Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'I think radical action is needed': Ex-England international throws support behind RFU rule

(Photo by Alex Davidson/Getty Images)

The RFU’s bombshell decision to introduce waist-high or below tackling into the amateur game has caused widespread backlash with over 65,000 participants signing a petition for a reversal.

ADVERTISEMENT

A number of high profile ex and current players and coaches have also come out in direct opposition or with concerns with the changes, including Ireland captain and coach Johnny Sexton and Andy Farrell.

But the RFU’s decision has found a supporter in former England international Ugo Monye, who backed the ‘radical’ move on the BBC Rugby Union weekly podcast with Sara Orchard, Chris Jones and Harlequins scrumhalf Danny Care.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

“I’m not surprised by the overwhelming emotion and amount of noise that has been created around it,” Monye told the panel.

“65,000 people have signed a petition to reverse this decision so far. I think it is the way the change was thrust upon the community and I think the way that was handled by the RFU paints quite a poor picture for the communications people working on this.

“It shouldn’t come out like that. I think the RFU absolutely understand that and if they don’t then you’ve only got to go onto Twitter and have a look at the complaints that have been lodged.”

Monye believed that there wasn’t enough data at the community level to assume that the professional game has a bigger concussion issue, stating that no return to play protocols could see concussed players back on the field too early.

ADVERTISEMENT

“There are gaps of truth in all of it,” he said.

“We’ve come to the conclusion that it is a bigger problem in the elite game than the community game. How? Can anyone prove that?

“You don’t take data from the community game on concussion. There will be more players returning back to playing prematurely from suspected concussions than the elite game.

“My point is around data, we have no data on the community game from level three and below.

“I’m in the minority here based on what I’ve seen online, I’m in favour of it.

“I totally understand the emotional response to it, I totally get it. There is so much more information that is needed to make this a success.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I think you are absolutely right in calling it radical, but I think radical action is needed when we have issues in our game.

“If the number one priority for our game, whether it is governance or people who run the game is safety, then we need to have a safer game.

“People are stepping away from the game due to Covid and the habits which you’ve mentioned, but the noise for the last three years has been about concussion and finally I think we are doing something radical to hopefully change behaviour.”

England international and Harlequins scrumhalf Danny Care, who just made his 350th appearance for the club against the Sharks in the Champions Cup, who was willing to give the idea some thought but his personal view was it would lead to more concussions.

Care was concerned for tacklers with a low head position aiming for the waist area where knees and hips can create dangerous contact.

“It is a radical decision, like you say, a bolt from the blue, no one really could have called it and the reaction is massive,” Care said.

“We’ve even seen the England captain Ben Stokes tweet about it. When you get someone like him tweeting about it, it’s big news. It’s not just rugby news, it’s huge news.

“It’s massive for the game. I will counter this by saying, should we not just give it a bit of time?

“Obviously they are doing it for a reason. Is the reason right? My opinion is I feel you are going to have a lot more head injuries.

“I see the size of these lads running in and if you are making people have to tackle low, I don’t know the stats and won’t profess to know the stats, but you are going to see a lot more people getting concussed and knocked out which is the opposite of what we want in this game.”

ADVERTISEMENT
LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

6 Comments
a
adam 900 days ago

"The noise for the last three years is around concussion" - that's because you've been making that noise, when commentating on the elite level. Almost no on on Saturday league rugby is talking about concussion. The noise has been about how everyone is struggling to get numbers out - and how can they?? All they hear is "concussion issue, safety issue, welfare concerns" rather than anyone enjoying or promoting playing Rugby!


You are justifying safety measures by literally saying you don't have any data on whether it is a problem. And once it is in place, we can't roll it back, because who would ever go along with "well, we did it for safety but actually we aren't as bothered about safety as we thought we were"


We are removing any physicality from a physical game and will end up with some touch rugby/netball hybrid.

c
christiaan 901 days ago

“I totally understand the emotional response to it"

It is not an emotional response by the fans, it is a response to the constant top down "we know better" attitude from WR.

f
fl 901 days ago

an emotional response to the constant top down "we know better" attitude from WR.

N
Northandsouth 902 days ago

It would be easy enough to test whether lower tackles would cause more concussions: check what proportion of pro concussions related to waist or below tackles. My expectation would be 10-20% but would be happy to be proven wrong. I largely agree with Ugo: comms and engagement terrible, idea interesting. I have lots of English rugby tragic mates, banter about the footy all week every week for the 6N, picks for the WC, who are adamant they don't want their kids to play - and that's the people who adore the game the most.

f
fl 901 days ago

it would also be important to know:

1) what percentage of head injuries occur outside of tackles. If head injuries are frequently occuring in aerial contests or in rucks then drastically amending the tackle laws might just ruin the game without significantly making it significantly safer - even if it does succeed in making the tackle safer.

2) what percentage of long term head trauma is a result of specific injuries, vs what percentage is a result of repeated minor knocks. If repetitive knocks are a significant part of the problem then it might make more sense to regulate training, and mandate greater rest periods between game weeks, rather than change the game itself.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 28 minutes ago
Beauden Barrett weighs in on controversial yellow card

It’s an interesting question because a normal diberate knock on is just a penalty offense, an normal infringement like any other, so that’s deemed where the was not a reasonable chance to catch the ball.


But it’s a ruling that can also be upgraded to a foul, and by association, a yellow card, when it’s it was also deliberately trying to deny the ball to another player. For instance, that is why they are just given penalties up the field, because the player has just made a bad decision (one where he had no reasonable chance) and he doesn’t really care if the pass had gone to hand for his opponents or not (he was just thinking about being a hero etc).


So the way the refs have been asked to apply the law is to basically just determine whether there was an overlap (and not to try and guess what the player was actually thinking) or not, as to whether it’s a penalty or a YC.


This is the part Barrett doesn’t like, he’s essentially saying “but I had no idea whether they were likely to score or not (whether there was an unmarked man), so how can you tell me I was deliberately trying to prevent it going to someone, it could have been a blind pass to no one”.


It’s WR trying to make it clear cut for fans and refs, if at the players expense.

But yes, also you must think it entirely possible given both were foul plays that they could both go to the bench. Much the same as we see regularly when even though the play scores a try, they have started sending the player off still.


And while I agree Narawa didn’t knock it on, I think the ball did go forward, just off the shoulder. As his hands were up in the air, above the ball, basically like a basketball hope over his right shoulder, I guess you’re right in that if it did make contact with his hands it would have had to be deflected backwards onto his shoulder etc. Looking at the replay, Le Garrec clearly lost control of the ball forward too, but because Barrett was deemed to have committed a deliberate act, that overrides the knockon from 9.


I just don’t understand how they can consider it a deliberate attempt to block a pass when he actually lost the ball forward!

44 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Rassie Erasmus' 'sad' verdict on Jasper Wiese's latest red card 'It's sad': The Rassie Erasmus verdict on Jasper Wiese's latest red ca