“Rugby is not an ‘evasion sport’,” Williams posted on Twitter.
“Rugby is about creating space through manipulating and moving defences, contact is part of the game.
“We must be careful thinking one rule will work for all. I know I’m not one to talk, but trust me this wont fix rugby’s concussion problems.”
He went on to joke that his own style of rugby would, in fact, perfectly suit this form of the game.
“On the bright side - guaranteed to get your arms free in every tackle... Anyone in England looking for a recently retired off-loader?”
Williams wasn’t the only high-profile voice to criticise the change, with England cricket star Ben Stokes also weighing in to point out another serious flaw.
“Let’s lower the tackle height but bring in a higher chance of the attackers’ knees hitting defenders in the head,” he posted on Twitter in response to a reaction from Joe Marler, the Harlequins and England prop. “And also let’s take out any consideration for instinctive athleticism in the heat of sport.”
Stokes went on to cite the experience of his late Kiwi father, Ged, whose rugby league career was ended prematurely due to a broken neck.
“My Dad’s professional career got ended earlier due to a broken neck from a knee to the head whilst tackling,” posted the 31-year-old. “Would you rather concussion or broken neck?”
Ryan Lamb, a former Gloucester and England first-five, added: “I get we are trying to protect players and safety is top priority, but this is not the way forward. Knees to head galore, heads colliding. Plus, anyone on this panel tried carrying the ball dead upright?”
Writing for the UK’s Worcester News, journalist Marcello Cossali-Francis put forward some pointed questions of his own.
“So how do defenders now defend the pick and go? How do defenders defend their own line from 5 metres out? How does a defender now position themselves when defending, crabbing around the pitch? This new law is bonkers. Totally unsustainable.”
A petition on change.org, which had over 30,000 online signatures by Saturday morning, claims the change would make the game into a “farcical spectacle”.
However, England Rugby cited the success of a trial in France, which recorded a 63 per cent decrease in head-on-head collisions, when announcing the change; although that trial ruled there could only be one tackler involved in any one contact.
“Designed to improve player safety and informed by data, this change aims to reduce head impact exposure and concussion risk in the tackle for both the ball carrier and tackler,” read a statement on Friday, barely an hour after it was announced that over 55 amateur players began legal action against the RFU, the Welsh Rugby Union and World Rugby, accusing those authorities of negligence over brain injuries.
“Evidence from studies has consistently demonstrated that higher contact on the ball carrier and closer proximity of the ball carrier and tacklers’ heads are associated with larger head impacts, as measured by smart mouthguards, and an increased risk of concussion.
“Lowering the height of the tackle and encouraging the tackler to bend more at the waist will minimise the risk of this occurring, while maintaining the tackle as an integral part of the game.”
Some practicalities are yet to be determined. It has been suggested, for instance, that tacklers will be allowed to remain upright to make safe tackles on opponents that are picking and going close to rucks. There will need to be scrutiny, too, on players being loaned out from Premiership clubs to teams at level three and below, who will be playing under vastly different laws.
The RFU is determined to roll out the trial in line with comprehensive support for coaches, players and referees ahead of the 2023-24 season.
World Rugby chief executive Alan Glipin welcomed the RFU “taking these proactive steps”.
“Rugby will never stand still when it comes to player welfare and this is a prime example of the sport, once again, putting our words into action,” he said.
However, even activist group Progressive Rugby, who are in favour of lowering the legal tackle height to the line of the armpit, are skeptical of the change and want more information from England Rugby.
“We are naturally supportive of decisions made in the interests of player welfare,” read a statement from Progressive Rugby.
“However, as yet the group have been unable to satisfactorily scrutinise the data on which this decision has been based. While initial thoughts are cautiously positive, members do have matters requiring clarification that we will endeavour to discuss with the RFU.”
- with The Daily Telegraph UK
