Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Ross Tucker: 'The public have made their mind up without looking at the evidence'

(Photo by Warren Little/Getty Images)

The ‘Ship of Thesus’ is a thought experiment that predates the birth of rugby union by more than 1,700 years. Our oldest record of the conundrum comes to us from the ancient Greek philosopher, Plutarch, who wondered how many alterations a ship can undertake before it ceases to be the same ship.

ADVERTISEMENT

Centuries later, the Englishman Thomas Hobbes extended the idea and ever since the notion has proliferated the discourse in cognitive psychology, quantum physics and, most recently, the fate of an egg shaped ball.

At the time of writing the Rugby Football Union is facing a mutiny from 250 amateur clubs across England as the organisation’s CEO, Bill Sweeny, must now deal with the threat of a no confidence vote.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

The source of the clubs’ ire is a controversial tackle law that will reduce the height limit of a legal hit in the amateur game from the shoulders to the waist in order to reduce head collisions. The latest reports suggest that this law could also take hold at the elite game, thereby changing the dynamics of the sport forever.

But how much change is too much? For Ross Tucker, a respected sports scientist and consultant for World Rugby, there is no obvious answer.

“This entire conversation has been framed in absolute terms, and it shouldn’t be the case,” Tucker says. “It’s not about reducing concussions. It’s about how much you are prepared to reduce concussions until it’s a different sport.

“On the one extreme you can do nothing. But that’s not how sport works. Rugby has constantly been evolving in the professional era in an effort to make the game more safe.

ADVERTISEMENT

“On the other extreme you could eliminate contact altogether and just play touch rugby. The challenge for those running the sport is deciding where you fall on the spectrum. It becomes a cost benefit analysis. What price are you willing to pay to change the game? No one knows but it’s clear that change is required.”

Yesterday we analysed the data that proves without doubt that lowering the tackle height reduces concussions on the field as well as long term brain injuries. Cards have failed to act as a deterrent, though Tucker believes that we’re still too early in the experiment to make an adequate judgment if sin-bins and sending offs have actually altered behaviour.

World Rugby’s High Tackle Framework was launched in 2019 and the Head Contact Process was initiated last year. These are among the two best tools the game has to solve one of its major problems, but they’re still in their infancy. Besides, inconsistent application of the high tackle laws have proved problematic.

“The premise is that sanction equals a strong message which equals behavioural change,” Tucker says. “If you break that chain you lose consistency. Look at the Henry Slade incident [where the player escaped punishment after receiving a red card for a clear high shot on Kurt-Lee Arendse during the Champions Cup this month]. What message does that send?”

ADVERTISEMENT

“Any law requires buy-in. Without it you’re in trouble. And the English are facing a problem now because the rule change has already been met with so much resistance. Implementing it now will be so difficult as everyone has rejected it out of hand.

“The public have seemingly made their mind up without looking at the evidence. They’ve reached a verdict and concocted a worst case scenario but haven’t allowed it to play out. This is being driven by emotion rather than logic.”

It remains to be seen how many amateur players leave the game. Taking the temperature on social media (an admittedly blistering environment at the best of times) it would seem that a mass exodus is imminent.

But it’s worth asking how many players will stay once the game is made less dangerous. Or how many parents will now allow their children to join a club, safe in the knowledge that their risk of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in later life has drastically diminished.

Personally I’m in favour of the new law change primarily because I am a father. I love rugby – I was reared on the euphoria of the Springboks’ 1995 World Cup win – and I have a young son who loves nothing more than running around and crashing into objects. For now it’s stuffed toys but I’ve had flashes envisioning him doing the same under the bright lights of Twickenham.

Though I’ll admit to a double tug. Part of what makes the game so appealing lies in its brutality.

Monster hits prod the same part of our brain that is stimulated when we watch violent films. It’s not a blood lust, per se, but we’re at least on the same spectrum. If we lose that, do we lose something that is integral to rugby’s soul?

Jess Breach
England’s Jess Breach lies covered in blood after a challenge during the TikTok Women’s Six Nations match at Mattioli Woods Welford Road Stadium, Leicester. Picture date: Sunday April 24, 2022. (Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)

A counter argument would focus on the tradeoff. As Tucker points out, the comparable experiment in France has produced a faster game with more offloads, more passes, fewer kicks and a dramatic increase in the speed of the game. Ball carriers are compelled to target space rather than look for contact. Scrum-halves are duty bound to reach the ruck in even less time than they otherwise would.

Forget the knocks to the head. This version of rugby is sure to bring in more fans looking for contributions to the highlights reel. And if we still keep line-outs, scrums, mauls and jackals, are we really sacrificing that much?

“The RFU missed a trick because they needed to make a decisive call but they also needed to be more transparent about their own thinking,” Tucker adds. “Instead, there has been major confusion.

