Rugby - ball game or mixed martial arts

Firstly this topic has not been started as a trolling exercise, and I am not aiming it at any player or nationality, although I am fully aware that it may taken as a deliberate attempt to inflame people. So try and come at it in the perspective in which it is posted. And if anyone takes offence at it - well that is not my intention. And maybe the moderators can bin it if it gets out of control?
Some of the figures in my post have been drawn from the following page on the internet - it is interesting reading.
Click for The evolution of the modern day rugby player
I remember (and it is a good while ago) being taught rugby at school, and as far as I can recall (and age does affect the memory!) the principles of tackling that were drummed into me by my sports master were that one tackled the opponent by wrapping your arms around his thighs as that was how to put him down. Going lower risked you missing and also getting a boot to the head. and going higher only resulted in you resembling an appendage hanging from your targets belt as he continued to plough down the pitch with you frantically hanging onto his waist. I must point out that I was not the largest boy in my year by a long shot - in fact I was the smallest (would that be by a short shot?) That was the good old days - when rugby backs - if you drew canine comparisons - were greyhounds, forwards were grizzled old bulldogs and there was a jack russell terrier for scrum half. And there was a beauty to behold as the fleetfooted backs tore across the open field with space and pace to burn. And the maximum pace of forwards was a gentle amble from one ruck or set piece to another.
Now? If I continue the canine metaphor, are we guilty of breeding a player more akin to a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler? Nowadays tackling is aimed at the chest - maybe the upper chest level - with the aim of preventing offloads. And thanks to lots of weights and good food, backs who used to weigh 75kg are now 90 kg and forwards who weighed 93kg are 118kg. And they are taller - and the net result of the increase in weight and height is an increase in the inertia of 73% in tackles. And the result is tackles are more successful because players are hit harder. The only problem is that where they are being hit - because the upper chest is only a short distance from the head and neck. And with the best will in the world, players slip, or duck, or crouch to brace themselves against the hit, and this increased force is applied in a head to head, or head to chest or shoulder to head contact. And lets be honest - and I speak from personal experience having spent 35 years working in emergency medicine - head injuries kill. And they have killed rugby players (one of my colleagues was involved in the tragic case of Ben Robinson, so I have seen it first hand). Is this really what we want to see happen? There has been lots of column inches in the recent past with some people coming out along the lines of "its a physical game and you  can't prevent the occasional bang". And perhaps we as spectators are partly to blame - oohing and aahing over the big hits and praising our teams for their aggression and physicality. The image that springs to my mind is of the gladiators in the coliseum - and the audience baying for more blood and giving the thumbs up or down, depending on their mood. And I pity the poor gladiators who are risking life and limb (and long term brain function as has been demonstrated) for the entertainment of the great unwashed masses.
So there it is - should something be attempted to decrease the risk of injury in view of the increased forces involved with the modern day game, or do we take another gulp of our beer and smile and cheer as the thwack of head hitting head echoes across the pitch? Or should those of us who enjoy the extreme physical contact just go and watch proper mixed martial arts?

poissonrouge

A bit of excessive hyperbole in places, but there are some good points in there.

The game has changed in several ways, with player size and speed being the main change over the last 20 or so years. Tackling has gone from being an attempt to stop and bring down the ball carrier to being a collision, and I get the impression that defensive organisation means more tackles are being made front on or at least pretty close to (especially amongst forwards and crash ball centres) rather than from the side.

First man tackling relatively high and targeting the ball is a tactic stolen from rugby league, and has the added effect in Union of making the tackler also the prime player for stealing possession at the breakdown, especially if they can stay on their feet (again, aided by going high). You are right to say that this significantly increases the risk of contact with a head or neck, by a mis-judgement, a slip or the ball carrier leaning or ducking into contact. Of course though, tackling low can also lead to head and neck injuries for the tackler (see Thom Evans...)

Unfortunately, I think to some extent the genie is out of the bottle on things like player size and speed at impact. Perhaps reducing substitutions (say injuries + 1 or 2 optional) would slow things slightly, but that would be a minor adjustment.

Strict enforcement of high tackle rules, and onerous penalties as applied to tip tackles would have some benefit and might revert to tacklers going lower. The other change to the rules that could have an influence is to not allow the tackler to play for the ball immediately, but to allow release and have to roll away and re-enter the ruck from an on side position - would mean that the tackler has less incentive to be around the ball in the act of tackling, and should also increase the cleanness of ruck ball.

