Concussions and Protecting Our Players

[Dan54]

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.

Yep and might take jackler out of game? I not sure that having to tackle lower etc will ruin the game as many suggest. As you say it will maybe mean carrying different into contact, you know like players did before we went to league style defence where you try and stop player from keeping ball alive , before you worry about tackling him? I not sure this law change if or when it comes in will make that bigger difference to game, the game I watched this morning(Bath/Sale) involved a hell of a lot of tackles that were waist and below anyway, and that included pick and goes, the most tackles that were missed in game were higher ones. I will be ineterested to see how many actually leave the game because of them.

 

[Dan54]

This is a bit of what NZR has said after trials in a few games last year, and where they are trialling etc.

Reduced tackle height the focus of community rugby game innovations for 2023

www.nzrugby.co.nz

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, teaching kids right from the word go to tackle low is a good thing, but it's realistically what we were all taught as nippers anyway. On the other, I'm not sure it's practical to essentially outlaw the ball-and-all or other forms of wrap tackle. Not sure what we do about defending the pick and drive either. I totally get the intent and mostly agree with it, but I'm not sure it's been thought through.

Disclaimer: I'm not fully across the detail of any of this or how it's proposed to be implemented, so I could be wrong about all of it.

 

[LeCheese]

Unsurprisingly there's a hell of a lot being said on Rugby Pass (UK-based) about it at the moment - too many individual articles to link, but worth a look for anyone interested. Some interesting insights I've seen:

Feedback from the NZ trial last year (subjective data, but still valuable nonetheless - as posted by @Dan54):

78% of participants believed it improved the tackler’s safety, 73% felt it made the game faster and 72% thought there were more opportunities for offloads.

Feedback of the French trial in 2019 following four deaths(!) in a single season:

There were teething problems at first. Penalty counts rose as illegally high tackles rose from 2.2 to 6.1 a game in the first two months of the trial. Referees were also inconsistent in how they officiated this new law.

But four months later the number of high tackles had dropped to 3.8 per match. Offloads increased, as did the number of passes. There were fewer kicks. Most crucially, the number of head-to-head contacts fell from 9.5 per match to 3.5 while the number of blue cards, brandished by referees for suspected concussions, dropped by 27 per cent.

The French report also noted a 63% reduction in head collisions.

On the UK's reasoning:

At the elite level a concussion occurs roughly once every 250 to 300 tackles, or one in every five matches. According to Tucker the risk of concussion is 25 per cent lower in the community game.
...
If there are a thousand community games around the country, and there’s probably more than that, you’ve got 200 concussions per weekend,” Tucker explains. “That’s astonishing and that’s why this matters. So when people ask why this has started at the amateur level, that’s why.”

It also addresses some of the comments made around just shifting the risk to the tackler:

Regardless of the level, ball carriers suffer 30 per cent of all concussions while tacklers, who by design must put their heads in harm’s way, experience 70 per cent. Head to head collisions are the most dangerous. “If you were to successfully eliminate all high tackles, as the law currently stands [above the shoulder line], you’d immediately get rid of 90 per cent of the concussions experienced by the ball carrier,” Tucker says. “They might still get concussed, either through whiplash or through ground contact, but the major risk would be mitigated.”

England Rugby has also released two VERY comprehensive documents regarding the evidence they've compiled for the change:
Rationale and evidence for proposal to reduce the tackle height in England’s community game.
Lowering of the tackle height - what does the science tell us?

Two of the main Rugby Pass articles if anyone's keen on reading more:

Ross Tucker: 'The public have made their mind up without looking at the evidence'

But how much change is too much? For Ross Tucker, a respected sports scientist and consultant for World Rugby, there is no obvious answer.

www.rugbypass.com

Ross Tucker: 'Doing nothing wasn't an option'

Ross Tucker, the respected sports scientist and research consultant for World Rugby, begins our conversation with a clear message.

www.rugbypass.com

 

[Braveheart81]

Mind boggling that the RFA didn't lead with some of this information rather than making an announcement that was short on information and clarity and leaving ample space for people to complain about it.

 

[stillmissit]

Unsurprisingly there's a hell of a lot being said on Rugby Pass (UK-based) about it at the moment - too many individual articles to link, but worth a look for anyone interested. Some interesting insights I've seen:

This was an interesting statement from Ross Tucker in the article you linked.
“This entire conversation has been framed in absolute terms, and it shouldn’t be the case,” Tucker says. “It’s not about reducing concussions. It’s about how much you are prepared to reduce concussions until it’s a different sport."

I agree with this and wonder how far we go before we are playing touch.

 

[stillmissit]

Mind boggling that the RFA didn't lead with some of this information rather than making an announcement that was short on information and clarity and leaving ample space for people to complain about it.

BH, emotions, wanting to feed the press and an inability to deal with things in a calm rational manner.

 

[stillmissit]

Ross Tucker states that there are approx 200 concussions every weekend in community rugby in the UK. I think this is a significant sample and focusing on the data that sample size offers is an effort worthwhile in terms of ongoing brain issues.
I would also suggest a cut off age when the data could be conflated with other aging issues like dementia.

 

[LeCheese]

BH, emotions, wanting to feed the press and an inability to deal with things in a calm rational manner.

