Research behind the World Rugby’s tackle-height trial was ‘dressing up corporate messaging as independent science,’ according to a researcher.
World Rugby made the controversial decision in July 2018 to trial lowering the height at which tackles can be made, changing the definition of a high tackle from above the line of the shoulders to above the armpit line.
World Rugby introduced this trial on championship rugby players in the UK to test the hypothesis that lowering tackle height would lower concussion incidence. Five months later, it was stopped because of an increase in the risk of players getting concussion.
In a report published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers at Oxford Brookes University and four other UK and Australian Universities have questioned the safety and ethics of this decision.
Adam White, lecturer in sport and coaching sciences at Oxford Brookes University and lead researcher, explained in a series of tweets that players perceived that the trial would increase the risk of concussion, and that it was implemented despite their concerns.
There’s no evidence, he adds, that players were given an informed choice; they were contractually compelled to participate.
“The players are of course employed by their clubs to play rugby, so it is extremely unlikely they had the ability, or indeed the right, to withdraw from the trial, without penalty or prejudice,” he says.
“This is particularly concerning in light of the fact that an independent report, published in December 2019, discovered that a majority of players felt that reducing tackle height would result in more, rather than fewer, traumatic brain injuries.”
White says the paper that the trial was based on showed that the trial increased the risk and number of concussions. In this study, researchers followed 12 elite men’s teams during two competitions in 2018 to 2019. They observed 30 percent fewer concussions from the lower tackle height.
White says this study, which influenced the approval of the trial, ‘raises clear and important questions about the entanglement of corporate interests with academic research’ as many authors of the study work for, or are funded by, the rugby authorities.
World Rugby, White says, ‘Imposed an intervention study that harmed the brains of these rugby players, and despite them raising concerns, [World Rubgy] went ahead anyhow.
‘All efforts to make our game safer must be taken. But research, particularly intervention/trials, must be conducted ethically ensuring participants give full, informed consent and can withdraw without prejudice or penalty. On this occasion, it is not evident that happened,’ he writes.
White’s paper recommends that World Rugby should be supported in attempting to decrease concussions, and that World Rugby and England Rugby have all research and interventions externally scrutinised by scientists from outside the rugby community to encourage critical dialogue and mitigate the likelihood of unethical research practices.
World Rugby have been contacted for comment.
