Rest assured the Wellenses and the Watsons of this world will do exactly that. Having done so they'll then figure out how they can best exploit that interpretation to slow their opponents and we're all back at ground zero

Completely agree Seth…..the 6 again rule change has long been overdue….the others will no doubt be clamped down on for the first few rounds and when fans and SKY pundits get fed up with the amount of penalties and stoppages, it will revert to normal.

Even if the other rules don’t get Policed consistently all season, the new 6 again rule is great news. Most teams (but especially Saints) are going to need to rethink their defensive tactics now they cannot simply give away ‘tactical ‘ 6 agains when having the opposition trapped deep in their own half

Well, the 6 again loophole was cynically exploited for nearly 2 years yet it wasn't even looked at until now, glad that ones been sorted as it wa a complete joke.
I don't like the smell of any decision that relies on "interpretation" as its just another stick to beat Refs with and will inevitably lead to - x ref is bent / against us etc.

Agree. As has been said, why not say the player must ptb correctly, rather than just make a genuine attempt. The former removes any ambiguity or subjectivity. To paraphrase Yoda, there is no "try". There is only "do" or "do not".

Jesus Christ, how do rugby players manage to put their feet into shoes on a morning if they can’t stand on something the size of a rugby ball. The RFL are treating everybody like idiots with this “genuine” attempt to play the ball. Like you say, put your foot on the ball and roll it backwards, if not it’s a penalty.

According to the linked article in the op, the defensive line can only move up once the ball player has touched the ball with his heel. Yet there is no requirement to touch the ball with the foot..

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/rf ... kle-height Only tackles below the armpit from 2025

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/rf ... kle-height Only tackles below the armpit from 2025

I am genuinely worried about the 2025 rule changes.

Me too Jim

Me too. The trial academy games last season were a complete farce. I wouldn’t pay to watch it, nor would I watch it for free.

There are also limits on the total minutes players can play during the season. Forwards over 22 years old max of 2000 minutes, backs max 2400. Different for younger players. Probably just about ok at those levels. However, the issue is that, once introduced, limits are here forever and only ever move in one direction.

Everyone there could see the academy games were a disaster and the players were as frustrated as the speccies.

I just don’t believe the tackle height rule will do anything to actually prevent head injury, but everything to destroy the game.

The current rules are more than sufficient to manage the risks. They would literally get better results addressing the drinking/drugs culture than this silly farce.

Yep. I honestly thought - after seeing a couple of games - that they would scrap it and try and come up with something else. I've been watching the sport for 45 years now and it's changed substantially over that period, but it's always been unmistakably RL. The trial games bore no relation to that sport. Are they bringing similar rules into the NRL?

The problem with all this is that then means you have to tackle even lower as momentum inevitably causes the tackle to rise up after impact. Best enjoy this season as 25 is going to be a disaster if this happens.

With the defender having to put their head at the same level as the ball carriers forearm/elbow/hip. I can see more head injuries as a result of this, not fewer.

I wouldn't be concerned at the number of penalties, those will always spike whilst players adjust to new rulings and then settle down as they adapt. Whether these are the right changes to address the issues or not is more open to debate.

I can actually see there being a revolt against this change - maybe this is the time for the NRL to step in after all. The RFL has lost the plot with this.

I’m all for the return to play protocols, reducing head impact in training, reducing impact for juniors (although would be interested to see the stats for concussions among the youth).

Obviously this is a difficult and contentious issue, I’m not across all the science but I do believe they are getting it wrong with the balance of risks.

That’s what I always thought. I’m sure they have the data but I get the impression that as many concussions happen from a tackler hitting a knee/hip/elbow as they do a ball carrier copping a high shot.

I also don’t know how the goaline will be defendable against any half decent hooker. Tacklers are gonna find it nearly impossible to get low enough when the player is already close to the ground. Cunningham would’ve had a field day.

The academy game I saw was a farce. The players just could not perform effective tackles low enough, which led to strings of frustrating penaliries. I can’t remember a single penalty which looked like it might have protected a player from concussion.

That meant that the result was basically down to luck and momentum.

Any governing body who used that pilot and then thought it would be a great idea to roll out is not fit for purpose I’m sorry.

Also might just have been me, but if the video that came with the announcement is what we’re going by, we are doomed. There is nothing wrong with the Gannon tackle or the one on Ava in the eyes of anyone that’s ever played.

The Ava one especially we’re gonna penalise the tackler when he’s actually probably put himself in more danger than the ball carrier.

Rather than helping I think the clips they’ve used will have only made people more frustrated.

I didn’t see any of the trails Jim, heard there were lots of penalties. Was it only the high shots or was it teams also trying to lay on/flop/slow down? Because I imagine going that low all the time impacts ruck control which teams are desperate for.

At speed and with direct contact the players just couldn’t keep tackles low enough, there were frequently two or three penalties per set, the defending team gets gassed and frustrated.

It didn’t get better through the game and the players looked dejected.

My main issue is that I just don’t believe the new tackling rule will prevent head injury. The safest thing to do is not to play the sport at all. They have gone too far trying to reduce risk in an inherently risky game.

True but there's an increase then there's more than one a minute.

You can just about get away with this kind of change in RU. It's a game the does not rely on momentum and tackles occur far less frequently. As a comparison about 170 per game in RU and 650 per game in RL. The opportunities for an offence to be committed goes through the roof in our sport. I'm all for a clean game and I'm glad the days of shoulder charges, forearm smashes and malicious high tackles are behind us, but this seems like reaction to a legal action brought by players who participated 20 to 30 years ago. The game is far safer now. I can't see the Aussies following suit, and where does that leave the prospect of international competition?

Next year might be my last season watching RL if this comes in, certainly won’t be committing to Season ticket or tv subscription.

Rarely have i seen a player knocked out in a general play from a hight tackle, I’ve seen far mire players knocked out making the tackle than in the receiving end. Deliberate late hits to the head yes, but players hardly ever ever get knocked out from what i’d call a run of the mill high tackle.

Bring this rule in and the game will haemorrhage fans.