How is it a bit rich of current players expressing their views? Their feelings are entirely independent of the former players, they're not connected in any way, any more than yours or mine are.

When are boxing and MMA going to get looked at or is it just that they can afford payouts that concussion and head knocks are ok there?

Tackling techniques are going to have to change greatly, and the wrestling will have reduce. It will take a while to adapt. In RU the new tackle height is even lower, so these changes are coming and players and coaches need to start adapting and working with the governing body to understand what will be expected of them, because I highly doubt we're going back from here.

Publish the scientific findings, make some sensible pragmatic rules, and let players make an informed choice and sign an agreement.

I look forward another rehashing of the rules when more and more tacklers are getting concussed getting knees, elbows and hips to the head.

You cannot eliminate head contact from a contact sport. You cannot eliminate all risk and still play sport.

This situation lacks all common sense. The science just provides information; it’s the job of administrators to apply the evidence in a pragmatic and considered way.

The RFL don’t actually have the agency to control this; they will have silly rules with no players referees or fans. I totally disagree with the clumsy way they are trying to proceed here.

I've no problem with them expressing their views. I just find the clamour for a players's union rich because it's the actions of ex players who are suing the game that has caused this.

As for boxing and MMA, essentially, yes, they can afford the additional insurance and medical costs, as can the NFL.

RL's insurance costs are at least doubling every few years FOR THE LOWEST LEVEL OF COVERAGE, the game can't sustain that cost.

In RU you would have to outlaw rucks and mauls for a start if you proceed with the logic around head contact. It’s frankly a joke.

The elephant in the room is that neither code of rugby can survive this direction of travel. It will become a different sport more akin to tag.

Where has this been reported? You've mentioned it before but I don't think I've ever read about it. Do you have a link?

I don’t know enough about it but I doubt insurers are setting the rules, they will be looking for risk mitigation. The only way to mitigate the risk is not to play. They are there to make profit; they are not interested in insuring RL with the trends in litigation.

Where do you suggest we go with this?

Again, their views are not connected in any way to former players so that's nothing to do with them, theyre not happy with their working conditions so a collective union is the right course of action.

There won't be professional game for them to worry about affording if this is the continued direction of travel. And rules may be more strict but in real terms will that actually affect insurance costs because you cant eliminate risk.

For 35 years I was privileged to play, watch and coach the game. I will remind myself of that when it has been completely destroyed.

We need to think more creatively. Players are going to have to disclaim and accept more risk, and insurance needs to be sorted - maybe codes of rugby combine and form their own regulated insurance product which satisfies legals.

The data seems to suggest that head clashes have the highest risk factor to cause a head injury, (which may explains why even accidental head to head contact is punished), and tackles made around the torso have the lowest risk factor. The risk factor is 3 or 4 times lower.

It’s just weak to screw the game completely on the whim of underwriters. We need an effective way to mitigate risk to players long term health.

What we are looking at now is the reality that insurers don’t want to touch rugby with a barge pole because the risk of loss is too high and they make profit.

RL inherently induces injury. It is inherently risky. We’re being driven by bean counters and nannies. We can significantly reduce the risk or ongoing brain injury and still have an amazing sport; these things are not mutually exclusive and I reject the current approach.

I’d love someone to explain to me what possible point there is in punishing an accident.

Im sure the data will change again when the lower body tackles are the norm. Big 6ft 4 players will be obsolete because there's no way they can get low enough on smaller players especially when theyre fatigued on a soggy pitch. Either that or they drop out of the defensive line. It's like natural selection, but a really sht version.

Again, I've no problem with them unionising, go for it. But it won't stop these rules being implemented, and it won't stop former players suing the game. Aren't GMB the player's representatives already anyway?

Maybe it won't but what do they do, just stand by and watch it happen without a voice.

To be fair, aren't upright tackles a relatively recent thing in the game? From memory of games when I was younger, most tackles were made around the waist or lower. It's only been the introduction of the wrestling that has seen the initial contact go higher.

The implications of these changes are huge, but the game has gone through bigger law changes over the last 130 years, and it's still here. I share some of the fears around what it will look like, but it will still be here.

They should 100% have a voice, they should have unionised years ago, in fact, I find it odd it's taken this long considering some of the changes that have happened within the game in the last 30 or 40 years, in particular.

We will see more of this https://youtu.be/BfPSbq9CnrY?si=Yn1ONA1xVHtdAukl I wonder how fozzard feels about the damage fielden experienced

We will see more of this https://youtu.be/BfPSbq9CnrY?si=Yn1ONA1xVHtdAukl I wonder how fozzard feels about the damage fielden experienced

They were certainly less common but players are now much bigger too, would you want to tackle someone like lisone round the hips one on one.

Perhaps. Ken Davy is a pretty big player in the UK insurance industry, so no doubt he's been consulted.

It will come down to what the most cost effective option is. Is changing the laws and asking players and coaches to adapt, resulting in a lot of pain and frustration in the short to medium term more cost effective than not making the suggested changes which will result in huge increase in expenses to the game in the medium to long term, but would stop the criticism from fans, coaches, and players in the short term.

Nope, but I'd probably prefer it to a shot the jaw or the whiplash from a tackle made above the chest.

To be honest, I can see the game going back to 5m defensive lines, as the tacklers won't be able to slow down the play of the ball down sufficiently enough in order to get back onside. But we'll see. As I said, the game has adapted to bigger rule changes and survived. If the players, coaches and governing body work together, I'm sure the game will still be entertaining, in fact, it's an opportunity to make it better. But it is incredibly frustrating at the moment, I accept.

Disagree mate. Just because something has lasted in the past is zero guarantee of anything in the future.

The rules have not been fully implemented yet but we already have games being decided arbitrarily on BS card decisions. Players train their nadgers off in order to compete; these rules are making a mockery of their effort or of games as a true contest. I don’t think current players or fans can afford to let the administrators ruin the sport without question.