One route to definitely avoid though is excessive padding, as it then becomes like the NFL, with body armour being used almost as a weapon with the intent of hurting opponents.

Interesting. Re-looked at the Irish NZ game in Dublin last weekend. There's a fair amount of high tackles (i.e. above the line of the shoulders), far more than I would have expected. The vast majority are due to players attempting to tackle the player and ball as you've noted (1 arm around the chest, the other over the shoulder adjacent to the neck). Interestingly, significantly higher high tackle rate by the Irish than NZ (although this is preliminary as I've still got a bit of the game to analyse). I wonder if the injuries would decrease if this was policed more effectively. They trialed a very strict ruling of the ruck in the national championship in NZ this year. Most of us wouldn't recognise the ruck (which is probably why the IRB won't continue with it. It did significantly reduce the injury rate though.

top of post wrote:Firstly this topic has not been started as a trolling exercise, and I am not aiming it at any player or nationality, although I am fully aware that it may taken as a deliberate attempt to inflame people. So try and come at it in the perspective in which it is posted.

I am trying to raise a concern about the risk to players. I deliberately avoided using any specific players or nationalities in my post and was very careful to avoid attributing any blame to the tackler. I would appreciate it if this topic doesn't end up being used as a means of "scoring points" against any particular team or player. The game you refer to was indeed the game that made me think long and hard about what direction rugby has moved in, with regard to the risk inherent in tackling high considering the size and weight of modern day players. I have my own personal views as to what happened in that match, but as far as this topic is concerned I have made strenuous efforts in my post to ensure that no blame is levelled at any player as to the consequences of tackling high or otherwise, whether accidental or intentional. If you wish to criticise Ireland players as to their tackle technique, I am sure there are other places you can bring this up - but I would be grateful if for the purposes of this particular topic, we could actually discuss this from a completely neutral standpoint, lest it degenerate into the type of slanging match between Irish and Kiwi fans that has resulted elsewhere on this forum. And as I stated at the top of the post I hope you understand that I started this topic out of genuine concern for all rugby players regardless of their nationality or indeed their level in the game, because what we watch at international level is often what we try and emulate at lower levels, and I would hate to think that young players are thinking that head or neck contact is an acceptable part of rugby - to be honest what has concerned me most over the last few days is the unspoken but implied idea from many differing sources - coaches, players and the people in charge of rugby, that getting knocked out by head contact is something that we take as part of the game.

Here is an article which refers to what I am talking about (and just ignore the last bit about Gordon Darcys comments because that is off topic for this thread)Article from Stuff.co.NZ

Woodies comments (with reference to any named players removed to be neutral)
"If World Rugby are to be really, really serious about the tackle, it can't be at shoulder height, it just can't. It should be lower than that.
"It can't be at the line of the shoulder which is a couple of inches away from the chin."

........Wood admitted "some other tackles are not as clear-cut and that's where the game struggles. Very few things in rugby are black and white.

"Because that margin is a couple of inches, it makes it incredibly difficult.

"For me, [WR's edict] puts too many people under pressure and I like to see a wince every now and then but I don't want to see a player getting injured from it.

"We have too many people getting injured and something has to change."

Maybe I'm a complete moron but there are two factors here that everyone seems to be blindly ignored, and they are the pace/speed of the tackler and the intensity at which the players are executing D.

Without taking these two factors into consideration, you are ignoring the cause and intensity of the collision, this has always been the case since I was learning rugby at school. since the spear tackle and now anything 'To the head" has been removed, the collision is the only element of the game that can really result in  concussions.

I dont see the benefits of restricting tackles to below  the waist line, this will only results in more knee and ankle injuries.To Sterilize the game will only see the players that enjoy the challenge of intensity and physicality go to League. (By the way I love both codes).

I presume the author (above) is putting Rugby in the same box as Mixed martial arts because he is suggesting that rugby players can be "attacked" when they are not in a position to defend themselves, to me thats drawing a pretty long bow, and is not helpful to this discussion if it is to be taken seriously.

