Cut the anger and unite to tackle head trauma crisis
WHAT A seminal moment for rugby, here and everywhere. It is not just a fight for survival, it is an identity crisis too. A week since the RFU approved lowering of the legal tackle height to waist level in the semi-pro and community game from July 1, the aftershocks are still being felt and the debate rages on, along with loud, angry recriminations.
It is an emotive issue, but also a fiendishly complex scientific and medical one. Going against the grain, this column has some sympathy for the powers-that-be trying to find a perfect solution to the spectre of head trauma, when none exists.
Something has to change. Rugby cannot just accept that concussions, early- onset dementia and possible links to motor neurone disease go with the territory. The sport must try to be safer.
Those bellowing in fury have to grasp the gravity of the situation. This is an emergency, not least because former amateur players have joined ex-professionals in launching legal action against governing bodies.
All concerned with the wellbeing of the game must proceed in a spirit of co-operation, or extinction is inevitable, in this age of health and safety culture and litigation. What does rugby want to be, exactly? Sonny Bill Williams, the former All Black, weighed in by saying it is not an ‘evasion sport’. But why not? It can be.
MAnyyears ago, watching the visionary Brian Ashton coaching a group of junior players in Bucharest, the thrust of his message was simple — find space. Of course. It doesn’t have to be all about endless, pounding punishment, but that is the way the game has gone.
Change is vital, but it is always resisted. Suggest the abolition of the scrum as a contest and there is uproar, despite the off- putting grind of endless re-sets. Suggest a reduction of numbers on the field — perhaps to 12-a-side, as argued by this column — and the traditionalists are left foaming at the mouth.
yet, that could be a solution. More space equals fewer collisions, which in turns equals lighter, more nimble players, making more line-breaks. In the professional era, tacklers were ordered to start aiming higher to combat offloads — but rugby should be far more concerned about the threat to the health of its participants than any threat to defences.
In France, the tackle height was lowered to waist level in the community game in 2019, after the death of four players the previous year jolted the authorities into action. There have been marked reductions in concussion levels. According to leading sports scientist Ross Tucker, the data overwhelmingly supports the change.
Extensive research suggests avoiding head- on-head collisions is the priority as it poses the biggest danger. Tacklers aiming low are vulnerable to head- on-knee contact, but this is deemed to be the lesser evil. It is not perfect, but the risk reduces. The RFU have faced a fierce backlash from community clubs, partly due to a lack of consultation and a lack of explanatory evidence, which they insist will be forthcoming.
The void has been filled by prophecies of doom and there is bound to be a period of chaos in the lower leagues as players, coaches and referees grapple with a seismic cultural shift. The semi-pro and amateur game is, in effect, being used as a testing ground and it has not gone down well.
But, in his detailed report on seven years of scientific research, Tucker — who has worked extensively with World Rugby — said: ‘The RFU need to commit to this trial for two years, minimum.’
On overcoming resistance, he added: ‘Some people will give you 10 reasons why something won’t work, whereas the French were looking for 10 new ways to make it work better.’
There was also an interesting comment about rugby being an evasion sport, not just a contest of savage collisions. Once again citing evidence from France, he said: ‘The game has become more evasive. Ball-carriers are no longer allowed to drop down and charge into a tackler, so they have sought other solutions to the problem of being tackled.’
This should not be seen as a loss of rugby’s soul. There is scope for the game to be founded on elusive movement, as well as thunderous power.
If nobody will consider cutting the numbers on the field, then forcing them to tackle much lower is a reasonable ploy. It might not work, but there is sound logic for giving it a try and the sooner the RFU explain it to community clubs the better.
A fear is that grassroots players will quit the sport in droves. But if nothing is done and rugby goes on tolerating head trauma, the concerns of anxious parents will mean the next generations never start playing at all.
Whenever the outrage subsides, all those who love the sport have to rally together to stop it sleepwalking towards the cliff edge.