PLEASE NRL DON'T FOLLOW US BRITS WITH THIS.

[Maximus]

Who advised Rugby to ban tackles above the waist? Alot of these people are hired by the same sport.

On to these rules

You don't see any issue with players putting their heads where the ball carriers are holding the ball?

The rules alone make no sense. You need to limit the speed of the contact OR need to limit ball carriers movements.

It takes a defender to think the ball carrier is going to step left and he goes right for an elbow to the head... this was the reasoning for making under the ball as the contact point

Given the rules drop the allowed tackle height a couple of cms from the top of the shoulders to the armpit, what exactly doesn't make sense?

And try not to claim the rules are changing to waist height in your answer.

 

[mongoose]

this obsession with lowering tackle height? is it just me or are there more concussions happening to players that are making a tackle rather than players being tackled? usually players who are trying to tackle low too...

 

[Iamback]

this obsession with lowering tackle height? is it just me or are there more concussions happening to players that are making a tackle rather than players being tackled? usually players who are trying to tackle low too...

No. It seems that way, A few have commented the same

 

[Canard]

this obsession with lowering tackle height? is it just me or are there more concussions happening to players that are making a tackle rather than players being tackled? usually players who are trying to tackle low too...

It's risk minimisation, reducing the incidence of head contact will help lower the incidence of concussion (is the theory anyway)

It's the Swiss Cheese model

 

[Iamback]

It's risk minimisation, reducing the incidence of head contact will help lower the incidence of concussion (is the theory anyway)

It's the Swiss Cheese model

View attachment 82470

attackers yes.

Defenders in theory will have their heads perfect height to cop elbows or even lower if the player in hunched over. Which is often how outside backs bring the ball back.

 

[Chimp]

They have the same obligations.

Boxing, for example, has had concussion protocols in place for decades.

But they’ve not stopped blokes punching each other in the head?

The ridiculous thing about this whole below the armpit thing is, it’s going to have almost zero impact on the amount of head shots - most head shots nowadays aren’t deliberate, and are because of late movement of the attacker - I’d suggest the proposed changes will hardly make a dent in it. But what they will do, as many have pointed out, is have defenders putting their head in a dangerous position, again particular against an attacker with late footwork.

As for the participation bit, do we really think there are going to be any ‘mums’ out there who go…. ‘Ooo no, you’re not playing rugby league, it’s too dangerous…. Oh what a minute, you say they've reduced the legal tackle zone from shoulder to under armpit… wow, they really care, it’s a super safe sport now… right, come on little Johnny, let’s get you signed up for rugby league!’

 

[Perth Red]

this obsession with lowering tackle height? is it just me or are there more concussions happening to players that are making a tackle rather than players being tackled? usually players who are trying to tackle low too...

Be interesting to see the stats, a lot of the time seems to be head clashes. Especially when two defenders are going in upright to tackles.

 

[Canard]

attackers yes.

Defenders in theory will have their heads perfect height to cop elbows or even lower if the player in hunched over. Which is often how outside backs bring the ball back.

Yes, but it's not some sort of absolute solution. (which we all know is impossible)

It's an attempt at risk minimisation.

 

[Iamback]

Yes, but it's not some sort of absolute solution. (which we all know is impossible)

It's an attempt at risk minimisation.

Which they haven't said the aim. Are they hoping to cut Head injuries by a certain %?

If they get to x target do those same 'experts' say lets cut out another 10% and so on

Again the rules are fine in kids footy but you get to professionals and they just won't work

 

[Perth Red]

Which they haven't said the aim. Are they hoping to cut Head injuries by a certain %?

If they get to x target do those same 'experts' say lets cut out another 10% and so on

Again the rules are fine in kids footy but you get to professionals and they just won't work

Its probably two things,
first to try and reduce incidence, that wont be known if its successful until they try.
secondly be seen to be doing something, and again we are back to litigation and perception.

In many ways they cant win now. If they get expert advice that says do X,Y and Z and they ignore it then it opens them up to litigation down the track as players can claim the game didnt act on expert advice to reduce risks.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Its probably two things,
first to try and reduce incidence, that wont be known if its successful until they try.
secondly be seen to be doing something, and again we are back to litigation and perception.

In many ways they cant win now. If they get expert advice that says do X,Y and Z and they ignore it then it opens them up to litigation down the track as players can claim the game didnt act on expert advice to reduce risks.

