Very interesting programme - it makes you wonder if what we call entertainment is simply to physical for even well trained elite athletes and does the game need to change?

We see in almost every game a player with concussion continuing to participate in the game in which he has received the concussion.

Those who cry out for "bring back the biff" return of shoulder charges need to watch this and reflect on these players who suffer life changing injuries just for our "entertainment"

Thank goodness Gale has left - his use of these players as battering rams is an absolute disgrace.

I saw the programme. Incredibly sad for Stevie at his age, and with the immense talent he had. The condition is clearly incredibly debilitating, and I hope he makes a swift recovery.

On you post, I don't think making the sport safer and stopping 'the biff' should be mutually exclusive. If I were a pro player my brain is what I would be most concerned about post-playing rather than the routine, albeit serious, injuries players often incur.

I think the sport is not doing enough to stop high tackles, and the punishments are far too weak for high tackles. RU is far ahead in this area (I know people don't like the common red cards for high shots), but they have lowered where contact is allowed and it has lead to a more open game with more offloading.

We're currently a bit too obsessed with the wrestle in RL, and tackling players around their arms/shoulder height. The RFL need to get with the programme and ensure there's no hits above shoulder height at all, and liaise with coaches over changing techniques pre-season. I would say any contact where a tacklers shoulders are higher than the ball players shoulders should be deemed high.

Just to add, I'm well in favour of bringing back the shoulder charge, as long as it's not high contact. The intense physicality of the sport is what players and fans both sign up for, so that doesn't have to end. I worry that with the lawsuits coming in, if the RFL don't take the bull by the horns it could be the end of pro-RL.

I would be interested to know if more concussions occur while atracking or defending.

You can lower the contact area but that could mean defenders get knees or hips to the head whicb would be far more serious for players safety.

There is so much more research needed into this. The game is trying but theres a lot to do and as you guys have said the biff and shoulder charges have been removed almost.

Christ the hammer players like John Holmes used to take and all he got was a cold sponge on the back of his neck. How many concussions did he get?

Sorry for Stevie, clearly very worrying for him, and devastating for the club to lose such a talent.

More needs to be done.

I just worry that both codes of rugby can't continue. I watched some of the six Nations and the game is so sanitised, and players being carded for very little. The edge the game had is being taken away. A game like rugby is always going to have an element of risk, and there are punishments for infringements that are mistimed by milliseconds. I saw a lot of penalties and cards for dangerous play at the weekend, and most feel into this category. I'm not sure how the game goes forward from here. Massive focus at the top level, bit of your player these game at grass roots level people get site to the head week in week out and little punishment

Agree with these comments with the exception of the comment about gale which I don’t understand.

When I started watching in the early 70’s and for the next decade the 3 players who took countless late head shots were John Holmes, Roger Millward and Dave Topliss. They were all class and all played for a long time and Toppo and Holmes certainly played over 600 games, not sure about Roger. Millward only retired when he suffered a 4th broken jaw in a year.

Sadly, they all passed away too soon and Millward’s cancer started with a growth in his jaw If memory serves me right.

I’ve always thought the hammer they took had a huge impact on them passing too young.

The game is less dirty now but the regular impacts are far heavier and you can’t train to build muscle and protection around your brain.

Hope Stevie finds a new vocation, he’s got a lot to offer. He’s a good lad

Can’t bring myself to watch this as too sad......

Me neither

The collisions between players are so forceful these days as they are literally giants, their bodies must take a ridiculous amount of hammer. Whilst in days gone by there was dirty play, punching and occasionally worse, players usually knew it was coming and managed to avoid the worst of the contact.

I’m not so sure that they can do that these days when 100kg is flying towards you and you’re static trying to stop it…

That’s without going into head contact.

Good point. Maybe the only hope is a mix of tweaking the rules to reduce head collisions, and reduce the number of games to allow actual recovery time. Can't see the latter happening any time soon though.

Having thought long and hard I can’t see a future for RL.
Rule changes wouldn’t have stopped what happened to Stevie. Game us just too brutal now, as players are too big and powerful....,,,

It's about stripping out some of the more harmful aspects if this can be done, not eliminating risk entirely.
As parallels, the government could cut the speed limit to 30mph, criminalise smoking, ban wild swimming. As for reducing COVID transmission..
Of course the game has a future

Just tried to watch it. I honestly can’t. The kid just wanted to play for his hometown club.....