“But I also think they needed to make a decisive call and the idea of creating change by consensus is impossible. If the demand from the community is to be involved in the decision making, that’s what will paralyse the whole thing into inaction. It’s impossible to find consensus on complex issues, because the people you’re asking don’t have the full set of information with which to contribute their decisions.

Related

“The other point is that people are insisting on seeing the evidence for themselves. I guess this is normal and good, but it’s not being done with noble intent. The experts are in positions for a reason, and decision making is the reason. So what’s happened is the undermining of leadership because of mistrust.”

Perhaps your view on the matter depends on which side of the culture war you peg your tent. Has rugby gone soft? Or is it changing too slowly? Should players accept their fate and accept the risk? Or do we need to protect them at all costs, even if the price we pay is creating an unrecognizable game?

I don’t have an answer. Plutarch, Hobbes and smarter people than me have struggled with the same questions.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

6 Comments
M
Michael 740 days ago

This new law adds another complication, and that is the ball carrier "ducks" into the tackle, and bingo, head contact even though the tackler was obeying the law.
How much actual thought and discussion went into introducing this law.
The history of law changes by the rugby administrators has been to just "add layers" like an onion - result, referees need a very good memory!

G
GrahamVF 742 days ago

During ten years of rugby I was concussed twice. Both times was when my head made contact with my opponent's hip bone as he fell on my head. Rugby has an integral element of competing for space through physical domination. If you have to drive through the tackle with your head down, that puts the tackler at a serious risk. it's might work for 60 kg kids but not in the fury of the clash between 100kg athletes. Even if this insane law change does get any traction which I seriously doubt, this is going to end up in classical case of unintended consequences.

K
Kristal 745 days ago

Who are the "experts" you refer to. Certainly not people who have played the game. Everyone knows statistics can be manipulated to suit an argument. The French experiment apparently worked by reducing head contact by 63%. Why on earth wasn't it by 100%! Of course the "experts" also don't reveal the number of concussions caused by knees and hips, let alone knee and other leg injuries. So let everyone see the full evidence not the bits cherry picked by the "experts"

g
gary 746 days ago

No, it hasnt been rejected by the public without looking at the evidence. It has been rejected by the public( and by the public, i am assuming you mean the thousands of ex player who also object) because it fundamentally changes the "CONTACT" game we have come to love , play and watch. Let the "renowned medical experts" stop Boxing, mma,ufc etc ( with the DELIBERATE aim of inducing concussion to an opponent!) and i MAY listen, but pack in telling me and everyone else who disagree chapter and verse with this excessively radical change to the game has no alternatives.( and all liberal, wet nursed, non competive, medical know alls can take a running jump!)

C
CJNeil 747 days ago

the risk of serious knee injury could go up as well and as a amateur player id rather have a concussion over torn knee ligaments rugby league it is i guess since union players already dive straight into peoples knees majority of the time with out wrapping arms in tackles which refs dont seem to call at amateur or pro level.

P
Poe 748 days ago

Yet it seems it's the players that are voicing the concerns. Waist tackles are going to be leg tackles and if that's the recommendation for how to tackle oncoming runners head on I can see a hole in the logic.

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

M
Mzilikazi 2 hours ago
Western Force and ACT Brumbies looking for signs of progress in Super Rugby Pacific

It’s good to be at the start of the season, to be tipping the games again. Thanks for the article Brett. An interesting and, for me, informative read, as I have not kept up with all the news of all the teams, really only Qld.


Whatever happens in the search for a new coach for the WB’s, all of Les Kiss, Stephen Larkham and Dan McKellar will be coaching their respective teams this year. I believe Kiss to be the best of the three, and by a significant margin(the bad result against the Chiefs in the playoffs last season the one scar), and that gives Qld., in my view, an extra edge.


I agree, Brett, that Qld. on paper, and on squad strength and experience, look the best bet for Australia. If Tim Ryan builds on last year, he could be a WB starter against the Lions. The locking strength and depth is approaching that of teams like Leinster, Toulouse etc…not as strong ofc, but in Super Rugby circles, yes.


I like the type of game Kiss is building. Really carrying on from where he was rudely interrupted at London Irish, when they fell over. The one game on tour where they beat Ulster was a significant pointer to where they are at. While not a top Ulster unit, it was still a very good team, not easy to beat in Belfast. Sadly the Bristol game was a training run, but still valuable in a way, as the group were touring, building systems and understanding.


One player I will be watching with interest is Finn Hurley at the Highlanders. He was brought to my attention a year ago by the grandson of a friend, who knew him at Otago Boys High in Dunedin. Small, but resilient, with a good boot, from what I have seen on clips, he should have a useful first full year as a Highlander.


Hope the Force do well… have always had a “soft spot” for them. But good luck to all franchises, and pray for no serious injuries….as I have done forever, as aplayer, then coach, and now long retired rugby fanatic 😀

2 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Ireland's Grand Slam tilt handed triple injury boost Ireland's Grand Slam tilt handed triple injury boost
Search