Proposed Law Changes

[Mellsblue]

Can World Rugby please, please ban Freed from Desire being played in any stadium anywhere

Mind and senses would be purified.

[Danno]

[Which Tyler]

Another couple of analyses just coming in this month
England: average number of head contacts dropped from six to three
Women: 64% reduction in tacklers making initial contact with the ball carrier's head and neck and 17% reduction in the rate of head-to-head and a 35% reduction in head-to-shoulder contacts for the tackler

This is early data; there may well be more to come (the RFU's trial explicitly says as much in the article)

I'll edit with the actual research, rather than media reporting once I've found them:
Women: https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/11/2/e002499

I can't find the RFU's analysis on Pubmed or BMJ - so presumably it's not actually published yet, and they're just wanting to get the good news out there early.
Not seeing anything on Pubmed from other countries yet either - but I'm sure it's coming.

Interestingly, I did also come across this: High tackle headache: implications of referee agreement for tackle height law change

[Puja]

Wanted a discussion about Rassie Erasmus's latest attempts at law-fuckery.

ETA - moved the post here: http://www.rugbyrebels.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 83#p348083

[Which Tyler]

Maximum tackle height lowered for under-20 Worlds

Tackles above the sternum will be outlawed at the World Under-20s Championship in Georgia next summer as the possibility of a lowering of the maximum tackle height across the elite game moves a step closer.

Over the past two seasons, the height limit on legal tackles has already been dropped from shoulder to sternum in the community game in 11 countries around the world.

Analysis of almost 150,000 tackles since the change has demonstrated varying decreases in the number of concussions and also that tacklers are dropping their body height in response to the law shift.

...

The new lower tackle height does not apply when an attacking player "picks and goes" around a breakdown or the base of a scrum, or when they are in the act of scoring.

Ball carriers will be penalised if they lead with their head, making a legal tackle difficult to effect, in other areas of the game
ARTICLE CONTINUES

[Puja]

Seems eminently logical and hopefully will be rolled out across the game.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Logical, but tackling at a certain height only in particular situations sounds like a nightmare for clarity/consistency in officiating.

Leading with the head is an interesting one. Again I’d like to get rid of it, in theory, but applying it sounds very tricky.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Maximum tackle height lowered for under-20 Worlds

Tackles above the sternum will be outlawed at the World Under-20s Championship in Georgia next summer as the possibility of a lowering of the maximum tackle height across the elite game moves a step closer.

Over the past two seasons, the height limit on legal tackles has already been dropped from shoulder to sternum in the community game in 11 countries around the world.

Analysis of almost 150,000 tackles since the change has demonstrated varying decreases in the number of concussions and also that tacklers are dropping their body height in response to the law shift.

...

The new lower tackle height does not apply when an attacking player "picks and goes" around a breakdown or the base of a scrum, or when they are in the act of scoring.

Ball carriers will be penalised if they lead with their head, making a legal tackle difficult to effect, in other areas of the game
ARTICLE CONTINUES

This is the big one, especially in the elite levels of the game.

[Puja]

Logical, but tackling at a certain height only in particular situations sounds like a nightmare for clarity/consistency in officiating.

Leading with the head is an interesting one. Again I’d like to get rid of it, in theory, but applying it sounds very tricky.

It sounds worse than it is and that article is very badly worded. Basically, tackle height has to be sternum or below, with the only exception being if the attacker is bent double at the waist/leading with the head, cause you've got no option to tackle if they do that. The only times it'll be legal for a player to be bent double at the waist are picking and going from a ruck or scrum, or going for the line.

Personally, I'd remove leading with the head in any situation but diving for the line - I think it invites trouble to be teaching and encouraging players to go head-first (I remember when I was younger and we were taught to run into tackle pads shoulder first, whereas now it's head-first to keep the chain of the body straight) and I'm not sure that grinding around the corner in pick-and-goes from rucks would be especially missed. I also don't see why it has to be legalised going from a scrum - with the 9 now required to stay back at the tunnel, surely there's ample time for an 8 to straighten up and run properly from the base?

Puja

[Puja]

News that won't shock you - a rugby law change has had the opposite effect to that intended. News that will shock you - a newspaper journalist has actually engaged in proper journalism. I thought actually investigating things and learning new information outside of a press release was banned nowadays?!

https://archive.ph/gyYGY

...The law variation in question decreed that play could continue at uncontested line-outs even if they were not straight. The motive was to reduce the amount of scrums for not-straight throw-ins at line-outs where, if there was no competition, the accuracy of the hooker was deemed to be irrelevant. By this logic, we should expect ruck and maul laws to soon become optional if the opposition team decided not to compete (but let’s not get bogged down in that).

The first things that crossed my mind upon reading that variation was that it would actually be tougher to referee – and they already have the most impossible job in sport – but also that it would allow hookers to slip into bad habits and actually lead to an increased incidence of stoppages for not-straight throws.

After all, if a hooker knows they might be able to get away with throwing the ball not straight a few times per game, then, under pressure, they will throw the ball not straight a few times per game. If the opposition do not compete, they are safe; if they do, they are not. Eighteen months ago, this was not even a conversation. Every line-out throw-in had to be straight (as long as the officials were on the ball). Hookers had to be disciplined, at the height of concentration; there was no safety blanket, no insurance, no get-out-of-jail-free card.

So, while watching the last weekend of Prem action, I could not help but notice the poor level of throwing across the league. It was especially stark at both Friday night matches – even accounting for Gloucester’s part-time hooker – and at the Rec on Saturday. Last weekend, I was convinced – anecdotally, at least – that my hypothesis had turned into reality; that, in fact, the standard of throwing had worsened and, perhaps, there were more not-straight calls than ever.

So, I decided to ask Opta for the numbers – and they did not disappoint. Two seasons ago, before the introduction of this law, the Prem had 0.39 not-straight line-out throws called by the referee per match. Last season, with the variation introduced halfway through, the figure was about the same. This season, however, the number of not-straight line-out throws capturing the attention of the officials has almost doubled. It is now at 0.60.

But do not just take the Prem’s word for it. In the Champions Cup, there have been more per match this season; in the United Rugby Championship, there have been more per match this season; and in the French Top 14 there have been more per match this season. This was a law introduced to avoid “wasting” time with scrums, remember – well, the opposite has occurred. Hookers have been lulled into a false sense of security – thinking they might be able to get away with the odd not-straight line-out throw – and are now being punished more frequently than ever.

Those in favour of the law would simply say that not-straight throws were not being policed meticulously enough before its introduction but, surely, these previously received far greater scrutiny as they had to be straight no matter the level of competition? In any event, that is somewhat of a moot point; this law trial was brought in to speed the game up and avoid further scrums – to which all rugby bores seem allergic – but the situation which World Rugby was trying to avoid has, in fact, been exacerbated. Heart in the right place, but brain not. A for effort, F for execution.

Hopefully, the power-brokers are aware and consign to the post-Christmas bin collection a law that never should have been implemented in the first place.

Puja