Waistline tackling is the death of rugby
For 20 years playing rugby has been a pillar of my life. It is no exaggeration to say that, yesterday, the RFU destroyed it.
From the 2023/24 season, all rugby played in the National Leagues and below will be a poor impression of the game we played the year before, and the many decades before that, with the tackle height reduced to waist height or below.
Furthermore, the ball carrier will be ‘encouraged to play in a way not to endanger the tackler with a sudden change of height’, whatever that mealy-mouthed, committee-designed statement means. To speak more plainly, they have killed our game, and done so with without consulting us.
Don’t get me wrong, there will have been some sort of ‘consultation’ with tame academics, activists, and a range of ‘experts’ whose mind was already made up.
Lots will be made of these people’s ‘expertise’ and anyone questioning the decisions will be met with derision. They will be browbeaten and told they don’t understand the context, much like I was when I asked someone partly responsible for this decision for an explanation.
Naturally, the so-called experts will totally disregard what the players who play the game want. In fact, that is the least of the experts’ concerns. Instead, we are told it’s for our own good and something to do with concussions. We are expected to believe that the game we have played for over a hundred years has suddenly got too dangerous for amateurs to play.
Concussions are a huge issue but not for the amateur game, which is as safe or safer than it ever has been. The real issue is the 20-stone mega-athletes in the pro game, repeatedly hitting each other with ever-increasing force every year. The difference between this and the amateurs could not be starker, from the obvious difference in the force of the hit, to the number of hits and also the variety of hits that cause concussion. For professionals, it’s not just direct head contact that is concussive.
However, the pro game is going to be unaffected by the changes in the law. Why? Because that’s what pays the lucrative RFU executive salaries. In fact, it’s money, not safety, that is the driving force behind the changes of RFU policy – but the precise reason for the actions is a little more complex.
The RFU have a cultish mantra of ‘growing the game’. This sounds good – but what does it mean?
Does it mean more participation? Does it mean bigger sponsorships? Does it mean more eyes on the screen while the game is being played?
Presumably, it means a bit of all three. However, this mind-boggling decision is going to lead to two classes of people in rugby: Those that play the sport, and those that consume the output.
If you’re not good enough for the top level then hard luck, the game you love is no longer available to you.
However, there is a small problem. The consumers the RFU has are not the consumers the RFU wants. Rugby’s most die-hard fans are drawn from rugby clubs. Rugby clubs, if you have not noticed, are full of players and therein lies the problem.
Community rugby will welcome absolutely anyone into a club but the game itself is not inclusive in the literal sense. Once you apply the filter of playing rugby to the general population you’re left with a not-very diverse crowd, certainly not a demographic the RFU can put on a pitching deck to a major corporate sponsor.
Traditionally, sponsors come to sports to appropriate their values. Now the tables have turned, and sporting bodies are demeaningly begging brands for cash by professing their cultural alignment with them, desperately trying to mimic the sponsor’s purported values.
Putting it bluntly, products want to be associated with a diverse group of mixed-educated elites, not a clubhouse full of large men, post-game who have had a couple of beers.
People who pay attention to this stuff might have noticed that the RFU have been on the path of disassociation from its members for a long time.
CEO Bill Sweeney is embarrassed by the traditional song ‘Swing Low, Sweet Chariot’ refusing to sing it as 80,000 fans belt it out in disagreement. Another example is the rebranding of the Saxon’s to England A, so the RFU could go a ‘different way’.
So we are presented with a quandary: What do you do if the reason you can’t ‘grow the game’ and appease sponsors is the very nature of the game itself? Easy: You change the game.
By making a new game that removes the risk you can appeal to a whole new range of people who might not have fancied the game in its previous full-blooded incarnation.
Changing contact rugby to entice new participation is not the only trick the RFU has up its sleeve. We have seen the RFU making encroachments into the world of touch rugby, strongly suggesting, with a menacing hint of compulsion, that every club should offer a touch rugby option. Interestingly they also want to look at ‘safeguarding’ for touch players to ensure they are not ‘pressured’ into playing contact. This tells you everything you need to know about the attitude towards the community game, and those that play it and rely upon it.
The RFU are intent on trying to manufacture an army of diverse, drone consumers to fund the professional game. Of course, this will never work.
In America the NBA has been trying to convince its sponsors of their diverse credentials for some time, experimenting with new geographies and demographics for a decade.
The results were damaging and wholly avoidable. Rather than stimulating an exciting new fan base, the NBA ended up simply exploiting their current fan base. As ever more cash is needed to ‘grow the game’ the sports authorities end up instead ‘fracking the game’, trying to squeeze ever more money from fewer fans. This opens the door to companies that do not respect their audience or the sport, like gambling companies, alcohol firms or, in the most extreme case: fraudulent crypto exchanges.
