So what's the case for the new tackle rules...is there new data

Actually I find no new studies. In fact an article published last year cited a 2008 study in the American Journal of Sports Medicine as the primary source. It was this study that seems to have been relied upon for the rule changes. But here are the major findings: . 1 The rate of injury per tackle was higher for tackles from behind, not high tackles per se. . 2 The carrier was most at risk from high or medium tackles from the front. . 3 The tackler is most at risk from low tackles. . 4 The degree of injury goes up with speed. . From that I conclude neck rolls in the mauls probably aren't high risk but clothes hanger type tackles from the front are dangerous. Nor are the slide up tackles likely to be dangerous....but get your head in the wrong position on a low tackle and you have a concusiion. . So should we exclude the low tackle, outlaw the tackle from behind, stop the scrum, disallow any ball contests by the kicking team, subject every phase to video scrutiny? Of course not. The rules were a decent balance before the latest change which now spoils the contest.

 What a total load of BS.
When the law changes was announced by World Rugby they said that a specific study was undertaken and the changes are based on that study. 
We all know that for Mozart the world ended in 2008  and subsequent to that nothing changed in World Rigby - so what else is new? 
However one also knows from where the comments come.   It comes from a guy who cares nothing for the safety of players with an open card to do what is patently illegal on the field of play, with a one week ban after the match was finished.  
Can one be that stupid?    

'There were 1348 injury assessments requiring only on-field treatment and 211 requiring player replacement. The inciting event and medical outcomes were matched to video records for 281 injuries. Injuries were most frequently the result of high or middle tackles from the front or side, but rate of injury per tackle was higher for tackles from behind than from the front or side. Ball carriers were at highest risk from tackles to the head-neck region, whereas tacklers were most at risk when making low tackles. The impact of the tackle was the most common cause of injury, and the head was the most common site, but an important mechanism of lower limb injuries was loading with the weight of another player. Rates of replacement increased with increasing player speed.' . From the American Journal of Sports Medicine.....based on a study by Kenneth Quarrie senior scientist for NZ Rugby. . .

 Mozart - so nothing happened after 2008.  The study may have been done purely because of non career threatening injuries be more frequent than those that actually threaten a players life or career.
The latest rules of World Rugby - according to statements made when they were introduced - was based on a research programme undertaken from 2011 to 2014 on the issue of dangerous play that threatens a players life or career.
You think that throttling a player is acceptable?   I suppose so after your vigorous support of Matfield during the WC semi.          
 

None of that research has been published in peer reviewed journals. I did find a summary of the non reviewed headline findings: . 611 HIA incidents were reviewed from 1,516 elite matches 76 per cent of HIA incidents occur in the tackle 72 per cent of HIA incidents in the tackle occur to the tackler Body position, speed and direction of tackle all influence risk . So less injuries were assessed than in the 2008 study, and the findings confirm . The tackler is most at risk . Speed is a factor. . So the smaller new study simply confirms what the 2008 study found

 Go to World Rugby and ask them for it - stooge.

Nah, why don't you rather ask Bosman's mother.....hahaha. The new data simply reproduces the 2008 results. Apparently the world hasn't changed since 2008......down goes Tokkie again. This is becoming monotonous..

What they wont admit is the tackler is most at risk when making a legal low tackle....and that's the highest risk situation for a head injury in rugby. Much greater concussive force is generated by the knees than any other body part. . But no doubt that doesn't fit the narrative. Nor does the high ball risk, the lineout fall risk, the collapsed scrum risk, the neck injury while fetching risk. . In fact the most dangerous tackle, the thinly disguised head butt isn't even covered by these pathetic new laws. Instead the game is now routinely being stopped when a forward trying to lift an opponent in a static low risk situation, makes brief incidental contact with the neck.