The "Mixed martial arts" metaphor was a deliberate ploy to attract some attention to the post  as I feel it is an important topic to discuss, and I reckoned that in the headline might make some people read it. And no it is not in any way a suggestion

that rugby players can be "attacked" when they not in a position to defend themselves,

- as in MMA the two participants know fine well that the other one is out to beat the "h*ly cr*p" out of them and I would presume that they take adequate measures for defence. No rather if there is any suggestion it is that perhaps rugby is starting to resemble MMA in the potential for injury especially to the head/neck area. Rugby is a contact sport -  the opening line of the definition of contact sport on Wikipedia is as below
Contact sports are sports that emphasize or require physical contact between players. Some sports, such as mixed martial arts, are scored on impacting an opponent, while others, including rugby football, require tackling of players.
There is a difference expressed between MMA and Rugby in that sentence - however perhaps rugby is now falling into the first definition - I realise you don't get points on the scoreboard for impacts but you do seem to get credit from the audience or other players for a "good hit". I have already in both my posts in this matter stressed that I want this matter taken seriously, that I have deliberately avoided using any specific players or teams in examples to try and minimise the risk of the topic degenerating into a slagging match, where someone feels that their player or team is being targeted with a cheap shot and resorts to similar tactics. I am sorry if you have misinterpreted the metaphor I used, because there is no intent on my part to treat this matter in any way lightly, rather I have grave concerns about the risk to players from high speed head impacts and am trying to promote serious discussion.

IN reply to the points you raise -  the pace/speed of the tackler and the intensity at which the players are executing - both these factors are important, and are almost certainly increasing as time goes by - my initial post tongue in cheek refers to "the maximum pace of forwards was a gentle amble" - nowadays forwards can run as fast as backs. I'm not sure how you feel that I am ignoring the cause and intensity of the collision. The cause of the collision has always been the tackler aiming to stop the attacking player - the intent in the good old days was to stop the players running past you - now the intent is to drive the attacking player back, dislodge the ball and prevent offload. So if anything the intent is now more aimed at a significant impact. You state that "anything 'To the head" has been removed" - my point which is echoed by Keith Woods in the NZ website article is that there is very little distance between the shoulders and the head/neck. With the best will in the world - as I have already said - in the heat of the moment (I hesitate to say battle lest it is taken incorrectly) it is virtually impossible to guarantee a shoulder high hit may not stray a few centimetres higher - accidentally - with no intent on the part of the tackler and result on a head to head impact - for either or both the tackler and attacker.
And I guess in reply to the point about tackles below waist level (I'm not suggesting this, I know it is a proposal, maybe one that needs some consideration) - if it comes down to a choice between a fractured ankle and a fractured skull, I know which I would prefer and I know from personal experience which has the higher risk and associated long term morbidity.  Fractures heal. A skull fracture will heal. But the force required to fracture a skull causes trauma to the underlying brain. And regrettably brain tissue does not heal - once the neurones die they stay dead, and cannot be replaced. So every blow to the head causes irreparable damage. And that is what concerns me and I assure you that is deadly serious.

Our experiences in rugby appear to be quite different, in fact I was taught by quite a number of coaches in my formative years that the harder you tackled the less chance you have of being injured, and that was quite some time ago.

I agree with Keith woods about the distance between the head and neck and that is why a certain player from a team that we cant name got banned last week for a high tackle, are you suggesting that you are not happy with this sanction and you would like to see him get banned for longer?

The only genuine way (that I see) to solve your problem is to ban the tackle all together, which would make the game more like soccer, I saw last week the incidence of concussion in soccer is being blamed on players heading the ball.

Firstly I would again like to state that this topic was not started as a means to resurrecting any discussion about past events, which has as far as I am concerned  been more than adequately covered ad nauseum in other postings. I am not suggesting anything about anybody, I have no hidden agenda, there is nothing between the lines. I have tried valiantly to avoid any mention of any specific player, team, nationality or anything. I deliberately deleted any name from Keith Woods comments - I suppose I perhaps could have not posted the link to the webpage on stuff.co.nz,as sadly I cannot edit any reference that could be construed as other than even-handed or impartial from that webpage, but I felt that Keith Woods comments specifically on the proximity of the shoulders to the head were apt in relation to the topic I was discussing (and in agreement with mine - and I hasten to add I am not expressing any agreement or disagreement with his views on other matters as expressed in that article.) I am glad that you agree also (as far as I can ascertain) with the views on the distance between head and shoulders.