This will be the inevitable route for rugby when it abandons the millions of fans for the fabricated body of cool young things just dying to fall in love with a sport they have never heard of. . All in the name of ‘growing the game’. You cannot kill something and claim to grow it.
One must ask how the RFU can simultaneously be the guardian of the community game and the promoter of the pro game when their needs are so different – and in this case diametrically opposed. It’s a clear conflict of interest.
You can understand the dilemma for the RFU. Why would you want to focus on the paltry revenues in community rugby in Wakefield, Bury or Exeter when you could stay in London enjoying big-ticket sporting events and all the associated benefits? It’s a bit like expecting the NFL commissioner to care about local high school football on Superbowl weekend. Of course, quite rightly, the NFL is in no way responsible for amateur sport. But the RFU are!
In the case of the RFU they see their profitable business as Twickenham. Anything that happens in the provinces, the small towns, the lands far, far away from HQ – Well, they could do without that. Again, conveniently forgetting that they are the custodians.
If we had a body that was set up exclusively to look after the amateur game and preserve it rather than chase corporate cash, would this have been allowed to happen? Absolutely not.
The reality is the RFU have been totally reactive to the concussion debate, putting caution and risk mitigation ahead of the interest of their members. At no point has the RFU come out swinging at the likes of Allyson Pollock, Darren White and Chris Nowitski. Indeed, it is fair to say they have betrayed every player, every club and every local union by prioritising the campaigning of activists like this over their own members.
Furthermore, the RFU says that the changes are science-based. I am sure they are, but no one asked for this. Whereas rugby is united in wanting to know more about concussion prevention for the professionals there was zero clamour for research into the amateur game that has been the same for decades. No one is forced to play amateur rugby, no one I have ever met was uncomfortable with the risks we take every weekend playing rugby, in fact – outside of a handful of Twitter lunatics – I have not met a single person who has ever asked for this law change.
Still, some will look at this and say: ‘What’s the problem, we’ll see how it goes’ but we know from the pandemic that once a player stops it’s hard to get them back. The big difference between now and then is that back then people did not have the option to replace rugby. Now they do, and when the RFU realise their mistake these players won’t be returning.
You can also bet that when this all comes out in the wash, nobody will be held accountable for this. They will hide behind all manner of confected data, shrugging their shoulders while explaining to marketing executives how their demographic is now more suitable to promote their products.
What they won’t be able to admit is what they had to ruin in the process.
Comments on RugbyPass
Beaches? In Cardiff? Where?
1 Go to commentsHe is right , the Crusaders will be a threat. Scott Barrett, ( particularly), Fergus Burke , Codie Taylor, ( from sabbatical) etc due back soon for the Crusaders. There are others like Zach Gallagher too. People can right the Crusaders off, Top 8 , here we come !!
1 Go to commentsWe will always struggle for money to match the other sides but the least the WRU can do is invest properly in Welsh rugby. Too much has been squandered on vanity projects like the hotel and roof walk amongst others which will never see a massive return. Hanging the 4 pro sides out to dry over the last decade is now coming back to bite the WRU financially as well as on the pitch. You reap what you sow.
1 Go to commentsWhat do you get if you cross a doctor with a fish? A plastic sturgeon
14 Go to commentsWhat happened to feleti Kaitu’u? Hasnt played in a while right?
1 Go to commentsGregor I just can’t agree with you. You are trying to find something that just isn’t there. Jordie Barrett has signed until 2028. By the end of that he would have spent probably 11-12 years on Super Rugby and you say he can’t possibly have one season playing somewhere else. It is absurd. What about this scenario, the NZR play hard ball and he decides to leave and play overseas. How would that affect the competition. There seems to be an agenda by certain journalists to push certain agendas and don’t like it when it’s not to their liking. I fully support the NZR on this. Gregor needs to get a life.
2 Go to commentsHope he stays as believe he can do a great job.
1 Go to commentsMake what step up? Manie has a World Cup winner’s medal around his neck and changed the way the Springboks can play. He doesn’t have anything to prove to anyone. The win record of the Boks with him in the team is tremendous. Sacha can be wonderful and I hope he has a very succesful Bok career, but comparing him to Manie in terms of the next Bok flyhalf is very strange. Manie is the incumbent (not the next) and doing pretty incredibly.
