RFU to reconsider waist-high tackle law after council claims it was misled

At a meeting on Thursday, Nigel Gillingham, the RFU president, apologised to the council - a group of 66 elected members that liaise between the club game and the governing body - and agreed that its new ruling would be put out for consultation. Yesterday (Friday), the RFU released a statement apologising for the anger it had caused in the community game. It is now possible that the tackle height could move up to the sternum.

Last week, the RFU announced that its new regulation - to bring the upper limit of the tackle to the waist - would come into force on July 1 across the community game. That led to a grassroots revolt because the governing body voted not to consult players, coaches or referees on the change first. The union, and its chief executive Bill Sweeney, are set to face a vote of no confidence after about 280 clubs formed the Community Clubs Union (CCU) to call for a special general meeting (SGM).

Despite the apology, many across the country are incensed by the handling of this issue and the CCU wants Sweeney to step down. “Bill Sweeney has shown he is no friend of the community game and has seriously undervalued [its] strength,” it said in a statement. “We will push for his resignation or removal via the SGM.”

Amid the anger prompted by the RFU’s announcement last week, the council members found themselves under fire. However, they were furious because they felt misrepresented.

On Monday last week, when the council met to hear the evidence in favour of bringing down the height of the tackle from its present limit - across the shoulders - they were persuaded by the strength of the data presented to them. At the conclusion of the meeting, they then made their historic vote to bring down the tackle height.

However, the word “waist” was not in the voting resolution. It was only on Thursday last week, when the RFU made its public announcement, that the word “waist” appeared.

As the row escalated over the past week, councillors have found themselves talking to their member clubs and having to defend a position that they had not actually voted upon.

Their sense of outrage was clear at Thursday’s meeting, which some said went a long way to quelling community anger. The RFU executive acknowledged it had made an error and the topic was then put back up for discussion.

This shift in position represents a huge embarrassment for the RFU. It had been criticised for not going into a process of consultation with the clubs. Now it has conceded significant ground: not only will it consult with the clubs, but it will revisit the new legal tackle height. One source said the RFU statement had triggered “World War Three” with council members being accused of “killing the game”.

“We agree that we need to do something about the tackle height for futureproofing the game, but the wording will be an experimental law to lower the tackle height with consultation from the game,” the source told The Times.

“Lowering the tackle height to below the sternum won’t affect the game that much. At community level you don’t get many high shots nowadays anyway. We just need to change the narrative on that.”

At the meeting last Monday, only 49 of the 66 council members voted, with many attending the Rugby Black List awards ceremony at the House of Lords. The decision to change the tackle height was presented by the RFU as a unanimous decision, which implied all 66 council members had voted.

The Times reported last week that a number of council members had also argued that meetings of this importance had to be held face-to-face, and not via Zoom.

Staffordshire RFU tabled a two-part motion at Thursday’s meeting: for the waist high law to be fully rescinded and to ensure the community game must be consulted before any changes to the game are made in the future. The proposal requires the support of 19 other council members by February 1.

In a statement, released yesterday (Friday), the RFU confirmed that it was reassessing the law change and apologised to the community game.

“In our desire to act quickly to reduce head impacts and concussions in the community game … we have upset many of you who are the champions, volunteers, and ambassadors of our game,” the statement read. “We fully acknowledge we got the engagement wrong, and we are truly sorry.

“In making our decision we were aware that France have lowered the tackle height, New Zealand will be doing so and World Rugby supports this approach. We, like the French, used the term ‘waist and below’; this has caused misunderstanding and confusion. We would now like the game to help us define how we describe a lower tackle height to reflect what the research is telling us in a way that is understood by all.

“We will begin a series of forums and workshops with players, coaches, match officials and volunteers to explain and develop the details of the domestic law variation.

“A large body of scientific evidence demonstrates the risk of head injury and concussion for players can be reduced by lowering the tackle height to prevent head on head contact. However, we also accept the rugby community has other concerns [about what] this change may bring. We will start inviting players, coaches, match officials and volunteers to these forums from next week, so we can all work together.”

-The Times

Originally published as RFU to reconsider waist-high tackle law after council claims it was misled