Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Ross Tucker: 'Doing nothing wasn't an option'

By Daniel Gallan
Dublin , Ireland - 24 October 2020; Garry Ringrose of Ireland goes down with an injury before leaving the pitch during the Guinness Six Nations Rugby Championship match between Ireland and Italy at the Aviva Stadium in Dublin. (Photo By Brendan Moran/Sportsfile via Getty Images)

Ross Tucker, the respected sports scientist and research consultant for World Rugby, begins our conversation with a clear message.

ADVERTISEMENT

We’re discussing the Rugby Football Unions’s decision to lower the tackle height limit in the community game in England to the waist. It is a decision that has been met with almost universal derision. Players, journalists and fans have rallied against the law change in a rare show of unity in an otherwise polarised sport. MPs have weighed in on the discourse with the matter raised in the House of Commons.

“The lack of communication has alienated a lot of people,” Tucker says. “Maybe they’ve [the RFU] misunderstood on how best to bring people along. It’s important you do that otherwise you’ll never get the buy-in that you need.”

Video Spacer

What happens inside the brain during a concussion | Beyond 80 Knocked

Video Spacer

What happens inside the brain during a concussion | Beyond 80 Knocked

Tomorrow we’ll unpack the ideological and political implications this new law may have on a sport that is seemingly tearing apart at the seams. Tucker has a lot to say on how the precise location of a ball carrier’s hip has opened up a new front in rugby’s culture war.

But first we’ll unpack the science. As Tucker says, “The data is clear. I support the decision that’s been made. They should have gone about it a little differently and they are getting blowback as a result. But the science shows that they’ve made this decision with the best intentions.”

Tom Heathcote
Worcester’s Tom Heathcote gets attention after sustaining a head injury during an English Premiership match between Worcester and Wasps (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

The end goal is to reduce head injuries in rugby. At the elite level a concussion occurs roughly once every 250 to 300 tackles, or one in every five matches. According to Tucker the risk of concussion is 25 per cent lower in the community game. But, because of the sheer volume of community matches in all age groups, our perception of the problem is distorted.

ADVERTISEMENT

“If there are a thousand community games around the country, and there’s probably more than that, you’ve got 200 concussions per weekend,” Tucker explains. “That’s astonishing and that’s why this matters. So when people ask why this has started at the amateur level, that’s why.”

Regardless of the level, ball carriers suffer 30 per cent of all concussions while tacklers, who by design must put their heads in harm’s way, experience 70 per cent. Head to head collisions are the most dangerous.

“If you were to successfully eliminate all high tackles, as the law currently stands [above the shoulder line], you’d immediately get rid of 90 per cent of the concussions experienced by the ball carrier,” Tucker says. “They might still get concussed, either through whiplash or through ground contact, but the major risk would be mitigated.”

Related

As for the tackler, concussion rates would drop by 30% which would mean that concussions in rugby would be reduced by 40 per cent if all high tackles were to disappear.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Doing nothing wasn’t an option,” Tucker says. “We have the data that shows the degree of risk. Sports federations constantly have to walk a tightrope between changing too much and changing too little, but in this instance they had to try and do something.”

The unions in France and New Zealand have already implemented successful trials that prove that a lowering of the tackle height reduces the risk of head injuries.

The French case is particularly pertinent where, in 2019, after four rugby related deaths across a single season, the French Rugby Federation (FFR) lowered the tackle height to the waist and placed a ban on ball carriers stooping in to contact in the amateur game.

There were teething problems at first. Penalty counts rose as illegally high tackles rose from 2.2 to 6.1 a game in the first two months of the trial. Referees were also inconsistent in how they officiated this new law.

But four months later the number of high tackles had dropped to 3.8 per match. Offloads increased, as did the number of passes. There were fewer kicks. Most crucially, the number of head-to-head contacts fell from 9.5 per match to 3.5 while the number of blue cards, brandished by referees for suspected concussions, dropped by 27 per cent.

Related

“The French were ecstatic,” Tucker says. “Not only with the reduction in head injuries and concussions on the field but with the way the game had evolved. The reports are that the game is so much more fun. Ruck speed is so quick, the ball carrier is never wrapped up in the tackle so he can offload or place the ball to keep the game flowing.

“We’ve also seen the game become more evasive with ball carriers looking for space rather than contact. We know from studies in rugby league that when the ball carrier adopts an evasive action, in other words side-steps or spins, then the risk for both the ball carrier and the tackler drops by 80 per cent.

“Because the ball carrier can’t drop low into contact they’re forced to look for space. Why would you look for contact if you have to stay upright? As for the tackler, we know from mouthguard data that head acceleration is lower the lower you tackle. So you’ve got a tackler going low and a ball carrier staying high and being tackled around the hips. That’s the safest place to be.”

The FFR’s report, which showed 63 per cent reduction in head collisions, failed to mention contacts between the ball carriers knee or hip and the tackler’s head. Tucker doesn’t not believe that this was necessarily intellectually dishonest, but he does say that he’d be interested in that data. He believes that there would naturally be an increase in these sorts of collisions.

Critics of the RFU believe that the board has made a drastic decision without enough research behind them. But, as Tucker says, “You paralyse the whole thing by asking for the evidence because you’ll never get the evidence if you don’t make the change.

Related

“It would be like people criticising a chicken before it’s hatched. It’s a double chicken-egg situation. And there was enough data. All the data that the RFU has used – from France, from New Zealand, from South Africa – is built of multiple studies themselves.

