Abstract. Objectives. Catastrophic neck injuries in rugby tackling are rare (2 per 100,000 players per year) with 38% of these injuries occurring in the tackle. The aim of this study was to determine the primary mechanism of cervical spine injury during rugby tackling and to highlight the effect of tackling technique on intervertebral joint loads. Methods. In vivo and in vitro experimental data were integrated to generate realistic computer simulations representative of misdirected tackles. MRI images were used to inform the creation of a musculoskeletal model. In vivo kinematics and neck muscle excitations were collected during lab-based staged tackling of the player. Impact forces were collected in vitro using an instrumented anthropometric test device during experimental simulations of rugby collisions. Experimental kinematics and muscle excitations were prescribed to the model and impact forces applied to seven skull locations (three cranial and four lateral). To examine the effects of technique on intervertebral joint loads the model's neck angle was altered in steps of 5° about each rotational axis resulting in a total of 1,623 experimentally informed simulations of misdirected tackles. Results. Neck flexion angles and cranial impact locations had the largest effects on maximal compression, anterior shear and flexion moment loads. During posterior cranial impacts compression forces and flexion moments increased from 1500 to 3200 N and 30 to 60 Nm respectively between neck angles of 30° extension and 30° flexion. This was more evident at the C5-C6 and C6-C7 joints. Anterior shear loads remained stable throughout neck angle ranges however during anterior impacts they were directed posteriorly when the neck was flexed. Conclusions. The combination of estimated joint loads in the lower cervical spine support buckling as the primary injury mechanism of anterior bilateral facet dislocations observed in misdirected rugby tackles and highlights the importance of adopting a correct tackling technique. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project