Although it may not have been the case for Watts, who is responsible if the attacker dips at the last second and there is shoulder head contact?

How low do you have to get your body as a defender if the attacker is dipping into the tackle?

It’s not clear cut.

It's a good question. Watts didn't dip at all so wouldn't really apply there but under other scenarios where the tackler did then I'm guessing it would be seen as mitigation and the ref would pull out the yellow. There'll doubtless be a grey area though, the sort that usually results in inconsistency.

I can see situations where the tackler preemptively dips yet the ball carrier doesn't, resulting in the ball carriers hip/elbow making contact with the tacklers head. Contact with the head and forceful - yellow card?

This is the scenario that concerns me. I can see players being sent off when they are unable to react to an attacker making a late change in height. This is different to the lazy arms left out when being stepped, and shouldn’t be on the defender in my view.

A player dips their head forward at the line trying to score a try, are we now saying you cannot tackle them if you might touch their head?

I hope not, whilst the defender has a responsibility to protect the safety of the other players (including his co tacklers) there should be limits based on what is reasonable and practical. I can see some players deliberately ducking into defenders to try to get them sent off.

I understand why they have changed the rules, I just don’t think it’s practical or even what the players want.

I remember Chris Hill got a red for exactly this when he was at Warrington. Heavy-ish contact mind but not one he could have easily pulled out of once he'd committed to making the tackle. In that basis it's been in the rules a while already.

With the onfield interruption from the video refs it will be interesting to see if there's a decrease in bans from the disciplinary. e.g. the Momo sin-bin would have been left last season and then he'd probably of got a ban. As it is he should be free to play. I wont hold my breath though.

Quote ="christopher"I disagree https://twitter.com/mikeyweal/status/17 ... 03033?s=46 Shoulder direct contact to the head, it was acred card and It would have been last year'" I know, I've already seen that. We disagree.

Quote ="christopher"I disagree https://twitter.com/mikeyweal/status/17 ... 03033?s=46 Shoulder direct contact to the head, it was acred card and It would have been last year'" I know, I've already seen that. We disagree.

The fact that everyone disagrees on here tells you that it's pretty much an impossible job

I used to be a big fan of shoulder charges etc., however, based on how the game has been refereed the last 1-2 years, Watts was an obvious red for me. If you stay upright and your shoulder makes contact with their head, your unlikely to stay on the field. In reality, Westerman should have seen red too but they were never going to send both off.

I think if a defender decides to remain upright in a tackle, they are always going to be risking it as there will be no mitigation. If they bend, they will I would hope have mitigation and it might just be a yellow if they make head contact.

If the ball carrier doesn't bend at all, and his shoulder/elbow/hip makes contact with the tacklers head, is this a card?

No because the duty of care is on the defender to avoid the attackers head and not the attacker to avoid the defenders head.

I much preferred it in the days when reds were only given for very clear dirty play etc., however, these are not rules anymore. Players need to learn the risk of tackling upright runs the risk of yellows / reds.

Yes I think everyone can see the need to protect players' long-term health.

The problem is the way in which the RFL is trying to achieve this - it's harming the game so much whilst not doing much to prevent concussion. Would be interested in the stats as to whether the amount of concussions is actually decreasing over time with the new rules - I still see plenty of players leave for HIA. By the time you need an HIA brain injury has already occurred/is a risk. Often it is defenders who come off worst; where in the rules are we or can we protect defenders? This obsession with the obvious head-high tackling is not helping; rules have ALWAYS been in place to deal with dirty play.

Red cards on-field should be reserved for clear foul play as a punishment. They should not be used for any controversial or arguable cases live, this is where the match commission can review objectively and gather evidence. We need a points system for punishment where the sanction fits the crime much better.

The tackle Tariq Sims put on George Williams was awesome. Rugby League is a physical contact sport where you are going to get hurt at times. It's hard enough to attract players of quality to the sport in competition with football and RU, I feel at the moment we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Great post. but more questions than answers at the moment

Spot on. The number of times i was concussed while playing not one was in the act of being tackled. Forcing tacklers lower and lower will increase the occurrence of tacklers getting a elbow/hip/knee in the head. Look at the problems Gannons going through now, all from being the tackler, i seem to recall this was the case with Stevie Ward too.

I think it could be managed better. Where the contact is accidental/unavoidable (and I don't think the Watts one was btw) then send the player off but allow a replacement on after 10 mins has elapsed. That'd keep players focused on avoiding causing harm, would incentivise clubs to coach them not to do so but crucially wouldn't ruin a contest from an early stage.

That would be another level of subjectivity that wouldn't be manageable.

It becomes more manageable with a vr at every game. Fans always see decisions as subjective anyway - the yellow card tip tackle at cas is a case in point.

Aah, the old Morgan Knowles/John Bateman clause. When invoked this clause allows certain players from certain teams to escape punishment thus allowing them to play in the big games. In Bateman’s case obviously England R.L were the beneficiaries of collusion between them and the R.F.L. Don’t get your hopes up at Headingley though, because like I said, it only applies to certain teams. The words “frivolous” and “extra games” spring to mind when less deserving clubs try invoking this clause to free a player up for the biggest of games.

Exactly, weve already enough subjectivity without another layer on intent and longer VR interventions to try and gauge what the player was thinking by the look of intent on his face and his body language.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... s-28660188 Interesting read, particularly on the lack of player consultation and the implications for the international game

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... s-28660188 Interesting read, particularly on the lack of player consultation and the implications for the international game

Given the fact that he's always injured when the test matches come around, it seems a bit rich. But I understand his point.

Mik had a HIA from a semi dodgy three man tackle against Salford but again, would be interested in the evidence of how many concussions are with defenders.

The RFL would just say that you cannot easily legislate for head injury in tackling abs that it’s more about technique I guess.