More information on the legal action being taken against the RFL. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... r-28808664 Rob Hicks has mentioned before that the ex players suing the game played between 1970 and 2023.

More information on the legal action being taken against the RFL. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... r-28808664 Rob Hicks has mentioned before that the ex players suing the game played between 1970 and 2023.

I just really hope this whole class action gets thrown out. Whilst some of the changes to rules and protocols are very welcome, the new below armpit tackle rules will, I still believe, pretty much ruin the game. Sounds like the reserve fixture at Leigh was against farcical, just as all the academy games were under these new rules. Hopefully the powers that be will think again before we inflict this on the senior competition in '25.

It certainly needs sorting out. Although the US legal system is different, the NFL have paid out $1.2b to over 1,600 former players in the last 7 years. Obviously, the action against the RFL is much smaller, but could still go into the £millions, which would probably bankrupt the game.

There are two main impacts aren't there: potential damages in pure cash terms which the game cannot afford. These are potential damages at this point, but the law can be a fickle thing and who knows what the outcome will be.

The second impact is changes to the laws of the game due to the fear if the first impact. Won't go on about it again because I've made my views clear on this - but let's just say I'm getting my fix of RL in this season because I'm really not sure I'd watch or support the version I've seen under the proposed new rules, and I'd count myself as reasonably die-hard.

I believe the Championship clubs will be playing under the "even newer rules" once the league campaign gets underway. That will be the first time decent numbers of paying spectators will have seen them. Will be very interesting.

Whilst this doesn't allay my concerns, I've a couple of mates who've been playing union with restricted height tackles. After a few games with lots of pens & a few cards tacklers changed their approach. Year and a half on, it's pretty much a forgotten issue now, so they tell me.
Though I do understand all the "buts".

With hindsight, the game should have brought these rules into the junior leagues 15 years ago when the talk around head impacts in contact sports started, so that we'd now have a generation of players and coaches who had already adapted to the new tackle height.
I think it will be chaotic for a while, but the refs will become more lenient over time, as Clearwing mentioned. That's basically what happened with the current rules for most of the games history. Any borderline tackle was usually let go.

Maybe the new rules will work in time. Are the same rules being adopted in Australia?

Quote ="KaeruJim"Maybe the new rules will work in time. Are the same rules being adopted in Australia?'" I think they've introduced them in the junior grades, u15 and below. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... id-us-push

Quote ="KaeruJim"Maybe the new rules will work in time. Are the same rules being adopted in Australia?'" I think they've introduced them in the junior grades, u15 and below. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... id-us-push

Again I’m firmly in the camp of reasonable reduction of risk in training and games, and healthy return-to-play protocols.

We have to decide what level of risk is acceptable and understand you simply cannot design all risk out of a contact sport. Maybe it will be possible to find a balance but I haven’t seen it so far.