Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Waistline tackling is the death of rugby

Members of the Barnes side cut dejected figures at the final whistle during the National League Two South match between Taunton Titans and Barnes at the Commsplus Stadium on March 02, 2019 in Taunton, England. (Photo by Harry Trump/Getty Images)

For 20 years playing rugby has been a pillar of my life. It is no exaggeration to say that, yesterday, the RFU destroyed it.

ADVERTISEMENT

From the 2023/24 season, all rugby played in the National Leagues and below will be a poor impression of the game we played the year before, and the many decades before that, with the tackle height reduced to waist height or below.

Furthermore, the ball carrier will be ‘encouraged to play in a way not to endanger the tackler with a sudden change of height’, whatever that mealy-mouthed, committee-designed statement means. To speak more plainly, they have killed our game, and done so with without consulting us.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

Don’t get me wrong, there will have been some sort of  ‘consultation’ with tame academics, activists, and a range of ‘experts’ whose mind was already made up.

Lots will be made of these people’s ‘expertise’ and anyone questioning the decisions will be met with derision. They will be browbeaten and told they don’t understand the context, much like I was when I asked someone partly responsible for this decision for an explanation.

Naturally, the so-called experts will totally disregard what the players who play the game want. In fact, that is the least of the experts’ concerns. Instead, we are told it’s for our own good and something to do with concussions. We are expected to believe that the game we have played for over a hundred years has suddenly got too dangerous for amateurs to play.

Concussions are a huge issue but not for the amateur game, which is as safe or safer than it ever has been. The real issue is the 20-stone mega-athletes in the pro game, repeatedly hitting each other with ever-increasing force every year. The difference between this and the amateurs could not be starker, from the obvious difference in the force of the hit, to the number of hits and also the variety of hits that cause concussion. For professionals, it’s not just direct head contact that is concussive.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, the pro game is going to be unaffected by the changes in the law. Why? Because that’s what pays the lucrative RFU executive salaries. In fact, it’s money, not safety, that is the driving force behind the changes of RFU policy – but the precise reason for the actions is a little more complex.

The RFU have a cultish mantra of ‘growing the game’. This sounds good – but what does it mean?

Does it mean more participation? Does it mean bigger sponsorships? Does it mean more eyes on the screen while the game is being played?

Presumably, it means a bit of all three. However, this mind-boggling decision is going to lead to two classes of people in rugby: Those that play the sport, and those that consume the output.

If you’re not good enough for the top level then hard luck, the game you love is no longer available to you.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, there is a small problem. The consumers the RFU has are not the consumers the RFU wants. Rugby’s most die-hard fans are drawn from rugby clubs. Rugby clubs, if you have not noticed, are full of players and therein lies the problem.

Community rugby will welcome absolutely anyone into a club but the game itself is not inclusive in the literal sense. Once you apply the filter of playing rugby to the general population you’re left with a not-very diverse crowd, certainly not a demographic the RFU can put on a pitching deck to a major corporate sponsor.

Traditionally, sponsors come to sports to appropriate their values. Now the tables have turned, and sporting bodies are demeaningly begging brands for cash by professing their cultural alignment with them, desperately trying to mimic the sponsor’s purported values.

Related

Putting it bluntly, products want to be associated with a diverse group of mixed-educated elites, not a clubhouse full of large men, post-game who have had a couple of beers.

People who pay attention to this stuff might have noticed that the RFU have been on the path of disassociation from its members for a long time.

CEO Bill Sweeney is embarrassed by the traditional song ‘Swing Low, Sweet Chariot’ refusing to sing it as 80,000 fans belt it out in disagreement. Another example is the rebranding of the Saxon’s to England A, so the RFU could go a ‘different way’.

So we are presented with a quandary: What do you do if the reason you can’t ‘grow the game’ and appease sponsors is the very nature of the game itself? Easy: You change the game.

By making a new game that removes the risk you can appeal to a whole new range of people who might not have fancied the game in its previous full-blooded incarnation.

Changing contact rugby to entice new participation is not the only trick the RFU has up its sleeve. We have seen the RFU making encroachments into the world of touch rugby, strongly suggesting, with a menacing hint of compulsion, that every club should offer a touch rugby option. Interestingly they also want to look at ‘safeguarding’ for touch players to ensure they are not ‘pressured’ into playing contact. This tells you everything you need to know about the attitude towards the community game, and those that play it and rely upon it.

The RFU are intent on trying to manufacture an army of diverse, drone consumers to fund the professional game. Of course, this will never work.

Related

In America the NBA has been trying to convince its sponsors of their diverse credentials for some time, experimenting with new geographies and demographics for a decade.

The results were damaging and wholly avoidable. Rather than stimulating an exciting new fan base, the NBA ended up simply exploiting their current fan base. As ever more cash is needed to ‘grow the game’ the sports authorities end up instead ‘fracking the game’, trying to squeeze ever more money from fewer fans. This opens the door to companies that do not respect their audience or the sport, like gambling companies, alcohol firms or, in the most extreme case: fraudulent crypto exchanges.

This will be the inevitable route for rugby when it abandons the millions of fans for the fabricated body of cool young things just dying to fall in love with a sport they have never heard of. . All in the name of ‘growing the game’. You cannot kill something and claim to grow it.

One must ask how the RFU can simultaneously be the guardian of the community game and the promoter of the pro game when their needs are so different – and in this case diametrically opposed. It’s a clear conflict of interest.

