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.

But the fans, coaches, refs and players ARE the game, not the administrators or the underwriters.

I admire your optimism and you’re right in the sense that there is opportunity here too.

You’re going to have a very hard job persuading me how the game can possibly look better with this current policy framework though mate. Arbitrary cards, inconsistent decisions, over-complex rules, sledgehammer to crack a walnut, no direct correlation between the risk and the punishment… not for me.

Would another evolution of the game be going to 11 aside which would lead to aless condensed field and more leg tackles.

There's definitely major issues, but are the issues you mention really THAT bad? They're definitely big issues, but they're definitely fixable. Perhaps, instead of giving red cards out for accidental head contact, they should send both players for a mandatory HIA assessments? That would still force players to adjust their technique, and deter defenders from trying to milk a penalty.

If that's the case, just make leg tackles the only legal way to tackle and accept a faster passing game with lots of offloads and trys. It would be more entertaining than the wrestle which has taken precedence over the last 10 years or so.

What a big fuss about following the rules which the RFL have no alternative to follow , in view of the legal ramifications . The big discussion should be why the rules about head high tackling have not been enforced in the past , and then we would not be having this chaotic situation.
It is all down to the players to listen to what they have been told - hit the opponent on the head and your in trouble . I agree the refs have to be consistent Donno was a red , and Smith tackle was also a red . Watts tackle - made no attempt to bend his back , although with Westerman stood behind him , we would all have second thoughts about that !!!
Listening to KR player , he said Brett Delaney had been hammering the new tackle technique into all the players - this is what is needed at every club . This is the way forward , and much as I love the biff , I am afraid we are now in a different era - get used to it . John Holmes , my favourite player of all times , would have been in his element.

My main issue is the way in which the current administration is applying rules ostensibly to protect player welfare - but as far as I can see it absolutely does not.

Wilkin made a sensible suggestion of yellow carding if an infringement looks potentially bad, and then letting the video referees review over the 10 mins and allow back on or convert to red as necessary. Doesn’t stop sides losing games from frivolously given yellow cards though.

We need to find ways to incentivise players to play more safely without ruining the game itself. Yes it IS that bad - the rules the academy played under last year; I’m a pretty loyal and die hard fan but I wouldn’t watch that game. I mean you do you but it isn’t for me when it gets to that.

Insurance companies will not have said to the RFL "you must introduce rules x, y and z." They may have said "you need to mitigate risks a, b and c." The new rules are the RFLs answer to deliver this mitigation. However, in any other industry those at the sharp end would have been consulted as to whether the proposals would achieve the stated aim. That clearly hasn't happened, and what we have, predictably, is an utterly shambolic mess. Poorly thought out, poorly implemented, poorly administered. Also, what if the changes lead to an increase in head injuries? Where does the game go then? Is there a game? Insurance costs will be irrelevant.

But the science says that leg tackling can lead to brain trauma and insurance claims… so let’s try little tags put in the side of shorts instead.

Guys you’re going around the houses I’m afraid.

Representatives from the RFL and other contact sports attended a conference in Amsterdam where the science was explained to them on what causes brain injuries and how to mitigate the risks. The changes that the RFL are introducing next season don't actually go as far as some recommend. The recommendations seem to be more in line with what RU were originally going to introduce. Thankfully, we haven't gone that far. The point is who do you think haven't been consulted who should have been? The players and coaches were all told about what would be expected, and sure there have been some frustrating cards, but generally the players have adapted pretty well overall.

The risk is 3 or 4 times lower though, so it's not really comparable. As you've mentioned, it's about mitigation.

It's not who I think hasn't been consulted. I know the players haven't. They've said so themselves. In your own words, they were told. There's a world of difference that I surely don't need to explain and that is being played out now, evidenced by the complete mess we're witnessing.

Quote ="Seth"We will see more of this https://youtu.be/BfPSbq9CnrY?si=Yn1ONA1xVHtdAukl I wonder how fozzard feels about the damage fielden experienced'" Just me then that can see more occurrences of this type of incident then? Was fieldens concussion less severe than the bumped heads last night? Are we not going to mitigate for these low tackle concussions?

Quote ="Seth"We will see more of this https://youtu.be/BfPSbq9CnrY?si=Yn1ONA1xVHtdAukl I wonder how fozzard feels about the damage fielden experienced'" Just me then that can see more occurrences of this type of incident then? Was fieldens concussion less severe than the bumped heads last night? Are we not going to mitigate for these low tackle concussions?

What would the consultation be here for the players? The coaches have provided input and helped agree the frameworks and mitigations, no doubt they would have spoken to the players.

I am a semi-scientist myself and I am just not convinced by the “science” I’m hearing about here. Any trauma to the head could lead to brain injury, and there is significant individual variation of susceptibility too.

Cognitive impairing pathology often takes years or decades to manifest. Cause and effect is hugely difficult to establish.