+- +-

+-Newcomers Start Here

+-Harlequins/Rugby Links


+-Articles


Author Topic: Slightly O/T: waist level tackling across all amateur rugby  (Read 1688 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which Tyler

  • Semi-Pro
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Location: Tewkesbury
https://www.nzrugby.co.nz/news-and-events/latest-news/reduced-tackle-height-the-focus-of-community-rugby-game-innovations-for-2023/

Quote
[size=150]Reduced tackle height the focus of community rugby game innovations for 2023[/size]

1 November 2022
...
The new initiatives were trialled in selected grades last year and Lancaster said feedback from players, coaches and referees confirmed the focus on reducing tackle height was the right approach for the community game.

“Our participants have told us that they want to see improvements made to the tackle and breakdown areas, so that’s been our focus. The resounding feedback we’ve received from this season’s trials is that the game is more enjoyable to play and safer when the tackle height is reduced to below the sternum, or what some people will know as the belly.”

Feedback from community grades trialling the reduced tackle height in the 2022 season found that 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.
...
ARTICLE CONTINUES

Which Tyler

  • Semi-Pro
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Location: Tewkesbury
Right, having spent a couple of weeks thinking about it, and sifting through the evidence (that I can find) trying to apply common-sense packs etc; I've come up with what I would actually like to see (rather than a bunch of "not that"s). And yes, I couldn't have picked a worse day to actually coalesce my thoughts into a suggestion,

I would drop the tackle height to armpit / nipple line, but I'd make it that the tackler's head needs to be below that target line OR the tackler's target line needs to be higher than the ball carrier's head.
I'd then encourage (or make law if taken up by WR) that shirt-companies put... something... at that line to make it more easily visible for refs.



The point is to get 1 players head away from the heads and shoulders of other players.
I don't really care which is higher, as long as they're not in the same place (as a trial, at least - but that trial needs to be at least 1 full season).

This still allows a buffer zone for misjudgements, between the armpit, and the bony top of the shoulder - about 3" (NB this is supposition. As far as I'm aware, the research hasn't differentiated between the bony top of the shoulder, and the meaty outside of the shoulder.)
I think heads are easier to see than shoulders at point of contact, especially at lower levels with no replays and no touch judges interventions.

I'm happy with "encouraging ball barriers not to dip into contact" - depending on the final wording and interpretations.
Bracing for impact should be fine; but not the "lunge & present shoulder" we see from some of the bigger wingers to bounce tacklers off them. The point here for me should be about showing the tackler where they can hit you, and then not deliberately changing that - height wise.

JammyGit

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
I don't think 3" is enough. It doesn't allow for any misjudgment or unforeseen action.

I also don't think it makes for a meaningful change from the current law.
Agree Agree x 1 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Which Tyler

  • Semi-Pro
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Location: Tewkesbury
I may well be explaining myself poorly.

For me, the big bit, is changing the point of measurement from the tackler's shoulder to the tackler's height - which now has to be 3"+ lower than the current height of the shoulder.
It's not much of a buffer zone, and it would absolutely be open to being changed again later; but it's something.
The main part of my suggestion is making the height assessment on the head, not the shoulder - to make the point that it's head safety we're interested in, and on-pitch would mean the shoulder contact point would be more than 3" lower than current. Adding in a mark on the shirts at armpit height; and the assessments also (IMO) add clarity (especially important for lower levels).

Of course, it's also my personal opinion on a "solution" - or a solution for the time being.

deadlyfrom5yardsout

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3838
Cue ball carriers acting in such a way to get tacklers sanctioned.

JammyGit

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 4277
I may well be explaining myself poorly.

For me, the big bit, is changing the point of measurement from the tackler's shoulder to the tackler's height - which now has to be 3"+ lower than the current height of the shoulder.
It's not much of a buffer zone, and it would absolutely be open to being changed again later; but it's something.
The main part of my suggestion is making the height assessment on the head, not the shoulder - to make the point that it's head safety we're interested in, and on-pitch would mean the shoulder contact point would be more than 3" lower than current. Adding in a mark on the shirts at armpit height; and the assessments also (IMO) add clarity (especially important for lower levels).

Of course, it's also my personal opinion on a "solution" - or a solution for the time being.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Does that not make it harder to referee and judge things in realtime?

deadly: the original plan, at least, will include laws on how ball carriers act, as per the French and NZ changes.

Which Tyler

  • Semi-Pro
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Location: Tewkesbury
Ah, I see what you're saying. Does that not make it harder to referee and judge things in realtime?
I'd have thought easier, rather than harder, as the head is simply more visible, and you're not necessarily talking about the split second of where first contact is made.
If you then add contrasting markings onto the shirts, then it definitely should be easier.

In theory, on paper.

You'd probably then get arguments about where the head ends and the neck begins - but they'd be silly, as that junction is unlikely to ever be the highest point.

I guess hairdos like Richard Haughton would be the complicating factor - which I haven't taken account of... hmm... bugger

 

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Site Statistics

Members
Total Members: 1162
Latest: Marsi1e
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 119474
Total Topics: 6383
Most Online Today: 556
Most Online Ever: 4089
(Sunday 10-Oct-2021, 12:56*)
Users Online
Members: 18
Guests: 250
Total: 268