I have searched online for any wisdom on the correct way to tackle and have given links below which as far as I could see were good and relevant. Both talk about "following the core" and I quote from the second page from Isport.com as "The core refers to the middle of the ball carrier’s body, where the center of gravity is located. The easiest way to focus on the core is to target the ball carrier’s hips or waist line.". The third link is to a video on tackling technique given as part of Rugby Smart training -( I hope that you will forgive the fact that the coach giving the session coaches in Ireland   )
So if the current position in the law is that you can't tackle above the shoulders and we agree that that gives very little safety margin with regard to head impact - would it be relevant to suggest dropping the level of legality to say mid chest? Would that perhaps be closer to what is suggested to be the optimum "core" of the attackers body which is what is being taught as correct technique? and would give a greater safety margin. Obviously the legality of the hit would remain the decision of the officials, both on and off the field, whether that is in real time by the ref, by the TMO or by the citing officers or citing panel, and no doubt there would be vociferous comments from one side or another as to whether a tackle was legal, just as there is with the current shoulder level, but at least it would mean that the chances of a head on head contact accidentally would be decreased with a lessening of the risk of concussion. I am not in any way supportive of banning tackles - then it wouldn't be rugby, and I am not suggesting necessarily dropping the tackle level to waist as has been put forward for younger age groups, but I would think that some change in the current situation is necessary for the protection of our players.

Oh and I would be totally against rugby players starting to head the ball in case they turn into football players - (I could make a jocular comment here about soccer players cognitive functions, but I will resist the temptation)
Click for links
Page 1 tackle technique
Page 2
Video on tackling technique - would recommend the coach

PR, I forgive you for using a coach who coaches in Ireland. especially when the video you have put up was filmed when he coached here in Auckland.

Wayne Smith did a very similar video, but went a lot further than the basics like addressing the core, but was more focused on where and which shoulders impact. that is probably more towards the subject of your article.

PS: I wasnt serious about banning tackling.

I think the main reason for tackles moving higher is simply the increase in ball handling skills, particularly in the forwards and the importance of the offload.

If you went up against an offloading side like the ABs or Fiji and tackled the waist/thigh area you would get absolutely torn apart by the offloading game.

The neck roll once considered legal instigated among others by Ireland
coaches.Kubi-gatame in Kodokan Judo nomenclature a safe throw for
one skilled in ukemi under controlled conditions.
The same technique used in koryu Jujitsu and taijitsu schools was designed
to throw uke[the tackled]on his head to break the neck or damage the spine.
It dates back to the Kumi-Uchi or Kugosoku of samurai fighting in armour
or Ninja schools of the same period.Correctly applied throwing techniques
were designed to maim or kill ukemi was impossible.

emack2 wrote:The neck roll once considered legal instigated among others by Ireland
coaches.

Another attempt at blaming one specific team as a means of scoring points rather than actually addressing the topic. If you had actually read the previous posts you might have noticed that considerable care has been taken by myself as author (if not others) not to use individual players or teams so as to avoid this serious topic degenerating into a slangfest. If you wish to make a point about the neck roll you could do so by leaving out the words in bold - it makes the point without the rather childish attempt to put blame on a particular team or player. Otherwise all that occurs is that one group of readers feel they are being attacked and often end up retorting with examples of another team or player who they feel has transgressed. And then the posts end up being a verbal battle between different fan groups.
And if you are seriously attempting to suggest that any particular coach or rugby team has adopted a move

designed to throw uke[the tackled]on his head to break the neck or damage the spine.

then I pity you for your bitter and twisted mentality, and you do your country of origin, wherever it may be, no honour. (I offer my apologies to any readers for the fact that through no fault of my own this topic has again been hijacked by some idiot who has more interest in attacking or denigrating others than actually addressing the reality of possible injury to rugby players.)
And in reply to mid_gen (again removing specific references)

Mid_gen wrote:If you went up against an offloading side... and tackled the waist/thigh area you would get absolutely torn apart by the offloading game.

well maybe that might mean teams had to play differently and learn to offload themselves. We might get a few (or a lot) more tries scored - which could add to the spectacle of the game. And maybe a few (or a lot) less head injuries.

Somewhere in here though PR you have to allow for the fact that alot of head injuries happen as a result of genuine accidents, Ive seen plenty of incidents where a player has been knocked out by colliding with a team mate. etc etc.