 You always start a tread on an issue and then wants others to do your research for you.   The starting point has to be with World Rugby and what research was done before the recent decisions were taken.   It was definitely not based on a research done before - 2008 so why do you not start where the decisions was taken and why?  
That is a logical starting point for the discussion of the issue - not a near decade old project where research was done even before 2008.   There were major changes in the laws of rugby and the way in which the game is played in 2008 - so the research environment would have changed with those. 
However, since you do not know the game - it is really not worth my while to give you advice on this score.    

 
And so the board is once again high jacked but two 70 year old men.

Back and forth ... back and forth ... all day long ... every day.

One as prejudice as the other. One as stubborn as the other.

Grumpy old men. Both retired ... with nothing in their lives other than this board ... to contend with each other .. over every thing ... over nothing ... it doesn't matter what the subject is ... it's their reason for getting up in the morning.

To bore us to tears ... and chase posters away.

Well ... I'm done.

I have far better things to do with my time than read their back and forths.

Enjoy!!

 

Surely the 70 year olds can move their pathetic feud to e-mail? Why on earth would they think anyone else needs to read this rubbish?

Klown, just scroll past the repetitive and childish drivel. S tick around.

As you know I was also close to packing it in and this endless "you're-an-idiot-no-you're-the-idiot" squabbling was part of the reason, but you said yourself I was being a bit of a thin-skinned crybaby . . . don't go doing the same. Harden up!

What rubbish? There isn't a poster on this Board who knew the details of these studies....or probably even the existence of these studies. How the tackle is being changed is probably the most dramatic change in the game since the Boks we readmitted. The string is entirely legitimate, even if Tokkie's responses are pathetic. . Don't come crawling back again CC you are a totally empty suit, using this as an opportunity to make a dramatic exit. You aren't even original, hell it was done a week ago. But nobody will miss you, not one tiny little bit. Piss off turd. . And no, this is not the reason you are giving up. Both of you left because your 'dignity' has been impugned, not because of anything Mike or I did. So don't be so cowardly as to go there.

 CC
Please don't leave the site.  I promise not to respond to idiocy of Mozart and his sidekick Ceradunce again and will just ignore their lies and idiocy.  

Hurt and fragile egos and the pots calling the kettles black are the reason why peace is impossible on virtually each of the postings whether rugby or not...the other obvious issue is that we are very different in so many ways...our education, our upbringing, our traditions, our personalities and our emotions and feelings...to be different from the herd  or concensus sparks attack...individualism is not political correct today unfortunately and we have allowed ourselves to be cloned and catergorised and have become human automations in our thinking...it's a constant battle.

If we stand out amongst the herd or general thinking then we are perceived as odd and like unthinking animals cast the oddity away...ironically the best brains and pioneers of all facets of life stemmed from those that challenged the run of the mill thinking.

It will never change but let attitude change to tolerance...education and understanding and altruism works wonders...thank God we are different.

Hurt and fragile egos and the pots calling the kettles black are the reason why peace is impossible on virtually each of the postings whether rugby or not...the other obvious issue is that we are very different in so many ways...our education, our upbringing, our traditions, our personalities and our emotions and feelings...to be different from the herd  or concensus sparks attack...individualism is not political correct today unfortunately and we have allowed ourselves to be cloned and catergorised and have become human automations in our thinking...it's a constant battle.

If we stand out amongst the herd or general thinking then we are perceived as odd and like unthinking animals cast the oddity away...ironically the best brains and pioneers of all facets of life stemmed from those that challenged the run of the mill thinking.

It will never change but let attitude change to tolerance...education and understanding and altruism works wonders...thank God we are different.

New emphasis certainly seems unwarranted. It was already a penalty. Has clearly disrupted the game.
Research doesn't show any good reason for this new focus.
Feels like its a knee-jerk reaction to appear proactive to the concussion issue. The $1 billion NFL settlement may have motivated some of it.

Spot on Matey, they undoubtedly are trying to put in 'measures' that demonstrate their intent to tackle the problem. It really disrupted the games on Saturday for no good reason.