Author(s): GORNALL, H., SHILL, I.J., MACPHERSON, A., PALMER, D., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 1125

INTRODUCTION:
To reduce concussion rates in the community game, the Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) lowered the legal tackle height from the shoulder to the base of the sternum from the 2022/23 season onwards. While the law variation reduced head-to-head contact rates by 45% in men's rugby and 17% in women's,(1,2) the introduction of such a substantial law change was met with some inevitable challenges regarding implementation and enforcement.(3) This study aimed to (i) examine stakeholders' perceptions of the law variation and its implementation and (ii) assess match officials' level of agreement in the identification and sanctioning of illegal tackles.
METHODS:
Match officials (MO), coaches (CO) and players (PL) completed an online survey at the end of the 2024/25 season. The survey comprised 27 seven-point Likert scale items and five open-text responses. Questions were related to key domains including understanding, training, application, support and reflection. Survey items were mapped to the COM-B framework to assess perceived implementation capability, training opportunity and motivation to enforce or adhere to the law. Mean COM-B scores were calculated for each group.(4) Open text responses were analysed using content analysis.(5) MO also completed a video assessment viewing 15 tackle clips from Scottish community games. Clips were viewed once at normal speed, followed by the four questions from the SRU tackle height decision making framework. An inter-rater agreement percentage (AP) was calculated for each question
RESULTS:
A total of 187 participants (MO = 60, CO = 42, PL = 85) were recruited. MO reported higher perceived capability (M = 6.07, SD = 0.83), opportunity (M = 5.56, SD = 0.90) and motivation (M = 5.48, SD = 1.24) than players (capability: M = 5.54, SD = 0.90; opportunity: M = 4.57, SD = 0.99; motivation: M = 4.39, SD = 1.59). Coaches' perceptions of capability (M = 5.75, SD = 0.78), opportunity (M = 4.35, SD = 1.08) and motivation (M = 4.85, SD = 1.51) were closely aligned with players. Across the 15 tackle clips, MO agreement was 65% for identifying an attempted tackle, 79% for identifying the initial contact location, 64% for the application of mitigating factors and 54% on the required sanction. No differences were observed when accounting for MO experience.
CONCLUSION:
While MO felt capable and motivated to enforce the law variation, inconsistencies in interpretation and sanctioning of tackle events highlight the need for targeted training.(6) Lower perceived opportunity and motivation among PL and CO may reflect limitations in the depth of training resources and the ongoing inconsistent enforcement. Further clarification and consistency on how complex tackle scenarios should be officiated may help improve motivation among stakeholders. Additionally, the feedback gathered from this study will help inform future interventions aimed at improving player welfare outcomes.

[1] Gornall 2025, [2] Walton 2025, [3] Leese 2025, [4] Michie 2011, [5] Braun 2016, [6] Mascarenhas 2005