BBC website

I do understand WHY they are trying something different BUT I think they are missing the point.

Firstly there is very little difference between shoulders and armpits/nipples (as some are reporting!)

Secondly how do you account for the attacker ducking into the tackle

Thirdly, surely the bigger problem and cause of more injuries is the shoulder charge rather than tackle - which is nothing more than a deliberate attempt by an idiot to injure an opponent

Fourthly, referees can't even get the existing laws correct (especially when it is one of the favoured sides / players 'offending'.

There seems to me to be more merit in stopping tactical substitutions which is effectively bringing on a fresh player to do more damage (legally or illegally) - players should be able to play 80 minutes unless injured. But I do understand we have to be vigilant for fake injuries.............everyone did it, some were unlucky to get caught!!!!

Quote:

The Rugby Football Union's second-tier Championship Cup competition will be played under new laws, with the height of a legal tackle below the armpits rather than the line of the shoulders.
It comes after the latest English rugby injury audit revealed a rise in injuries and concussion in the professional game.

This could be interesting. There have been plenty of incidents where tackled players have apparently tried to duck into tackles to win a penalty for a high tackle, something that strikes me as dangerous. If they continue to do so under the new restriction, at least they won't be putting their necks into the line of fire, or if they are that stupid it will be a pretty obvious dive.

The game is getting bigger & faster, so no surprise that injuries are increasing. It isn't something that can be ignored, and we don't want to see American Football style helmets & shoulder plates in rugby, so introducing new safety measures to keep the game playable as it is makes sense. The cynic in me does however wonder if the rise in reported concussions is anything to do with the HIA measures being abused? It now seems common practise for players to be rapidly removed from the field for HIA while referees are reviewing an incident that they have been involved in, hoping to influence the referee to get the naughty boy cards out. These players then miraculously return to play a couple of minutes later, fresh as a daisy. If each of these is recorded as a concussion statistic, no wonder it is increasing.

Quote:

Monkey1

Quote:

The Rugby Football Union's second-tier Championship Cup competition will be played under new laws, with the height of a legal tackle below the armpits rather than the line of the shoulders.
It comes after the latest English rugby injury audit revealed a rise in injuries and concussion in the professional game.

This could be interesting. There have been plenty of incidents where tackled players have apparently tried to duck into tackles to win a penalty for a high tackle, something that strikes me as dangerous. If they continue to do so under the new restriction, at least they won't be putting their necks into the line of fire, or if they are that stupid it will be a pretty obvious dive.

The game is getting bigger & faster, so no surprise that injuries are increasing. It isn't something that can be ignored, and we don't want to see American Football style helmets & shoulder plates in rugby, so introducing new safety measures to keep the game playable as it is makes sense. The cynic in me does however wonder if the rise in reported concussions is anything to do with the HIA measures being abused? It now seems common practise for players to be rapidly removed from the field for HIA while referees are reviewing an incident that they have been involved in, hoping to influence the referee to get the naughty boy cards out. These players then miraculously return to play a couple of minutes later, fresh as a daisy. If each of these is recorded as a concussion statistic, no wonder it is increasing.

Interesting thoughts Monkey, the weight and strength of players is definitely an issue but not sure how that can be countered. I wouldn't expect that passed HIAs would count as concussions, since if there is even suspected concussion after the HIA, the player doesn't (or shouldn't) return to play. So if a player passes the HIA, he (hopefully) ain't concussed.

I would much rather see a reduction in substitutes.2 specialist front row, 1 other forward and a utility back.