You can understand the dilemma for the RFU. Why would you want to focus on the paltry revenues in community rugby in Wakefield, Bury or Exeter when you could stay in London enjoying big-ticket sporting events and all the associated benefits? It’s a bit like expecting the NFL commissioner to care about local high school football on Superbowl weekend. Of course, quite rightly, the NFL is in no way responsible for amateur sport. But the RFU are!

In the case of the RFU they see their profitable business as Twickenham. Anything that happens in the provinces, the small towns, the lands far, far away from HQ – Well, they could do without that. Again, conveniently forgetting that they are the custodians.

If we had a body that was set up exclusively to look after the amateur game and preserve it rather than chase corporate cash, would this have been allowed to happen? Absolutely not.

The reality is the RFU have been totally reactive to the concussion debate, putting caution and risk mitigation ahead of the interest of their members. At no point has the RFU come out swinging at the likes of Allyson Pollock, Darren White and Chris Nowitski. Indeed, it is fair to say they have betrayed every player, every club and every local union by prioritising the campaigning of activists like this over their own members.

Furthermore, the RFU says that the changes are science-based. I am sure they are, but no one asked for this. Whereas rugby is united in wanting to know more about concussion prevention for the professionals there was zero clamour for research into the amateur game that has been the same for decades. No one is forced to play amateur rugby, no one I have ever met was uncomfortable with the risks we take every weekend playing rugby, in fact – outside of a handful of Twitter lunatics – I have not met a single person who has ever asked for this law change.

Still, some will look at this and say: ‘What’s the problem, we’ll see how it goes’ but we know from the pandemic that once a player stops it’s hard to get them back. The big difference between now and then is that back then people did not have the option to replace rugby. Now they do, and when the RFU realise their mistake these players won’t be returning.

You can also bet that when this all comes out in the wash, nobody will be held accountable for this. They will hide behind all manner of confected data, shrugging their shoulders while explaining to marketing executives how their demographic is now more suitable to promote their products.

What they won’t be able to admit is what they had to ruin in the process.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

14 Comments
M
Mike 670 days ago

Excellent article. I’m massively concerned on the impact this will have at my own club. I’ve yet to come across anyone who agrees with this change in my club. If this is the right change then let’s be transparent with the data that this decision is based upon and then run a proper consultation with the community game on what changes should be made and when. The RFU seems to lurch from one mis management to the next. Back to Parliament Bill Sweeny so they can again tell you that you are asleep at the wheel!

M
Michele 671 days ago

I totally agree with JB and Simon’s comment. Like others, the last I heard about this tackle height trial was that it was stopped because it increased injuries.

No consultation, no communication…maybe a breakaway organization is the answer.

C
Chris 671 days ago

Madness

L
Lee 671 days ago

I wonder if anyone has considered a break away union. In the same way MMA has become the different option to boxing and traditional martial arts based combat sports. What if the ref and both teams agree to ignore that rule, Game on (same as the RFU's own game on approach)

D
Dingbat 671 days ago

Just proved once again that the old farts at twickenham have no idea what the game is all about. Bunch of idiots who are killing the game. Is there not someway the clubs can form a breakaway and play the game we want stuff the rfu.

g
glenn 671 days ago

Totally agree with JB. What he doesn’t mention is the selective use of statistics used by the RFU. In the trial done in the UK lowered tackle height produced a spike in concussions due to the increased danger of tackling low (hip, knee and boot contact) and the 63% reduction in head on head contact quoted by the RFU is correct but they don’t mention the increase in the number of other types of head contact that occurred. Overall the French trial saw a reduction of about 4 concussions over 2 leagues across a whole season. This could be attributed to statistical variance, increased awareness of concussion or a bunch of other things. Certainly not conclusive nor enough to make such sweeping changes.

R
Robert 671 days ago

Histrionics, with a bonus helping of "those darned 'experts'". I appear to have opened the Daily Mail by mistake.

The RFU are trying to make the game safer. Radical thought here, let's... see what happens. I know that measured reactions aren't popular with the Game's Gone Soft brigade but maybe, just maybe, rugby will be fine.

P
Poorfour 671 days ago

Oh grow up. Anyone who pays attention to what's happening beyond the sports pages can see that rugby needs to change at all levels.

It's particularly crass to take this line in the same week that 55 former amateur players have launched a lawsuit against rugby authorities because of brain damage from concussion: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jan/19/amateur-players-launch-lawsuit-against-rugby-authorities-over-brain-injuries

France has had these tackling laws in place for 3 years and it doesn't appear to have killed the game.

j
jw 671 days ago

Good article and Simon's comments are spot on. What we need is a complete change of execs at the RFU replacing them with people who are in the real world. I fear for the game as I see clubs that used to have healthy membership struggling to put teams out on the field. Sweeney et al all asleep

s
simon 671 days ago

We can see weekly the issue of concussion as a result of high shots (not always a tackle) in Premiership/professional rugby. By all means do whatever you can to remove that from the elite level. As a player of 40 years, and coach of both childrens and club rugby i dont see the same problem. The RFU has alienated the entire rugby community in an attempt to save face for their mismanagement of older pro players like Steve Thompson. #Billsweeneyisasleepagain

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 Why England's defence of the realm has crumbled without Felix Jones Why England's defence of the realm has crumbled without Felix Jones
Search