The initial comms were horrifically done, but RFU has actually dealt with the fallout very well, and released the statements around consultation and supporting evidence that they should have initially.

The emotional, irrational, and overly-dramatic posts are sweeping statements like this, imo

wonder how far we go before we are playing touch.

 

[Wallaby Man]

This was an interesting statement from Ross Tucker in the article you linked.
“This entire conversation has been framed in absolute terms, and it shouldn’t be the case,” Tucker says. “It’s not about reducing concussions. It’s about how much you are prepared to reduce concussions until it’s a different sport."

I agree with this and wonder how far we go before we are playing touch.

There you go. Unfortunately Ross is caught in the ideology tug of war between both camps

 

[Wallaby Man]

Ross Tucker states that there are approx 200 concussions every weekend in community rugby in the UK. I think this is a significant sample and focusing on the data that sample size offers is an effort worthwhile in terms of ongoing brain issues.
I would also suggest a cut off age when the data could be conflated with other aging issues like dementia.

This actually highlights there isn’t a huge issue at community level. Let’s say there is 500 games with 40 players. 200 is around 1% a week.

 

[LeCheese]

There you go. Unfortunately Ross is caught in the ideology tug of war between both camps

Which is a great thing imo - if you have a genuine care or interest in both sides, you're much more likely to strike an appropriate balance

 

[LeCheese]

This actually highlights there isn’t a huge issue at community level. Let’s say there is 500 games with 40 players. 200 is around 1% a week.

To say an estimated 3000 concussions annually (assuming a 15wk season) "isn't a huge issue" is a pretty hot take - especially when a considerable percentage would be among developing (i.e. vulnerable) brains in younger players.

 

[Wallaby Man]

To say an estimated 3000 concussions annually (assuming a 15wk season) "isn't a huge issue" is a pretty hot take - especially when a considerable percentage would be among developing (i.e. vulnerable) brains in younger players.

When you multiply it out per season, it’s probably indicating each player has around 1 concussion every 10 seasons. Obviously some people are unlucky to have multiple and others will never receive one. It really isn’t a huge issue at community level. It’s just the higher up the chain you go they become more prominent, that’s where the data is stating changes need to happen.

 

[Wallaby Man]

Which is a great thing imo - if you have a genuine care or interest in both sides, you're much more likely to strike an appropriate balance

I should read the wider context of this quote but on face value to me this looks like, he’s disappointed in the absolute approach which seems to have been adopted and some of the conversations that have surrounded that approach by others. I’d say fundamentally he’s personally for moderate change despite the data might indicate a more than slight/moderate approach. The data might tell you a story but doesn’t mean it’s always the right decision because there is more to consider than the data supplied based on a single entity hypothesis eg. Other variables that are impacted from the entity in question.

 

[Wallaby Man]

To say an estimated 3000 concussions annually (assuming a 15wk season) "isn't a huge issue" is a pretty hot take - especially when a considerable percentage would be among developing (i.e. vulnerable) brains in younger players.

I’d say the lower you go age grade the propensity of player getting knocked out gets lower. A child would be more likely knocking themselves out on a bike or skateboard than playing rugby. We need to move away from sensationalism to scare people. It’s doing more damage to sports and wider society than the actual issues themselves. There is probably more chance you have been caught up in the sensationalism than a kid at u8s getting a concussion.

Before I get called the rugby equivalent of a conspiracy theorist, I do believe there is a concussion issue at pro and semi pro level. The rest there isn’t an issue. We don’t even know if the current measures applied have alleviated some of the issues that players from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s are experiencing.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Will be very interesting to see how it goes when implemented/trialled with pros for a prolonged amount of time. It's much harder to get yourself into a safe tackling position for a low tackle at the speed of the professional and even semi-professional game. This will be even harder if the game speeds up from an attacking point of view.

I know it's about safety and player welfare, but I'm scared of what the refs will do with this. There's already too many stoppages in the game as is which is a big reason why so many have given up on the sport.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's much harder to get yourself into a safe tackling position for a low tackle at the speed of the professional and even semi-professional game. This will be even harder if the game speeds up from an attacking point of view.

No one needs to make a low tackle instead of a tackle around chest/shoulder height because of these changes.

People are acting like all tackles are going to have to be around the legs now.

The bulk of existing tackles are going to be able to happen in exactly the same way they already do.

 

[Derpus]

Will be very interesting to see how it goes when implemented/trialled with pros for a prolonged amount of time. It's much harder to get yourself into a safe tackling position for a low tackle at the speed of the professional and even semi-professional game. This will be even harder if the game speeds up from an attacking point of view.

I know it's about safety and player welfare, but I'm scared of what the refs will do with this. There's already too many stoppages in the game as is which is a big reason why so many have given up on the sport.

Penalties trippled in the first two months of a similar trial in France. However, successful offloads increased and there was less kicking.

So swings and roundabouts? It could actually be good. It probably won't be - but it could be.

 

[stillmissit]

The emotional, irrational, and overly-dramatic posts are sweeping statements like this, imo

I was restating what Ross Tucker said. Your ideas about what is real and what is not are just as much supposition as his or mine. So take your ideas about what is emotional and hide them where the sun doesn't shine.

I personally think there is no solution that doesn't end up with rugby becoming a sport played by those prepared to sign waivers against future prosecutions.