Can we not get players to sign wavers to accept the risk that concussion and perhaps digital penetration is a likely occurrence in our good game?

 

[Iamback]

Its probably two things,
first to try and reduce incidence, that wont be known if its successful until they try.
secondly be seen to be doing something, and again we are back to litigation and perception.

In many ways they cant win now. If they get expert advice that says do X,Y and Z and they ignore it then it opens them up to litigation down the track as players can claim the game didnt act on expert advice to reduce risks.

Experts don't play the game. They have no idea how these things play out in practice

If you ask 16 year old males in RL areas. Despite knowing their long term health is all risk atleast 75% would take the risk to have an NRL career.

So they consent so what is the issue? In the old days when it was unknown is different

 

[Perth Red]

Can we not get players to sign wavers to accept the risk that concussion and perhaps digital penetration is a likely occurrence in our good game?

No, employers cant waiver away work place safety.

 

[Iamback]

Can we not get players to sign wavers to accept the risk that concussion and perhaps digital penetration is a likely occurrence in our good game?

Given the Tag and touch options available. There wouldn't be a single player who is playing that doesn't know the risk

 

[Perth Red]

Experts don't play the game. They have no idea how these things play out in practice

If you ask 16 year old males in RL areas. Despite knowing their long term health is all risk atleast 75% would take the risk to have an NRL career.

So they consent so what is the issue? In the old days when it was unknown is different

There are two different situations at play.
amateur sport, which is all about creating perception of a game that wont kill you to increase particpation.
and professional sport where you are effectively an employer resonsible for the health and safety of your employees whilst they are working for you.

So no getting a 16 year old kid to say he doesnt care what happens to him when hes 65 doesnt really address anything

 

[Maximus]

In the old days when it was unknown is different

Haven't you and others filled the thread with claims that we don't really know if sport is the cause because players take drugs and drink alcohol?

 

[Maximus]

Can we not get players to sign wavers to accept the risk that concussion and perhaps digital penetration is a likely occurrence in our good game?

Experts don't play the game. They have no idea how these things play out in practice

If you ask 16 year old males in RL areas. Despite knowing their long term health is all risk atleast 75% would take the risk to have an NRL career.

So they consent so what is the issue? In the old days when it was unknown is different

Also, even if you could waive OH&S protections, how do you think this waiver would be enforceable on people under 18? Suaalii for example got the waiver to debut before he turned 18, so he legally can't sign that concussion waiver and it be enforceable. Are we permanently banning anyone u18 from ever playing NRL again?

 

[The Great Dane]

Players now are told not to drink if you are injured, That wasn't always the case. Any old school player has many stories being belted on the field then going out and getting blind drunk.

So not only were players called soft for going off and likely had multiple head knocks a day but would compound that by adding booze and possibly drugs to the mix.

As for those NFL symptoms, It very well could be CTE but they also line up with Roid rage.

That is why seeing how the concussion protocol 's are working by using current data not historical is the measured response

Alcohol consumption can effect recovery rates for all sorts of injuries, but that's completely different than suggesting it may be causing CTE.

I don't know how much more clearly I can put this than to say that CTE (and other similar conditions) is a specific form of brain damage caused by the physical process of the brain bouncing off the skull. As far as we know it cannot occur any other way, and it certainly isn't caused by substance abuse.

In other words substance abuse not only does not cause CTE, but it physically can not cause it. It's impossible and anybody suggesting otherwise is full of shit.

BTW, we know enough about this stuff now to be able to say that the concussion protocols impact on preventing CTE would be negligible at best.

 

[Iamback]

There are two different situations at play.
amateur sport, which is all about creating perception of a game that wont kill you to increase particpation.
and professional sport where you are effectively an employer resonsible for the health and safety of your employees whilst they are working for you.

So no getting a 16 year old kid to say he doesnt care what happens to him when hes 65 doesnt really address anything

No but the changes do.

Again look at MMA or boxing. Do you think there is a single competitor who doesn't know they will have some sort of health problem later in life as a result?

Or an F1 driver not expecting they will crash?

All those sports do is make it as safe as possible, which RL has done over the past 5-10 years.

 

[Valheru]

No, employers cant waiver away work place safety.

But safety and what is deemed acceptable risk differs with different jobs though doesn't it?

Obvious example being the armed forces where you have a chance of being shot or dying on deployment. Obviously compensation is provided in these circumstances.