OBJECTIVES

Rugby Union has a relatively high risk of injury. Early evidence suggests a benefit of lowering tackle height to reduce head and neck injuries, although concerns persist among stakeholders regarding implementation challenges. This study aimed to understand whether referees can reach the same conclusion regarding tackle height in a controlled environment (ie, video) and whether priming influenced these decisions.

METHODS

Forty-eight active referees completed a questionnaire based on high-tackle decision-making guidelines after watching tackles. Participants were randomly assigned one of two instructional videos containing a high or legal tackle to investigate the impact of priming on law interpretation.

RESULTS

The percent agreement regarding tackle height was 78.1% between participants, 62.7% between participants and an experienced analyst, and 74.0% between participants and a gold-standard referee. Mean intra-rater reliability when determining whether a tackle was high was substantial (percent agreement: 91.2%). For high tackles, 83% of participants agreed on the danger level, 57% on the contact location and 71% on the presence of mitigating factors. No significant effects of priming were observed. Inter-rater agreement among participants and the gold-standard referee was moderate for all items except danger and height, which showed strong agreement.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest a need for improved referee training to support changes to the legal tackle height.