Tackle Height – timeline to date and next steps

5 December 2022	Council Informal (virtual) to discuss the science in relation to head injuries and protection
20 December 2022	Joint Community Game Board/Governance meeting (Virtual) to consider a proposal for 13 February Council Meeting
6 January 2023	RFU President notifies Council that this will now be a formal meeting, with a formal agenda and papers containing the resolutions to be issued today. President agreed ‘’to take these items in this way rather than wait until the February 13 Council meeting as the timing of them both require advance preparatory work and extensive communications to be initiated and a further delay would seriously impact on this’’.
9 and 10 January 2023	Alternative Council Informals to further consider the science in relation to head injuries and protection
11 January 2023	Amendment tabled to defer formal debate and decision back to 13 February to allow for, amongst other things, ‘constituent clubs and stakeholders’
16 January 2023	Amendment falls and motion for introduction of tackle height limit passed

Since last Thursday lunchtime I have been involved in multiple conversations with other Council Members in an effort to force a ‘row back’ and reconsideration of the decision not to engage with the game.

There had been an amendment tabled on 16 January in the following terms:

I wish to propose an amendment to Resolution 2 in the Council Pack 16^th January entitled  ‘Head impact prevention – lowering of the tackle height”  The amendment is that the resolution should be debated at the 16^thJanuary Council meeting, but this issue should remain ‘informal’ and that final discussions and a formal vote takes place at our scheduled Council meeting on 13^thFebruary 2023. 

The rationale for this amendment is as follows:-

Council is being requested to implement substantial and far-reaching changes upon the game when Council Members have had limited time to consult with their constituent clubs and stakeholders.  In addition, the detailed data and research information needs robust and rigorous evaluation to substantiate the compelling rationale for change. 

At a time when the community game is trying to recover from a once-in-a-lifetime event, whilst facing economic and societal pressures on participation, due diligence requires us to consult proactively with our clubs to ensure we take the game with us and manage the implementation of this important change to player safety, enjoyment and participation. By delaying the final decision until the scheduled in person Council meeting we will allow a final detailed presentation to be made and further detail on the proposed changes to law. The intervening weeks between 16^th January and 13^th February should still be used as preparation for implementation and enable us to manage the communications message to the game, proactively engaging social media, mainstream media and our club and schools infrastructure.

Without that engagement we run the risk of alienating sectors of the game who will not have understood the rationale for change.

That amendment and its rationale seemed to me to be unarguably correct and I had confidence (in hindsight misplaced) that fellow Council members would recognise the good sense in voting in favour. As we now know, the amendment was defeated and the motion to reduce the tackle height (without any engagement with the Game) was passed.

The many exchanges with other Council Members that I have had over the weekend, culminated with a long call with the RFU President last evening. The President explained that (amongst other things) he was lobbied by some Council Members involved in the drafting of the proposal, to bring forward the debate and the decision.

For my part, I remain firmly of the belief that such a momentous decision should not have been taken without prior engagement with the Game; nor should the debate and decision have been dealt with via a virtual meeting when debate is more constricted than at a face-to-face meeting. Added to this, for reasons which are unclear, Council services seemed unaware that as many as ten Council Members, including the Chair and the CEO were unavailable that evening, having already agreed to attend another RFU engagement. I believe, we should have been in a position to have shared with the Game all of the science and the Law variations and guidance prior to engaging with the Game, not afterwards. In the event we did not do so and, once again, RFU Communications were found wanting.

We do know, however, that World Rugby will be mandating some sort of tackle height restriction in the next couple of months and that the other Home Unions are pressing ahead with their own proposals and, of course, France has already made a change some time ago.

I am very pleased that the conversations with other like-minded Council Members and comment over the weekend appear to have borne some fruit:

• The issue will go back to the RFU Board as its number one agenda item for further discussion on Wednesday
• There will be a further Council informal debate on Thursday evening.
• Most importantly, the President has conceded that the issue will be brought back to the face-to-face Council Meeting on 13 February for a full discussion and for feedback from all Council Members.

I will be pressing for the RFU now to engage with the Game over this issue and, in the meantime, to publish details of the all the available science and, whilst work continues on the Law variations and guidance, details of the direction of travel for these and the topics under consideration. The Game must be engaged in full cognisance of all available information.

I will provide further updates on this issue as developments emerge.

Peter A Howard
RFU Council Member
23 January 2023
peterhoward@rfu.com