Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'Beginning of the end' - Shock RFU tackle change rocks English rugby

Oxford's Andrew Durutalo (left) is tackled by Cambridge's Zac Bischoff during the men's varsity match at Mattioli Woods Welford Road Stadium last year (Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)

There has been a largely negative reaction to the Rugby Football Union’s decision to change the tackle height to the waistline in amateur rugby in England – one of the most radical changes to the amateur game ever made in the history of the sport.

ADVERTISEMENT

From 1 July 2023, all players at age grade and adult amateur level in England will be required to tackle from the waistline or lower.

The chief concern for many is that arguably rugby’s most fundamental defining characteristic – its physicality – is being drastically denuded.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

Others questioned if the move would actually reduce instances of concussion, which the RFU believe it will.

Former Wales prop Lee Jarvis wrote: “100 per cent for player safety BUT if you lower the tackle to waist or below, then you are going to get even more injuries/concussions with knees to face/head. Players need to have a tackle choice to protect themselves as well?”

Rugby writer Sam Peters, a vocal concussion reduction advocate, appeared sceptical of the decision: “I understand the RFU has voted to implement the below waist tackle trial from start of next season. All forms of game from National One and below. No peer reviewed evidence to explain reasoning for decision. Previous similar trial (below nipple) increased concussion frequency.”

Some fear that it has created a two tier game in which players are effectively playing two very different sports, thus hindering the development of amateur players into the professional ranks.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Eggchasers Podcast wrote: “RFU moving tackle height to waist from next season from level 3 down: They’ve just created 2 different sports. For “player welfare”? Those affected are AMATEUR, not physical mutants as in pros, engaging voluntarily as they might horse riding, sky diving or skiing. Farcical.”

One Leicester Tigers fan even called for a protest over the new Laws: “Football fans stopped the super league by organised protest. These changes from the RFU fundamentally threaten rugby overall and as a community game. Those that attend six nations matches are largely from the community game. Time for a protest?”

Not all the reaction was negative. World Rugby CEO Alan Gilpin rowed in behind the decision in a statement: โ€œIn line with our six-point plan to make rugby the most progressive sport on player welfare, last year World Rugby opened discussions with unions about lowering the tackle height in the community game around the globe.

ADVERTISEMENT

“At those meetings unions were presented with findings from trials that have taken place in France and South Africa as well as initial data from rugby specific studies using smart mouthguard.

Related

“Discussions with unions have progressed well and formal proposals to be applied around the world are expected to be presented to our Executive Board in March. We welcome the RFU taking these proactive steps, rugby will never stand still when it comes to player welfare and this is a prime example of the sport, once again, putting our words into action.โ€

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

7 Comments
w
w 653 days ago

From the little rugby I've played-ive witnessed concussions when the head meets the pelvic bone-so technic is all good below,but if the ball carrier changes his body position when the tackler is in the process of tackling it is very effective in knocking the tackler out- I've seen one player on our team use this technic effectively to knock out would be tacklers.

A
Alex 670 days ago

This will be overturned. Usually when you see reaction this overwhelmingly negative, the org backtracks.

Honestly don't know how much they help but I'd be for requiring scrum caps over this move, that's how bad this move is.

j
john 671 days ago

No one is forced to play rugby its your choice, everyone now knows the potential issues. If this is so serious why allow top tier to remain the same?
I hope this doesn't lead to more head injuries for the tackler.
You take a calculated risk when you cross the road or do anything in life, rugby, boxing etc are no different.
Why not just move to touch and be done with it?

P
Poorfour 672 days ago

France implemented this 3 years ago and has seen concussions reduced by 60% at a time when their national side has also been hugely successful.

If that is โ€œthe beginning of the end of rugbyโ€ then bring it on.

Or, to put it another way, people need to grow up and recognise that rugby needs to protect its players if it wants to continue as a sport.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 17 minutes ago
'Passionate reunion of France and New Zealand shows Fabien Galthie is wrong to rest his stars'

Where? I remember saying "unders"? The LNR was formed by the FFR, if I said that in a way that meant the 'pro' side of the game didn't have an equal representation/say as the 'amateur' side (FFR remit) that was not my intent.


But also, as it is the governing body, it also has more responsibility. As long as WR looks at FFR as the running body for rugby in France, that 'power' will remain. If the LNR refuses to govern their clubs use of players to enable a request by FFR (from WR) to ensure it's players are able to compete in International rugby takes place they will simply remove their participation. If the players complain to the France's body, either of their health and safety concerns (through playing too many 'minutes' etc) or that they are not allowed to be part in matches of national interest, my understanding is action can be taken against the LNR like it could be any other body/business. I see where you're coming from now re EPCR and the shake up they gave it, yes, that wasn't meant to be a separate statement to say that FFR can threaten them with EPCR expulsion by itself, simply that it would be a strong repercussion for those teams to be removed (no one would want them after the above).


You keep bringing up these other things I cannot understand why. Again, do you think if the LNR were not acting responsibly they would be able to get away with whatever they want (the attitude of these posters saying "they pay the players")? You may deem what theyre doing currently as being irresponsible but most do not. Countries like New Zealand have not even complained about it because they've never had it different, never got things like windfall TV contracts from France, so they can't complain because theyre not missing out on anything. Sure, if the French kept doing things like withholding million dollar game payments, or causing millions of dollars of devaluation in rights, they these things I'm outlining would be taking place. That's not the case currently however, no one here really cares what the French do. It's upto them to sort themselves out if they're not happy. Now, that said, if they did make it obvious to World Rugby that they were never going to send the French side away (like they possibly did stating their intent to exclude 20 targeted players) in July, well then they would simply be given XV fixtures against tier 2 sides during that window and the FFR would need to do things like the 50/50 revenue split to get big teams visiting in Nov.

303 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Despite defeat in Paris, the real reason the All Blacks are feeling upbeat Despite defeat in Paris, the real reason the All Blacks are feeling upbeat
Search