RFU announce tackle law changes in age grade rugby
The Rugby Football Union have announced a new law change to the tackle height in age grade rugby in England for the 2021/22 season.
The new law will make an imagined line between the armpits the maximum height of a legal tackle in rugby up to under 18 level in order to avoid two heads entering the same 'air space'.
These are the existing laws for those playing full contact rugby between under 9 and under 14 levels, but the RFU Council approved extending this to under 18 rugby, where the legal tackle height has been from the shoulder level downwards.
RFU Head of Game Development John Lawn said: “This is an exciting and important piece of work. We started planning for this back in 2019 and it builds on everything done in the age grade game over the last decade putting in place a building block approach to full contact rugby.
“We want to make the game as safe as possible, but without losing the physical element that’s popular with players and this law change supports that.
“As a result of the fallow 2020-2021 season due to Covid-19 all age grade players, except for next season’s Under 17 and Under 18 age grades, will only have experienced tackling below the line of the armpit. A continuation of the laws they were previously familiar with will support their reintegration back into the game.
“Maintaining a single tackle height also supports the integration of players in the dual or triple age bands in the girls’ game.”
The RFU will also be implementing and evaluating a waist height tackle law variation and restricting late dipping/leading into contact with the head by the ball carrier in approximately 1,200 games in the under 16 to under 18 age grades during 2021/22.
The objective of this variation is to limit head-on-head collisions, while also creating more opportunities for passing. The evaluation will take place in three environments, which will be rugby playing schools and colleges, boys' club rugby and girls' club rugby.
RFU Medical Services Director Dr Simon Kemp said: “It’s an evidence-based, game-led approach. This is about head impact and concussion prevention. We know that the most effective control measures are law changes and coaching behaviour. What we’re doing here is taking five or six years of data analysis to develop and implement a law change supported by coach input that we anticipate will have a positive effect on injury risk.”
“Interim outcomes from the evaluation of a waist height tackle law variation in French community rugby show that a tackle at waist height or below together with the prohibition of the ball carrier bending into contact are having a positive impact on reducing the number of serious head impacts, are viewed positively by players, coaches and referees and from the video examples provided appeared to show a change in the shape of the game, with fewer rucks and more offloads.
“We are very excited to be evaluating a waist height tackle law variation of our own next season to see what we can learn from the data and player and coach feedback.”
Latest Comments
Everywhere you turn some irish journo is advocating Ireland as the greatest, reasoning that the wc is a 4 year cycle event so, they say wc doesn’t matter it’s the rugby in between that should account for the accolade. If there was no wc then some substance could be gained, however in my opinion the moment that defined Ireland’s fate against the abs was 37 phases of repeated head bashing against a brick wall. If a change in strategy or a tinker with the game plan was executed then things could've been vastly different. And to point a finger the let down was in the hands of the number 10.
Go to commentsI have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.
Go to comments