Ex-Fylde Rugby Head Coach labels new tackle height law a “complete mess”
Former Fylde Rugby Head Coach, Mark Nelson, and current joint head coach, Chris Briers, shared their thoughts on rugby union’s new tackle height law change with Stuart McCracken
The Rugby Football Union announced revised plans for a new tackle height law, which will come into force from 1 July.
This came after the initial plans for a law change, stating players had to tackle below the waist, faced severe backlash from the rugby community back in January.
Picture of Lancashire Senior Mens Head Coach PIC: Stuart McCracken
Mark Nelson, former Fylde Rugby Head Coach, criticised the RFU for how the situation has been handled.
He said: “I think it’s a complete mess.
“I think they handled it badly.
“When I say they the people who put out the description of the new tackle law and how they communicated it just was absolute chaos.
“So it started off on a bad footing.
“It caused a lot of anger, which didn’t have to happen.”
Legal tackle height will now be changed to below the base of the sternum from the 1 July in the community game, which is from tier three of English rugby down
Pictures of what each tackle height looks like PIC: Savannah Lees
The current legal tackle height in operation in all tiers of English rugby is below the line of the shoulders, and current Fylde Rugby Joint Head Coach, Chris Briers believes the revised law change won’t impact the sport too much.
“I don’t think it’s a massive difference from what we’re doing already, in terms of the tackle height,” he said.
“It’s only a couple of inches lower than what we’re currently allowed to do anyway.
“I think had that language been used originally, then maybe, the uproar wouldn’t have been as big as it has been.”
The first law change proposed on 19 January by the RFU, came the same day the body had a lawsuit placed against it by 55 amateur players, who claimed they weren’t protected from permanent brain injuries such as dementia.
Nelson believes cases like this and possible financial claims were behind the reasoning for these law changes.
The 64-year-old said: “I’m not entirely sure that it’s not done to cover themselves from insurance claims either.
“They say we’ve had this evidence by experts, and I’m doing it in inverted commas now with experts.
“Experts say if they don’t take that expert advice and act upon it, and somebody sues them for getting dementia later in life, then they’re open to it because maybe a lawyer will say, why didn’t you act upon it?”
Only a week after announcing the first law change to waist height the RFU apologised for the ‘anger and concern’ it caused.
They have since went away and got feedback from clubs, players and coaches after around 300 clubs who formed a group called the Community Club’s Union submitted a no-confidence vote in the board and chief executive Bill Sweeney.
Briers had huge concerns on the previous proposed law change.
The 39-year-old said: “I thought the waist could cause problems and it could end up being dangerous for the tackler at times.
“There’s a lot of split second decisions you have to make as a tackler.
“The defender moves, changes direction, and all of a sudden you’ve got to drop your body height quite a long way, to hit someone round the waist.
“I thought if that was the case then there could be some issues there.
“And sort of the practicality of it as well, as the safety elements for the tackler.”
Nelson who coordinates Lancashire coaching believes the way the law change has been shared and developed wasn’t correct.
He said: “They suddenly thrown in the they’re talking about the sternum.
“They were talking about nipple height.
“They were talking about using the word belly.
“They were talking about using the word tummy and then suddenly out of nowhere they used the word base of sternum.
“Base of sternum what’s that?
“Why not sternum?
“Because as with a lot of things, the devil is in the detail, and you’ve got to try and imagine the game with this new law.”
Picture of a safe tackle under the new tackle height law PIC: Steve Haslett
Nelson who from his time at Fylde Rugby, knows many players from academies in Premiership clubs go out on loan at National One and Two clubs.
Nelson has concerns for players such as Tristan Woodman, who went on loan to Fylde while in Sale Sharks academy.
“There’s also going to be a lot of different problems when you get at the top end of the so-called community game,” he said.
“In National One, National Two where players sort of flick between Championship and the Premiership on loan or they play academy players.
“If their at Fylde for example or at Sale Sharks in the north-west and they’re training in one set of laws that Sale Sharks, train under, and then they go and play in National One, they’re going to be playing under another set of laws.”
According to a survey carried out by the RFU, following the backlash to the original plans, stated: “Almost two-thirds of respondents (62%) are concerned about the risk of concussion in the context of long-term brain health in rugby.”
This survey was undergone by YouGov and filled out by 270 coaches, players and as well as others involved in the game.
Nelson believes changes need to be made to training, like football, not the 80 minutes played on a Saturday.
He said: “I think a lot of the people who are getting dementia now, came from the mid-nineties when the game went professional, and it wasn’t the game itself, it was the training and the constant impact and disregard for head impacts.
“200 scrums a week and we did live contact sessions on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, when the game first went pro.
“I think you can never go back in time and change that, but I think that was stupid.
“So I think the regulation should be focused around how people train.
“For example, in football at certain age groups now they restrict heading practice, in training sessions quite markedly for that very reason.”
