22 that showed no significant change in concussion risk as measured by youth injury surveillance programme (Y-RISP).

The RFU English Champiniship Cup study [4.3 above] actually had to be abandoned due to safety reasons - "this was a small-scale study where the impact of 12 concussions in a single week had a disproportionate effect on the overall concussion rate."
Are we to ignore that the increase in concussions actually happened, or is it an attempt to discredit their [RFU] own sponsored research?
Click to expand...

These protocols have been in effect in France for a few seasons now and have corresponded in a significant decrease in not only concussions but arguably more important non-concussive head contact which has been shown to be a major contributing factor in the long term health of players.
 
S

S Marquis

Frank Row (1)
WorkingClassRugger said:
These protocols have been in effect in France for a few seasons now and have corresponded in a significant decrease in not only concussions but arguably more important non-concussive head contact which has been shown to be a major contributing factor in the long term health of players.
Click to expand...
Yes - although slightly different as France's protocols also banned two man tackling, and enforced below the waist tackling, introduced in 2019 for all junior rugby.

Doesn't apply to Pro or Semi-Pro - only amateur senior rugby below the top 3 leagues (Top14, Pro D2 and Federale 1).
 
LeCheese

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
PhilClinton

PhilClinton

Mark Loane (55)
I think there has been a bit of head in sand from some posters here thinking it wouldn’t happen.

Assuming that article is correct I wouldn’t be surprised if the signing announcement later this week includes a bit from Abdo around the NRL officially bringing in the salary cap relief from 2024 for teams who essentially want to poach wallabies. I can’t see any other way the Roosters afford Mark.
 
The Ghost of Raelene

The Ghost of Raelene

David Codey (61)
Spot on. They floated the idea a month ago or so and it was dismissed by many.

Guess who will be the next target? Jorgenson without doubt. Bulldogs and Roosters wanted him while at school.

I think Rugby love to say the players get to see the world... Sure, but the average earnings of an NRL player are better than a Rugby player I assume which means a hell of a lot more than a Test in Cardiff. Not like the NRL players aren't travelling for leisure in the off season and players like Mark have the ability to play Rugby all over the world if they want when they want.
 
Ignoto

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
Biggest downside to losing Mark right now is, in the span of 12 months we'd lose both him and Marika. In Marks case, he's given us some great assurances to the high ball that the others don't.

It'd be interesting to see how long it takes Mark to adjust to defending in league as it took him a few years in Union.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top