I agree completely laurie -It is impossible to prevent accidental head injury - even if by some miraculous means it was possible to avoid head on head/shoulder /chest contact - and dropping the tackle level to the waist would not completely rule that out as the attacking player could slip or trip - even then players will run the risk of striking their head as they hit the ground, particularly on firmer surfaces, with concussion as a possible outcome, and I guess it is concussion or brain trauma that concerns me most. Its not actually the impact to the surface of the head that causes the injury it is the brain which is moving in one direction being slammed into the inner surface of the skull, and the shearing forces that occur within the brain substance itself that causes "concussion" (a common lay term for damage to the cells within the brain). And the only way to prevent that injury occurring ever is not to allow any contact that could possibly result in a blow to the head whether from the tacklers (or attacking players body because there is a risk to the tacklers head as well as the person tackled) or from the ground due to the player falling and hitting the ground at speed. There are going to be "head injuries" in rugby because it is a contact sport - most of the time minor contacts, which don't even cause a loss of consciousness, occasionally major impacts, which can occur as a result of a pure accident. And there is risk in any sport - there is probably a higher risk of death or CTE from soccer than from rugby. So players accept a certain risk in order to enjoy playing, and that is perfectly fine. I guess I am just wondering whether there is anything that can be done from a rule change in the game or technique change in players to make the risk especially of head injury a bit less. If it is going to happen accidentally, lets try and reduce the chances if we can, within the parameters of the game as we know it.

You are putting words in my mouth it is a matter of fact that the
Ireland coach was one of the first to instigate it.He is an NZ
Coach and from what I've read Judo tactics have been used in TRAINING
in amongst others NZ,Sa,recently England usually in scrummaging .
Ever since the introduction of League tactics the high tackle has always
become the norm.IRB constant directives haven't helped.
Go for a tackle around the waist you risk a tip tackle.below the sternum
you risk it riding up and becoming head high.
No team goes into a match to deliberately hurt a player but key players
will be targeted to be tackled regularly and legally.
In any match incidents will occur where cards could be issued if you
want to be pedantic.
Head high tackles are usually the result of clumsiness no intent to injure
involved.

Emack2 - I am not putting words into your mouth. I quoted you - your words. I merely tried to point out that as I put in the opening post

this topic has not been started as a trolling exercise, and I am not aiming it at any player or nationality, although I am fully aware that it may taken as a deliberate attempt to inflame people. So try and come at it in the perspective in which it is posted.

I have not passed comment on actions by an specific players or teams, but put forward comments and suggestions in a theoretical rather than specific situation. Your statement that I quoted - "the neck roll once considered legal instigated among others by Ireland" to any reader would suggest that Ireland was at fault in initiating this manoeuvre. If I had posted "the neck roll once considered legal instigated by a NZ coach" would that not have been regarded as an inflammatory comment by Kiwi readers? As I have said above your point is made perfectly adequately without specific reference to any player or national team. So why refer to one nationality, especially if the idea came from elsewhere.
However I do agree with your comment

Ever since the introduction of League tactics the high tackle has always
become the norm.IRB constant directives haven't helped.

So what will help? Or do we just sit back and accept head high tackles as par for the course - there was no intent to injure therefore its OK?
And finally can I again (for the umpteenth time) point out that this is not a finger pointing exercise. I have made NO reference as to whether the high energy impacts which can result in head or neck contact were accidental, or intentional, NO reference to cards or sanctions, NO reference to specific player or countries in examples. I raised this matter because of a genuine concern for rugby players. I am getting pretty tired trying to defend this topic from those who seem to be of the opinion that this is really a secret ploy to criticise their team or players. If anyone has anything useful to contribute to the discussion I will be happy to participate in a rational debate on the pros and cons of where the level for a legal tackle should be or any other suggestions that might decrease the likelihood of players brains being mushed, but I am not going to argue any longer with those who cannot accept that this specific topic is not a sly dig at them.

IRB is talking about making tackling above the waist illegal at least at
juniors level.Whether it will ever be actioned at top level is a mute
point.
There was a time when Rugby at the top was open all shapes and sizes
nowadays it seems to be among giants.
I was amazed to see that the run on side of Ireland in Dublin versus NZ
only the hooker was less than 6 foot 2 inches tall.
Backs are now so much bigger than they used to be in height and weight.
Aron Smith took a lot of stick about his form in the Dublin Match BUT
he`s a lightweight and was tackling his heart out.