Ethics CasesSport

Cases · RFU · 2021–2026

Below the Sternum: England's Lower Tackle Height in Community and Youth Rugby

In January 2023 the Rugby Football Union's Council voted unanimously to lower the legal tackle height across England's community game, including schools and age-grade rugby, to reduce head impacts and concussion. The announcement, using the words 'waist and below', provoked fierce grassroots criticism, and the RFU apologized, saying it 'got the engagement wrong'. After consulting thousands of people, it defined the new limit as below the base of the sternum from 1 July 2023. Early studies show changes in tackling technique and fewer head-to-head contacts, but mixed evidence on concussion rates. The case asks how governing bodies should change a sport's core skill to protect players.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. France lowers the tackle height in its domestic amateur game.
  2. English schoolboy rugby lowers the maximum tackle height to the armpit line.
  3. The RFU Council votes unanimously to lower the tackle height in community rugby.
  4. After a grassroots backlash, the RFU apologizes for its engagement.
  5. The RFU consults through a survey of 8,500 people and forums and focus groups.
  6. The Council adopts the new limit: below the base of the sternum.
  7. The law variation takes effect.
  8. Peer-reviewed studies report changes in tackle technique and mixed concussion evidence.

The ethical issues

  • Protecting children's brains.
  • Changing a sport's core skill.
  • Consultation and legitimacy.
  • Evidence under uncertainty.
  • Shifting risk to other players.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Youth and amateur playersSafety and enjoying the game.
ParentsChildren's long-term health.
Coaches and refereesClear, workable laws.
Clubs and volunteersBeing consulted and keeping players.
The RFUPlayer welfare and trust.
ResearchersRobust data to evaluate the change.

The case

Background

The tackle is central to rugby union and carries the greatest risk of concussion [5][6]. Research cited by the Rugby Football Union (RFU) found that higher contact on the ball carrier, and the tackler’s and carrier’s heads being closer together, were linked with bigger head impacts, as measured by smart mouthguards, and a higher risk of concussion [1]. France introduced a lower tackle height in its domestic game in 2019. It reported a 63% reduction in head-on-head contacts and a more fluid game, with less kicking and more passing, offloads and line breaks [1].

England had already experimented with younger players. In English schoolboy rugby, the maximum legal tackle height was lowered from the line of the shoulder to the line of the armpit for the 2021–22 season [4].

Concussion was also a wider crisis. BBC Sport noted that about 250 former professional players were taking legal action against governing bodies [7].

What happened

On Monday 16 January 2023, the RFU Council voted unanimously to lower the tackle height across the community game in England from 1 July 2023 [1]. The change applied to clubs, schools, colleges and universities, and at both age-grade and adult levels: National One and below in the men’s game, and Championship One and below in the women’s game [1]. The RFU said the tackle height would be set “at waist height or below”, and that ball carriers would be encouraged to evade tacklers rather than dip late [1]. “Players’ welfare must always be at the centre of decisions we make about how we play the game of rugby,” said RFU President Nigel Gillingham [1].

The reaction from the grassroots was fierce. Clubs, players and coaches said the change would be unworkable and feared players would leave the sport [7]. Critics objected both to how radical the change was and to the lack of consultation [7]. A new group, the Community Clubs Union, formed and called for the resignation of chief executive Bill Sweeney. Rugby World reported that about 280 clubs supported it [8].

Within days, the RFU apologized [7][8]:

“In our desire to act quickly to reduce head impacts and concussions in the community game, which represents 99% of the rugby playing population in England, we have upset many of you who are the champions, volunteers, and ambassadors of our game. We fully acknowledge we got the engagement wrong, and we are truly sorry” [7]

It also said that the term “waist and below”, which it had borrowed from France, “has caused misunderstanding and confusion” [7]. The RFU did not reverse the policy, but it promised forums and workshops [8].

The rules and governance

The RFU sets law variations for the community game in England. World Rugby sets the laws for the elite game [1]. The RFU then consulted widely [2]:

  • A survey: 8,500 people responded online, with the results analyzed independently by YouGov.
  • Forums: more than 1,000 people attended 25 forums in 13 locations.
  • Focus groups: 270 coaches, players, referees, parents and others took part in 22 focus groups and panels.

On 21 April 2023, the Council adopted the new limit, effective 1 July: “below the base of the sternum: The area of the tummy or belly and below” [2]. The revised law treats a tackle above the base of the sternum as dangerous, even if it starts lower. It also says ball carriers “must not lower their height significantly before making contact” [2]. The RFU promised training and guidance, and asked clubs to contribute injury data to its surveillance program, run with the University of Bath [2][3].

