I was prompted to think about this due to the horrible injury Ben Evans suffered in the Saints v Wire game. First, let me be clear that I thought the tackle was innocent, in the sense that there was no intent to injure at all. I don't think the various tacklers were necessarily aware of the position Evans had found himself in. This thread isn't about that. It's more about the sort of development of the tackle we've seen in SL in the last 5 years.



I am increasingly concerned about the way tackling has evolved in super league. There's always been an element to the tackle of controlling the speed of the PTB, and this used to involve the first tackler seeking to stand up the ball carrier with a ball-and-all tackle, then the second man would come in to put him on the deck, with both tacklers on top, controlling the collision. There's always some risk, but generally injuries would take place at the point of collision, rather than in the grounding of the ball carrier.



This then evolved with the introduction of wrestling techniques, (of which some - putting pressure on joints - were rapidly and rightly outlawed), which involved trying to consciously manoeuvre the tackled player not only while still standing, but also while he's already on the ground. This introduces an additional risk, as limbs and torsos are twisted. Referees are watching out for this sort of thing, but it's hard to police.



What I seem to be seeing more and more of now, however, is first contact by one or two tacklers stopping the man standing up, and then an additional two or three bodies in [inot to put him on the deck, but to push him back in the collision [/iwhile he is effectively helpless, or even part grounded. At the same time, using wrestling techniques to manipulate his position so that he ends up underneath three tacklers to control the PTB speed. It's this method which I think is responsible for what seems to be a significant increase in serious injuries - particularly leg injuries - in our pro game. This is particularly the case because ball carriers are coached to find the floor, so often will go into a collision partly bent forward. Then the first tackler will actually physically hold the carrier up to prevent the ball hitting the ground, in order to give his teammates time to arrive at the tackle and engage in what follows. Which means that the carrier is then already bent at the waist, but is about to have the equivalent of 60-70 stones of weight (literally half a ton) applied to him as the tacklers seek to drive him back and also end up on top of him. I often see players being bent backwards with legs bent at the knee and ankles pinned beneath their haunches, while three tacklers drive the upper torso backwards. That's enormous pressure on knee and ankle joints.



Watch the next game, and look to see the number of times when a ball-carrier is swamped with three or even four tacklers, and has at least one leg pinned stationary on the ground, while his body is being twisted in a different direction by two or three additional tacklers seeking to drive him back and put him underneath them all. It's pretty gruesome to watch.



In a collision sport like ours, injuries will always be part of the game. However, I do genuinely think that the tackling techniques which combine wrestling, multiple-tacklers, and trying to force the man back in the tackle simultaneously, are increasingly dangerous. Thankfully, it's still very rare in the amateur games I ref, because players are rarely fit or drilled enough to get more than 2 tacklers into the collision, and not usually powerful enough to engage in serious driving back of the halted player. But in the pro game I think we're approaching a situation in which we need to consider rule changes to the tackle to prevent horrendous injuries such as that Evans suffered.

What rule exactly could you bring in though that would prevent that injury? IMO your point may be valid, but any link to that tackle is weak to say the least.



I've had a big problem with cannonball tackles for years, since Maguire started coaching Wigan to do it so aggressively. That kind of thing is genuinely horrific and dangerous. I don't however see the wrestle and the attempts to get players down on their backs as being dangerous, the rate of serious injury is minute, the injury to Evans was a freak accident.

I don't want to focus on the Evans tackle. As I said, it was unintentional in my view. The point I'm making here is that tackling techniques have evolved to make all sorts of unintentional injuries more likely. Historically, RL has had fewer serious joint/back/neck injuries than RU, and the reason for that was that we didn't have a contested scrum, or large rucks/mauls. A lot of these injuries occur in situations where the injured player was not in control of his body's position, and had a large weight exerting pressure on him. The driving gang-tackle is introducing those sort of pressures into League in a much more frequent way, in my view.





I think there are a couple of things one could do :



- It would be relatively straightforward, for example, to impose a limit of 3 tacklers in any tackle. That doesn't eliminate the risk of driving back or bending bodies, but it does reduce it. Theoretically you could set a maximum number of two at any one time, which would have the interesting side-effect of making an offloading game much more likely, which might be entertaining.



- We could also have referees calling held much faster. At the moment, the ball carrying arm has to hit the floor, or the player has to visibly succumb to the tackle. Referees could be given much more discretion so that if the ball carrier is stopped, and tacklers are clearly trying to drive him back, as opposed to complete the tackle, then refs could call held quickly, with penalties if tacklers follow through anyway. Because a player who is "held" standing up plays the ball faster than one who is grounded, this would provide an incentive to coaches to get their players to ground the player quickly, rather than holding him up for the driving gang tackle.

You would be lucky to see 10 tackles a game at the moment, the rest is grappling ,wrestling and trying to get a penalty by whatever means. Add to that the numberof "knock ons" in 3 man + tackles. Nobody can convince me that it isn't stripped or pushed at by a defender, the odds are against it.

Simple way to improve tackling is to penalise all shots to the head, accidental or not and a minimum of 15 minutes in the sin bin.

That would focus a few minds and get coaches to coach and players to learn new techniques which wont cause them problems.



