WiganWarriorsFans.com

Mike wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 4:36 pm

Raging Penguin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 1:32 pm Also if it is an insurance issue, it seems like that is a strawman, as how do other sports manage, such as boxing?

Isn't a "strawman" argument intentionally misrepresenting the issue to make it easier to argue against? Not sure that applies here. I will admit I don't know how boxing deals with insurance, might be interesting to find out what happens there and see if there are any parallels.

I don't really understand why you need to tackle the shoulders of a player anyway TBH. Square on in the chest is good enough to put a big hit in isn't it?

The video from LBU showed some illegal tackles and they were all generally players standing square up to the attacker and they were deemed illegal, the defender just made a grab for the arms whilst squre on, so nt sure if they want defenders to bend their back and get their shoulders below the armpits

I have 2 main thoughts on this

1 - There has already been a study on this that showed this actually makes things worse that can be found here https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/4/220 (i know its union but i cant see why there would be a huge disparity)

but this is the conclusion

Conclusions Legislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier’s head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting.

so more practically

arent you massively advantaged by getting a team of short players? and massively disadvantaged with tall players?

for example im 5ft 9 - i could throw my full body at someone 6ft 3 and i dont have to bend or adjust that much to hit under the armpit.

If the 6ft guy wants to tackle me he's going to have to make a significant movement to drop low enough to be under my armpit. That links to the study above he's much more chance of injury