Well unless the NRL follows suit, these RFL rule changes effectively kill the international game don’t they? What are going to do, play under international rules for internationals when our players have been playing a different game?

None of us want to see life-changing injury to RL players. Have to say I fear we are trying to be too woke as a sport and have lost common sense as a result. Players accept the risks, as long as they are managed responsibly.

This legal action is a way off being successful. Proving negligence is going to be nigh on impossible - and even if they are then the ramifications will touch every single contact sport in the world.

More about insurance going forwards. I read a piece (by Robert Hicks iirc) that the game's previous insurer chose not to renew its cover. A grand total of one provider, asking roughly treble the previous premium, offered us a policy. Against that backdrop things look pretty grim. I don't think for a minute that the tackling height change will make the game safer; but a bit like cas and wakeys' stadium plans of decades past, it might just about keep things going for a few more years before a really harsh change comes about.

We can’t be slave to insurance, talk about the tail wagging the dog.

There must be alternatives to provide some funds for insurance purposes, and contracts which allow for some risk etc - we need to think laterally.

Catch 22 as without insurance there can be no game (The RFL don’t have a pot to in so how are they going to fund/cover potential future litigation claims) but when these new rules come to SL there won’t be a game much longer anyway as fans will turn away from the game in droves.

I cannot see anyone who saw any of the academy games where these rules were trialled last Summer wanting to renew season tickets.

The academy games I saw last season with these rules were ‘unwatchable’ live and would be ‘unwatchable’ to the tv audience on SKY

In regards to insurance, couldnt the RFL used the same company that covers RL in any otger market? It seems to be just the English that are making such dramatic changes.

I know very little about insurance, and how it works on an international market, but it sounds like a cop-out to me.



I watched a couple of academy games with the trial rules. I don't think I saw a full set of six tackles without a penalty. Most from an arm riding up after making contact with the ball in the tackle.

I actively avoided the academy and reserve games as they were a farce. I have renewed my season ticket, however. Time will tell if that was a mistake.

The video with JJB says initial contact must be below the armpit, the text in the article on the RFL website says any contact above the armpit will be penalised.
I share many of the concerns already posted, but I'm not sure how it is going to be interpreted and will make it really hard to officiate, and confusing to watch.

From the videos, it looks like any player standing upright to wrap up the ball will be pinged.

I had about five head injuries during my career and they were all suffered whilst defending from being hit by the attacking players knees and hips. We will see far more injuries along these lines if these rules are introduced.

In addition, how will they police the forwards and backs total minutes. Someone like Ablett or Martin, who decides whether they are a back or a forward? Does Cullen get to decide?

The best thing that could happen is for the RU case by former players to be held and a firm result comes out one way or another. Fundamentally neither RL or RU can exist if players aren't willing to take risks.

I just don't understand what grounds someone from the 80s or 90s would have for claiming the sport didn't do enough. There wasn't mass outrage at the likes of SBW or Sam Burgess potentially inflicting life-altering damage on opponents with shoulders as late as a decade ago. The reason concussed players in the 80s and 90s used to get a sponge to the head and then back on wasn't because the game was negligent, its because nobody understood the risk of long-term damage.

The other issue for former RL players is quite frankly even if they were successful, what would they get financially? There's no insurance policy that would cover a player who retired a decade ago, and most clubs don't even own their own ground so have no assets, and make losses. That doesn't mean the game doesn't owe them morally and should do its best to help, but if any of the players involved in the class action think they're going to get any meaningful compensation out of RL they are kidding themselves. Dividing not much money by a lot of players means sweet FA.

There's a late shoulder then there's this. Agree with the post, btw

Great post. Spot on.

Some of the changes are good but some of the critical ones seem very clumsy and poorly thought through. It's hard to fathom.

Whenever you put an approach in place, you have to start with a clear idea of the problem first. What exactly are we trying to achieve? Significantly reduce short and long-term brain injury whilst maintaining the integrity of the game. We won't know whether the laws introduced over the last 2-3 years will be effective until about 10 years have passed or more, and even then it's hard to differentiate between conditions which are "natural" and those incurred through contact, or how many fewer contact injuries have occurred as a result of the law changes.

At Leeds we would always be mindful of Rob Burrow and his tragedy. Nobody wants to see that happen. My beef is that I just don't see how these proposals would prevent another Rob Burrow scenario from happening, but I can see they would stop a Rob Burrow wanting to play the game or stay in it.