It really wasnt that bad.

He just don’t look good mate. Lost a lot of weight. I’ve seen people post concussion and know it can go on for years. Just feel so sorry for him as one of my favourite players, and incredible bloke to boot....

harrowing......

Hopefully the club have ensured the insurance policy in place enables him to have access to the necessary private medical care and and a suitable income stream.

The lad was pure class when he played, such a shame at such a young age having to give up the game. RU appear to be in front of RL in terms of head high tackles, but changes have to be made to make the game safer.
It starts with rules in the game, and the referee applying those rules., The same applies to the touch judges they need to report what they see to the referee, the number of head high shots that go unpunished because they go unseen. Maybe a case for the video ref to advise what he sees. The head high shots that are seen are not the main problem ( although they are serious) its the head shots that go unpunished and are unseen that are the problem, the knees in the tackle that hit the head. Too much goes unpunished. Its like some players go out to physically hurt players especially in the tackle when the player is on the ground. The game is hard enough without having to accept head shots. Better tackling techniques need to be introduced at a young age.

Head shots straight red card, followed by a ban. It will hurt the game for a couple of years but the players will soon learn,

The only way to stop players from coming into concat with another players head is to send them off and ban them for a long time (10 games +) when it happens, accidentally or not.

Like others I remember the game when the likes of Holmes, Topliss and Millward played and it was "part of the game" for those players to get taken out by fair means or foul (it was usually foul as they were too good). Back then the second man came in not to lock the ball up but to take the your head off.

I remember the game gradually got cleaned up and the headhunters were removed. A series of 8 match suspensions for deliberate high tackles speeded things up in the late 80s.

Back then players weren't as bulked and weren't as spaced apart. Thus collisions weren't as big. The main risks seemed to come from foul play.

As I see it there is a way to make the game safer. It's to penalise high tackles to the degree that union is but I also think there's a need to get players to scale back on the power, perhaps by limiting players by weight? It might sound mad but it would reduce impact in collisions.

I could use a motor sport analogy here, back in the early 80s in rallying the top class of car was known as Group B. The sport had seen technology evolve so some cars had as much as 500hp or more and the speeds they generated were incredible. Unfortunately the drivers were struggling to control the cars and a series of serious accidents occurred that resulted in power limits being imposed and the cars slowed down along with a number of other safety measures.

I guess what I'm saying is that just because players can be fitter, faster and more powerful as sports science evolves doesn't mean we should allow that to happen. I don't think it's safe. You can't bring in mitigations for ever increasingly forceful collisions. At some point you go too far and I think we're probably there. Player physiques are way different to what they were yet the protection for the head and brain is always the same.

Reduce the weight of the player and you reduce the impact, thus reducing the risk. You're never going to eradicate it completely but I think moving the game back to something like it was in the early 90s in terms of player physique while clamping down on high tackles would make the game safer and more sustainable as we find out more about the effects of concussion long term.

I wonder how many players play each week with an element of concussion just to preserve their income/career?

No easy answers on this one. Would limiting the number of players in a tackle to two (maybe with exception of try line defence) help? Would certainly speed the game up to the point where speed and athleticism would be more valuable than bulk.

The problem we have is that no rule changes would have prevented what happened to Stevie. Was innocuous looking tackle.......

In the NRL the six again rule and reducing the number of subs was brought in to speed things up and there was a mountain of complaints when there were blowout scores. Reduce the numbers in the tackle and the game gets looser.

I agree it would reduce the size of players eventually as the really big lads wouldn't cope with the pace but at the same time you need to find a balance so that the game doesn't turn into a farce.

I don't think there's a magic bullet to this, it's about trying things and seeing how they bed in but beforehand having a clear idea of what you're trying to achieve. Is it a faster and safer game? If so how will you measure if you're being successful in achieving that? How do make sure you don't turn the game into something that overly favours the attacking side?

You could probably reduce risk in the way players train. Improvements to preventative measures and rest periods help too. Maybe even more focus on tackle technique training to protect the head more.

At the end of the day it’s about risk mitigation rather than risk elimination.

Might be a bit too radical, but what about some kind of limit to the number of games a player can play within a certain period of time?