“The data is a little messy. They’re ecologically observational studies and not lab controlled studies. But the outcomes of those studies confirm that there is enough reason to believe the initial studies on risk, so it’s worth pursuing.

“I believe we’re facing the right direction. There is a question concerning how quickly one should move in that direction. But I don’t think you can challenge the direction we’re going.”

Part 2 of the interview will be published tomorrow…

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 6

Sam Warburton | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

Japan Rugby League One | Sungoliath v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Japan Rugby League One | Spears v Wild Knights | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 10 | Six Nations Final Round Review

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | How can New Zealand rugby beat this Ireland team

Beyond 80 | Episode 5

Rugby Europe Men's Championship Final | Georgia v Portugal | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 6 hours ago
Jake White: Are modern rugby players actually better?

This is the problem with conservative mindsets and phycology, and homogenous sports, everybody wants to be the same, use the i-win template. Athlete wise everyone has to have muscles and work at the gym to make themselves more likely to hold on that one tackle. Do those players even wonder if they are now more likely to be tackled by that player as a result of there “work”? Really though, too many questions, Jake. Is it better Jake? Yes, because you still have that rugby of ole that you talk about. Is it at the highest International level anymore? No, but you go to your club or checkout your representative side and still engage with that ‘beautiful game’. Could you also have a bit of that at the top if coaches encouraged there team to play and incentivized players like Damian McKenzie and Ange Capuozzo? Of course we could. Sadly Rugby doesn’t, or didn’t, really know what direction to go when professionalism came. Things like the state of northern pitches didn’t help. Over the last two or three decades I feel like I’ve been fortunate to have all that Jake wants. There was International quality Super Rugby to adore, then the next level below I could watch club mates, pulling 9 to 5s, take on the countries best in representative rugby. Rugby played with flair and not too much riding on the consequences. It was beautiful. That largely still exists today, but with the world of rugby not quite getting things right, the picture is now being painted in NZ that that level of rugby is not required in the “pathway” to Super Rugby or All Black rugby. You might wonder if NZR is right and the pathway shouldn’t include the ‘amateur’, but let me tell you, even though the NPC might be made up of people still having to pull 9-5s, we know these people still have dreams to get out of that, and aren’t likely to give them. They will be lost. That will put a real strain on the concept of whether “visceral thrill, derring-do and joyful abandon” type rugby will remain under the professional level here in NZ. I think at some point that can be eroded as well. If only wanting the best athlete’s at the top level wasn’t enough to lose that, shutting off the next group, or level, or rugby players from easy access to express and showcase themselves certainly will. That all comes back around to the same question of professionalism in rugby and whether it got things right, and rugby is better now. Maybe the answer is turning into a “no”?

35 Go to comments
j
john 9 hours ago
Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?

But here in Australia we were told Penney was another gun kiwi coach, for the Tahs…….and yet again it turned out the kiwi coach was completely useless. Another con job on Australian rugby. As was Robbie Deans, as was Dave Rennie. Both coaches dumped from NZ and promoted to Australia as our saviour. And the Tahs lap them up knowing they are second rate and knowing that under pressure when their short comings are exposed in Australia as well, that they will fall in below the largest most powerful province and choose second rate Tah players to save their jobs. As they do and exactly as Joe Schmidt will do. Gauranteed. Schmidt was dumped by NZ too. That’s why he went overseas. That why kiwi coaches take jobs in Australia, to try and prove they are not as bad as NZ thought they were. Then when they get found out they try and ingratiate themselves to NZ again by dragging Australian teams down with ridiculous selections and game plans. NZ rugby’s biggest problem is that it can’t yet transition from MCaw Cheatism. They just don’t know how to try and win on your merits. It is still always a contest to see how much cheating you can get away with. Without a cheating genius like McCaw, they are struggling. This I think is why my wise old mate in NZ thinks Robertson will struggle. The Crusaders are the nursery of McCaw Cheatism. Sean Fitzpatrick was probably the father of it. Robertson doesn’t know anything else but other countries have worked it out.

36 Go to comments
A
Adrian 11 hours ago
Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?

Thanks Nick The loss of players to OS, injury and retirement is certainly not helping the Crusaders. Ditto the coach. IMO Penny is there to hold the fort and cop the flak until new players and a new coach come through,…and that's understood and accepted by Penny and the Crusaders hierarchy. I think though that what is happening with the Crusaders is an indicator of what is happening with the other NZ SRP teams…..and the other SRP teams for that matter. Not enough money. The money has come via the SR competition and it’s not there anymore. It's in France, Japan and England. Unless or until something is done to make SR more SELLABLE to the NZ/Australia Rugby market AND the world rugby market the $s to keep both the very best players and the next rung down won't be there. They will play away from NZ more and more. I think though that NZ will continue to produce the players and the coaches of sufficient strength for NZ to have the capacity to stay at the top. Whether they do stay at the top as an international team will depend upon whether the money flowing to SRP is somehow restored, or NZ teams play in the Japan comp, or NZ opts to pick from anywhere. As a follower of many sports I’d have to say that the organisation and promotion of Super Rugby has been for the last 20 years closest to the worst I’ve ever seen. This hasn't necessarily been caused by NZ, but it’s happened. Perhaps it can be fixed, perhaps not. The Crusaders are I think a symptom of this, not the cause

36 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING 'Crikey': Son of league legend Martin Offiah picked by England U18s 'Crikey': Son of league legend Martin Offiah picked by England U18s
Search