Never happen though.

If the refs suddenly start calling held faster, then it would resolve this issue, but the Sky clowns and RL players alike would moan about refs blowing too early, before the tackle is completed.



Lets be clear both attacking and defending players are culpable for bringing this about. It's a natural progression from the way the game used to be played with quick play the balls catching defences on the back foot. 10 years ago, people bemoaned teams scooting from dummy half and the quick taps and teams being on the back foot from quick play the balls. Well you could argue this is the natural progression from that. I imagine as the game keeps moving forwards, we will see another shift as one style counters the next.

Agree entirely Roy. I cringe when I see some of the tackles and I don't mean the big hits, it's the ones where the ball carrier is stopped, held and then pushed back.



It sounds a bit incongruous with a pro sport but we have to continuously hold defenders at least partially responsible for the safety of the ball carrier.



Fortunately the players do a lot of flexibility training which helps mitigate some of these issues but I still think it's just a matter of time before we see a horrific injury from bending/pushing/cannonball tackles.



Slightly OT but I also think we're still running a fine line with head injuries.

I have had concerns for while when players are pulling at one leg to turn a player so as to delay the play the ball. I think it has come about along with the wrestling tactics to combat the head long rush to speed up the ruck by te ref's. To my mind a simple way to prevent injury is to police the ruck correctly. Penalise the voluntry tackle or call surrender & allow the tacklers more time to get set (to many players dive to the ground to get a quick play the ball) it should be a players duty to remain upright & make ground, make the tackled player play the ball with their foot & penalise rolling the ball backwards with the hand. All these are in the rule book but just not applied correctly. If we did this the defense should have plenty of time to get set & would not need to waste energy wrestling & putting undue strain on the ball carriers limbs which is where the injurys are comming from (IMO).

This is what I mean, players in both attack and defence will do what they can to get the best advantage.



So attacking players try to offload the ball, to counter this tackling players hit higher in the hope of clamping the ball, result is more head high shots as they are aiming at a place between the chest and the neck.



Attacking players try to get a quick play the ball, to counter this defending players will try to hold up the player in the tackle, before dumping to the ground. The result is a wrestle which can put players into restrained positions.



Attacking hookers, scooting at players not set at the play the ball, leads to more shoving and pushing at the play the ball as the defenders try to organise the release of the play.



You could go on, the chicken wing and attempt to roll a player onto his back to give the defending line more time to get set.



There are also rule inconsistencies. Defending players cannot shoulder charge, but attacking players will run with a body position very much like a shoulder charge.



Do we go back to unlimited tackles, taking away the need to get quick play the balls as you can take your time getting up field?



I don't think there is a simple answer, other than to apply the rules as best we can.



Where joints are being targeted is an easy rule to pick out. ie chicken wings and cannonballs.



Where legs are lifted, or players wrestled to a standstill and dropped is far more difficult.



You can lift a players legs one on one and dump a player on his back - add in a second player and that lifting of the legs pivots on the second player and it can quickly turn into a spear without any intention to do so.



Maybe 2 refs are the answer with one stood over the play the ball to judge the hold more efficiently.

See here for aftermath of injury m.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/11875284._/

See here for aftermath of injury m.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/11875284._/

Would you still say that if it's your team's full back trying to get into the field of play from the in-goal, though? IMO the voluntary tackle rule could be done way with; it's a law that's virtually never applied anyway. It's difficult to see what rule changes would bring in the things you'd like to see, and I agree that the refs calling 'held' quickly is the best, if imperfect, solution.



I do think that the fairly modest changes to refereeing brought in this season in the NRL have improved the spectacle considerably. In this case, yes, I think we should slavishly copy the Aussies.

7-tackle rule as well.

Yep I'd agree we need 2 refs (not necessarily the way the NRL do it) and I think you're right on the held call too. We need more situations where a player is called held to avoid some of the situations. We also need the held call to be accompanied by time for the markers and defence to have a chance to get back into position. As a play the ball following a held call is often pretty quick and can result in an easy dummy half scoot, so naturally defenders don't want a held call as its done at the moment.

I think a very simple rule change would be to adapt an existing rule. At present, if the carrier is held up and the defenders begin to drive him back, then as soon as one of the carrier's own teammates adds weight to the tackle, the ref calls "held" and the tackle stops. We could simply make that into any player - once the tackler is stopped, if any further player joins the tackle, then we shout held, and the tackle ceases. The ref would have to be on his toes to get the call in early, and so I agree that a second ref policing the ruck might be useful here.



There's a duty of care to players issue. I'm not blaming anyone. Both attacking and defensive tactics have led to this place, and while that doesn't matter so much at an amateur level for the reasons stated, I think at the top level, the players' own fitness and strength is combining with these tactics to create career- and long-term-health-threatening issues. We've taken important steps forward this season by taking head injuries and concussion much more seriously. I think that this is an area where a little more proactive refereeing with only minor changes to the rulebook, if any, could help protect more players from injury.



If a side-effect of that was that attackers were encouraged to run upright and look for an offload, rather than aim for the floor and a quick PTB, then I can't help thinking that wouldn't be a bad thing for entertainment value either.