1 Go to comments00 😍 U
1 Go to commentsSabbaticals have helped keep NZ’s very best talent in the country on long term deals - this fact has been left out of this article. Much like the articles calling to allow overseas players to be selected, yet can only name one player currently not signed to NZR who would be selected for the ABs. And in the entire history of NZ players leaving to play overseas, literally only 4 or 5 have left in their prime as current ABs. (Piatau, Evans, Hayman, Mo’unga,?) Yes Carter got an injury while playing in France 16 years ago, but he also got a tournament ending injury at the 2011 World Cup while taking mid-week practice kicks at goal. Maybe Jordie gets a season-ending injury while playing in Ireland, maybe he gets one next week against the Brumbies. NZR have many shortcomings, but keeping the very best players in the country and/or available for ABs selection is not one of them. Likewise for workload management - players missing 2 games out of 14 is hardly a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Again let’s use some facts - did it stop the Crusaders winning SR so many times consecutively when during any given week they would be missing 2 of their best players? The whole idea of the sabbatical is to reward your best players who are willing to sign very long term deals with some time to do whatever they want. They are not handed out willy-nilly, and at nowhere near the levels that would somehow devalue Super Rugby. In this particular example JB is locked in with NZR for what will probably (hopefully) be the best years of his career, hard to imagine him not sticking around for a couple more after for a Lions tour and one more world cup. He has the potential to become the most capped AB of all time. A much better outcome than him leaving NZ for a minimum of 3 years at the age of 27, unlikely to ever play for the ABs again, which would be the likely alternative.
2 Go to commentsJake White talks more sense than anything I've read in the last 5 years. Hope someone's listening.
10 Go to commentsThe Springboks tried going down the road of only picking home-based players and it was an unmitigated disaster in 2016 and 2017. Picking overseas-based players has been one of the main reason the Boks have done so well since 2018, not only because of the quality Rassie could call on, but because of the knowledge and experience those players brought into camp from England, France and Japan. With some of the big names playing abroad it also gave younger players in SA the chance to break through at franchise level. Would we have seen the emergence of a Ruan Nortje if RG and Lood were still at the Bulls? Not so sure. I understand why Jake would want to block players leaving since his job depends on good results but it’s an approach that would take Bok rugby back to the bad old days and no South African wants to see that.
10 Go to commentsExeter were thumped by 38 points. And they only had to hop on a train.
39 Go to commentsI am De Groot.
1 Go to commentsHad hoped you might write an article on this game, Nick. It’s a good one. Things have not gone as smoothly for ROG since beating Leinster last year at the Aviva in the CC final. LAR had the Top 14 Final won till Raymond Rhule missed a simple tackle on the excellent Ntamack, and Toulouse reaped the rewards of just staying in the fight till the death. Then the disruption of the RWC this season. LAR have not handled that well, but they were not alone, and we saw Pau heading the Top 14 table at one stage early season. I would think one of the reasons for the poor showing would have to be that the younger players coming through, and the more mature amongst the group outside the top 25/30, are not as strong as would be hoped for. I note that Romain Sazy retired at the end of last season. He had been with LAR since 2010, and was thus one of their foundation players when they were promoted to Top 14. Records show he ended up with 336 games played with LAR. That is some experience, some rock in the team. He has been replaced for the most part by Ultan Dillane. At 30, Dillane is not young, but given the chances, he may be a fair enough replacement for Sazy. But that won’be for more than a few years. I honestly know little of the pathways into the LAR setup from within France. I did read somewhere a couple of years ago that on the way up to Top 14, the club very successfully picked up players from the academies of other French teams who were not offered places by those teams. These guys were often great signings…can’t find the article right now, so can’t name any….but the Tadgh Beirne type players. So all in all, it will be interesting to see where the replacements for all the older players come from. Only Lleyd’s and Rhule from SA currently, both backs. So maybe a few SA forwards ?? By contrast, Leinster have a pretty clear line of good players coming through in the majority of positions. Props maybe a weak spot ? And they are very fleet footed and shrewd in appointing very good coaches. Or maybe it is also true that very good coaches do very well in the Leinster setup. So, Nick, I would fully concurr that “On the evidence of Saturday’s semi-final between the two clubs, the rebuild in the Bay of Biscay is going to take longer than it is on the east coast of Ireland”
11 Go to commentsWhat was the excuse for the other knockout blowouts then? Does the result not prove the Saints were just so much better? Wise call to put your eggs in one basket when you’ve got 2 comps simultaneously finishing.
39 Go to commentsReally hope Kuruvoli and his partner rock the Canes.
1 Go to commentsI wonder what impact Samson has had on their attack, as the team seems less prone to trundle it up the middle, take the tackle and then trundle it up again. I lost faith in the coach last year as the Rebelss looked like a 2nd/3rd rate South African team. I also disliked Gordon standing back, often ignored as the forward battle went on and on. Maybe its our Aussie way of not getting off our A***’s until the enemy is at the gate.
86 Go to commentsThanks for the write up. Great to see the Rebs winning, I am a little interested in how they will go against the remaining kiwi teams, I think they’ve only played Hurricanes and Highlanders but how great to see these players performing!! I also see Parling has a job beyond June 30! A good move by RA? Also how do you fix the Rebels previously scratchy defence?
86 Go to commentsbe smart - go black
14 Go to comments