MANY thanks to Paul Rees for turning the spotlight onto the issue of tackle heights in the professional game, containing many revealing comments from Premiership DoRs.
It is clear player welfare is a high priority for them, but it is equally clear that there is a strong resistance to the idea of the tackle height reduction introduced in community rugby being extended to elite levels. Paul correctly states changes are being driven by legal actions by former players, based on claims that governing bodies failed to take reasonable steps to protect them from injuries caused by repetitive blows.
As such evidence has appeared to mount, it has clearly become much more important for regulators to be seen to be taking decisive action. It can be argued – as the quoted DoRs all do – that changed refereeing practices and increased emphasis on tackle height and general techniques in training have had a positive impact without a change to the applicable laws. Much is also made of the potentially increased risk of head clashes for tacklers, if double tacklers are both forced to go low.
My immediate concerns, however, centre on the prospect of a prolongation of the operation of two different tackle laws in the game. Lawyers representing any current professional players that fall victim to permanent neurological injuries will surely look to exploit this situation, asking the not unreasonable question of why measures predicted to increase the safety of community rugby players would not have similarly benefited elite players who, by virtue of their greater size and speed are subject to more violent collisions. If such an argumentation were sustained, the resultant huge settlements could potentially bring the whole game to its financial knees.
It might be that experiences in the community game will not bear out the analysis of World Rugby's chief medical officer that led to the formal lowering of tackle height in order to reduce the incidence of concussions, but can the game afford to take the risk that they do?
More fundamentally, do we really want to entrench a situation where different levels of the game are played under varying laws?
■ I WENT to Chinnor v Plymouth Albion last Saturday. Even though Plymouth were dominant for most of the game, all the spectators around me did not swear at the ref or the opposition, and engaged in civilised conversation with me about the game, making for a thoroughly enjoyable experience. This was more laudable as Chinnor were unbeaten at home this season until this match. Well done Chinnor supporters! This is how club rugby should be enjoyed.
