WORLD RUGBY HAS approved six law amendments for closed trials, including one that will reduce the legal tackle height to the waist.
Also among the package of closed trials is the introduction of an infringement limit for teams [including penalties and free-kicks], where a mandatory yellow card is given once a team reaches that limit.
There will be further closed trials of the ‘high tackle warning system‘ that has been in place at the last two World Rugby U20 Championships, while a goal-line drop-out trial has also been approved.
The much-discussed 50:22 kicking law has also been approved for closed trial.
The other trial will allow foul play that has resulted in a yellow card to be reviewed during the sin-bin period, potentially meaning the sanction could be upgraded to a red card if the foul play was not sufficiently punished by the referee on the pitch.
Australia’s National Rugby Championship will trial the goal-line drop-out and the infringement limit, but World Rugby has yet to confirm exactly which competitions will trial the other amendments.
The reduction of the legal tackle height to the waist would transform the shape of the game, with World Rugby saying this particular closed trial aims to see if forcing players to tackle lower will reduce the risk of head injuries to both the tackler and tackled player.
The rationale behind the 50:22 kick is to create more space by forcing players to drop back out of the defensive line, while the awarding of a goal-line drop-out for holding up the attacking team over the goal-line aims to reward good defence and promote a faster rate of play.
The hope is that the infringement limit encourages teams to offend less, while the rationale behind the yellow card review system is to ensure serious foul play is more consistently dealt with.
The French Rugby Federation’s community levels, Georgia’s domestic leagues, Fiji’s domestic leagues, the Americas Rugby Championship, South Africa’s Currie Cup, and Italy’s domestic leagues have all expressed an interest in operating one or more of the closed trials.
World Rugby announced the package – all aimed at making the game safer – after its executive committee gave the nod of approval.
The new law trials stem from a welfare and laws symposium in Paris earlier this year, where rugby’s leading unions and bodies convened to discuss injury prevention. The tackle, which is responsible for 50% of all match injuries and 76% of all concussions, was a key focus at the symposium.
If the trials are successful in these closed environments, they could be approved for global trials within the next World Cup cycle, meaning we could see them made permanent law in time for the 2023 Rugby World Cup.
As well as the six approved trials, World Rugby’s executive committee called for further evaluation of two other areas.
A reduction in the number of permitted substitutions from its current eight was discussed in Paris earlier this year, with World Rugby now committing to sponsor more research to determine if there is a player welfare benefit in this proposal.
Meanwhile, World Rugby has confirmed that it will form a specialist working group to assess all issues regarding the ruck and breakdown.
“Approval of these law trials represents another important step on the road to further law improvement within the next four-year Rugby World Cup cycle,” said John Jeffrey, chairman of World Rugby’s laws review group.
“Significantly, these trials have injury-prevention at their core, but there are also clear benefits to improving the spectacle for players, match officials, and fans. I look forward to seeing them progress in closed domestic environments.”
Concussion becoming such a massive issue in the game is obviously what this is aiming to combat and rightly so but unfortunately below the waist tackles will completely change the game. Choke tackles along with attempts to rip the ball in contact will become extinct with players facing the fear of being reprimanded for a high tackle. As much as player welfare is a priority, I can’t see this trial becoming law
@S.Leahy: Also is encouraging the tackler’s head to be around hips and knees really such a good idea? Recipe for even more concussions imo..
@S.Leahy: ripping the ball would still be ok….. however I cannot see waist high tackles being introduced. From what I understand, the research shows that concussions are more likely for the tackler than the ball carrier. If the tackler had his head at waist height, he is more likely to end up with a collision with a knee, hip or elbow.
Better coaching of the tackle technique from u7s upwards is the answer to this problem and heavier sanctions in the adult game for dangerous tackle technique.
thats how it was done for yrs ..cheek to cheek is how it was coached
@Paul Ennis: not sure where you are coming from there. If its dangerous to tackle chest and head height which it clearly is then the only option is to tackle waist or down. This is what has been taught all along too the higher tackle is a modern phenomenon.
Furthermore its not dangerous unless tackle technique is poor and you get your head in front of the hips as opposed to behind.
The key thing to all if this is if you have no choice but to take somebody by the legs its much harder to do a dominant tackle as you go with the player when he falls forward.
This in turn will open up the game again to more tries as offloads and yardage will be easier
@Aaron Buckley: I think that tackling has become far more dangerous in the professional era as players have become bigger, faster and more aggressive. The Johnny Sexton / Owen Farrell style of poor tackle technique has also crept in more and more (not helped by the success of the choke tackle).
A 6ft 4 player with a poor technique is going to be far worse off if he is trying to get his shoulders and arms down to waist level…. the chances of his head getting in the way increase exponentially.
We can try to fix the long term problem by reinforcing the coaching techniques at youths (by the way…. In LB Minis above waist tackling is already supposed to be banned).
The short term problem is not so easy and I just dont think this proposal is the answer.
I really like the yellow upgrade to red during the sin bin…. this should eradicate the long TMO reviews while players are standing around watching. If the ref thinks it might be red, he can issue a yellow immediately and ask the TMO to review while play continues. Progressive and fair.
Is it just me or does it sound like rugby league rules coming in? Goal line drop out… 50/22 a little like 40/20.
Seems a bit strange
Not a huge fan of the below waist tackling, maybe a good idea up to u16 or something but most I’m not sure this will do much to prevent head knocks. If anything it’ll encourage guys to get even bigger in an attempt to steam roll the tackler. One of the Scottish back rows, Barclay I think, spoke out against this a few years back saying that the majority of his concussions had come as a result of low tackles – catching knees and hips to the head.
@Jim Demps: totally agree, tackling at the nipple line is about as safe as you can get from the tacklers view point and it allows to wrap the ball. Punish a high tackle and no arms tackling big time but from the belly button to the shoulder should be fair game
@Jim Demps: Lomu was able to steamroll guys because physically he was bigger and more powerful then his peers. That has evened itself out a lot more now in 2019 plus beyond that there is a limit to how big you can get and realistically get around the pitch. Especially in the much faster and open game they are trying to create here.
Tackling around the legs is how everyone was taught growing up. If it’s done with the right technique it’s a safe way to tackle.
The problem is when too dominant a tackle is attempted, its gets dangerous when trying to drive a man backwards. A safe legs tackle in turn will always concede a yard or so as it’s in essence tripping a man up with your shoulder and falling with him.
What implications that has then for the game is another story entirely
@Aaron Buckley: That’s just not true, tackling around the legs is far more dangerous for the tackler in terms of concussions. Safer for the person with the ball, but knees & hips can cause awful damage to the head, even with proper technique as you can’t always predict what the runner will do. Torso tackles are the safest for the tackler but if course run the risk of being too high
As a back I know that we prefer tackling around the chest as it means we can win the ball back and it’s easier. This prevents winning a scrum from a choke or ripping the ball which is a poor move. Only good thing I can see from it is offload game will get better
If you can only tackle below the waist, how do you defend against a pick-and-go from the base of a ruck where the attacking player stays at a crouch? Obviously you could tackle low from the side but a tackle from the front it would be nearly impossible without making some contact with the head/shoulders area.