Aftermath

Early evidence shows that players changed how they tackle. The concussion results are mixed:

  • Multi-union evaluation: the RFU says more than 46,000 tackles in the men’s and boys’ community game in England have been analyzed as part of a World Rugby evaluation [3].
  • Scottish men’s community rugby (a similar law; 18,702 tackles): tacklers bent at the waist more often, and head-to-head contacts fell (rate ratio 0.55). But overall tackler head contact with the ball carrier rose, as did head contact with the upper leg [5].
  • Scottish women’s community rugby: contacts above the sternum and head-to-head proximity fell. Changes in concussion rates were not statistically significant, as tacklers’ rates dropped and ball carriers’ rates rose, in a small sample [6].
  • English schoolboy rugby (the earlier armpit-line change): tackle technique changed, but overall injury and concussion rates did not. The authors suggested “further lowering of the tackle height may be explored” [4].

The core dilemma

The RFU had evidence that lower tackles reduce head impacts. But it changed a core skill of the community and youth game quickly and without consultation, and the effect on concussions remains uncertain. How should a governing body balance urgency, evidence and the consent of the people who play?

Competing values

  • Protection: children’s brain health [1].
  • The essence of the sport: the tackle as a core skill [1][7].
  • Legitimacy: consulting volunteers and clubs [7][8].
  • Evidence: acting on strong but incomplete data [4][5][6].
  • Fairness among players: risk moving from tacklers to ball carriers [5][6].

Strongest arguments

For the change: there is consistent evidence linking high tackles with head impacts [1]. Results from France and Scotland show fewer head-to-head contacts [1][5]. And children cannot fully weigh long-term risks, which justifies protective rules.

For caution: concussion outcomes have not yet clearly improved [4][6]. New contact patterns may create new risks [5]. Rushed changes erode trust and may drive players away [7][8].

Applying the frameworks

Care

The care lens prioritizes vulnerable young players. It also asks for attention to the volunteers who keep the sport running.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian weighs fewer head impacts against possible new injuries, players lost to the sport and the effort of adjusting.

Virtue

Virtue ethics asks what leadership looks like here. It values courage in acting on evidence, and humility in admitting mistakes, as the RFU did [7].

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Identify the problem: head impacts in tackles in community and youth rugby.
  2. Gather the facts: mouthguard data, results from other countries and injury surveillance.
  3. Identify the stakeholders: players, parents, coaches, referees, clubs and researchers.
  4. Consider the options: a lower tackle height, coaching programs, trials or no change.
  5. Apply values and frameworks: care, outcomes and legitimacy.
  6. Decide and review: consult, define the law clearly and monitor the injury data.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: the decision, the apology, the consultation and the definition below the sternum are documented [1][2][7].

Contested: whether the change will reduce concussions, and whether it alters rugby’s essence.

Why this case matters

Compare Heading in Youth Soccer: Restricting a Skill to Protect the Brain, Should Children Play Tackle Football? and We Were a Bit of Meat: Former Players Sue Rugby Over Brain Injury.

Key terms

Duty of care
The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.
Non-maleficence
The duty to avoid causing harm, often paired with care ethics when setting safety rules.
Paternalism (hard and soft)
Restricting someone’s choices for their own good. Hard paternalism overrides competent, informed adults; soft paternalism steps in when information or autonomy is compromised.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Prevent, minimize, mitigate, remedy
An order of priorities for harm: prevent it if possible, then minimize it, mitigate what remains, and remedy what has been done.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Did the RFU act too fast or too slowly?
  2. Should community and elite rugby have the same laws?
  3. How much evidence should justify changing a core skill?
  4. Should ball carriers bear more responsibility?
  5. Is consultation a duty when safety is at stake?

Sources

  1. RFU Council approves lowering of the tackle height across community rugby in England — Rugby Football Union
  2. Law Variations Approved to Lower Tackle Height — Rugby Football Union
  3. Research (player welfare) — Rugby Football Union
  4. The effect of lowering the maximum tackle height in English Schoolboy rugby union on tackle characteristics and all-injury and concussion rates — Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
  5. Lowered tackle height law variation in Scottish men's community rugby: a video analysis evaluation of 18 702 tackles across two seasons — BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine
  6. Lowering the maximum legal tackle height in Scottish community women's rugby — BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine
  7. RFU sorry for 'anger and concern' created by handling of tackle height decision — BBC Sport
  8. RFU apologises after furore over tackle height amendment — Rugby World