What really bothers me us that all this is on the back of a four game/week trial. Seems a very short period in which to arrive at such sweeping conclusions. Were the players and coaches who took part consulted? Were the fans? The big worry for me is that these recommendations change the game so profoundly that it completely loses it's appeal to fans and broadcasters. It feels like this could hasten the sports demise rather than safeguard it's longevity.

Were the Burrow head knocks / concussions caused by high tackles or in defence because of his height, he had to tackle low and thus, took stray knees and hips when tackling as well as getting his head in the wrong position.

I suspect he suffered more head knocks as a defender rather than an attacker. We seem to be encouraging players to tackle lower but in my view, this will increase head knocks not reduce them.

You make a great point and I can recall a few times where Burrow was knocked around attempting to tackle. He was flipping great in D, barely ever saw anyone get past him what a champion attitude he had.

I really think the authorities are over-estimating the medical effect of stray arms to the head. It's becoming impossible to make effective tackles and the whole thing frustrates players and fans alike. I fundamentally believe they should be working to SIMPLIFY the rules and stop over-engineering everything to the point where it is impossible to officiate. They've got this all wrong I'm afraid to say.

You may well be right. I got KO'd a couple of times and KO'd a couple of opponents - all were poorly executed low tackles. And many other players say the same. Whether that still holds true is something the gumshield technology may confirm.
But assuming it does, where does the game go then? A ban on tackles below the waist? Can't say the spectacle of unionesque mauling until a player is halted appeals much.

Union has loads of issues with aggressive rucking and mauling - laying prone beneath five 110kg angry men isn't my idea of head injury heaven.

More force through the front rowers in the scrums too (significantly).

Rugby is a risky game by its nature, you cannot remove that risk. You can only reduce it, or just not have a game any more. The question is how much we can reduce the risk without killing the game itself - they are trying to spin it but ultimately these changes harm the game.

We're not the only sport to face similar issues but... how the heck boxing and MMA/UFC can be OK and RL isn't, is beyond my tiny intelligence to understand.

The only thing I can assume with boxing is they have relatively few fights in a year.

In GB boxers have an annual brain scan and blood tests to check for deterioration. I'm guessing the cost of testing all playing staff in similar way wouldn't be insignificant.

Agree with the majority of what's been said here. The proposals are the ultimate knee jerk reaction and incredibly poorly thought out. Even a casual observer over a number of games would see that the overwhelming majority of HIA's are caused by poor tackle technique (head in the wrong place) or tackling so low that contact with the ball carriers hip/elbow is inevitable. If this is the way we're going as a society, I really don't understand how a sport where the aim is to physically hurt your opponent by hitting them in the, amongst other places, head, isn't mired in litigation. Yet it isn't. It's almost as if the risks associated with boxing are so overt that any claim would be doomed to failure. Perhaps RL, and RU, are taking the lazy way out, and in turn, condemning the sports to oblivion in the process.

We could do more to penalise foul play - if someone intentionally takes your knees out or whatever it can still lead to significant injury. Then we had ridiculous bans robbing our international team of players. They have just got it wrong at the moment on a number of levels.

Agree with that. Boxing is an inheritently dangerous business, yet the sport and its practioners seem to have made peace with that years ago. They did away with 15 round bouts in the late 80's and weigh ins on the day of the fight not long after. Beyond that not much has changed rules wise since. The risks are self evident yet despite the chaotic proliferation of world titles it retains its appeal.

Spot on mate. totally agree. I really do now fear for the future of the game. This has the potential to kill it, no doubt about it

I suspect if you polled the players and supporters, an overwhelming majority would be against these significant rule changes on top of others in recent years which have been frustrating.

What is the point in running "trial" games under these new rules, which I can confirm were disastrous, if the decision had clearly already been made? Where is the consultation? Totally agree with those posting on the risks of head injury in D, which in my view outweighs the now small risk of head high tackling. Are we going to outlaw tackling too? Where are they going with this?

I don't personally want to see a return to the Mick Cassidy outrageous elbow to Adrian Morley's head acts... I'm glad that kind of thuggery is disappearing. But that was always illegal. They would do better improving the quality of refereeing under the existing rules rather than introducing more rules to make their jobs even harder.

I've only just watched the video introducing the rule change, wow. Loads of penalties and when a tackler actually manages to not commit an offence how do they wrap up the ball and prevent offloads without conceding a penalty?