Agree entirely with Bren2k and RL13.

I'm all for big hits, I enjoy the odd scrap and I can absolutely love a tough, intense, brutal defensive game.

But we HAVE to safeguard our players for 2 reasons. 1 is a selfish reason. I want to see our best players playing, not injured or retired. The 2nd is a moral reason. I believe it's wrong to expect players to play a game where we aren't doing everything possible to reduce the risk of both minor and serious injury to them.

Playing RL takes a huge physical toll on a persons body even without serious injuries. There are going to be lots of ex-players struggling to walk in 20/30 years time, again, even without sustaining serious injury.

Many RL fans I speak to massively underestimate the strength and power of the players these days and massively underestimate the power and force going into "regular" tackles let alone big hits. Unfortunately many just think it's a slightly bigger, slightly faster version of the game they played at amateur level. When it's a world away from that.

I've mentioned it before on here but I think it's worthy of mention again; In a game v Warrington a year or so ago, Jamie Peacock sustained over 20 impacts each equivalent to being in a 60mph car crash.

So imagine being in a 60mph car crash, 20 times in an hour and a half. Then do it again next week.

That's partly why head injuries are taken much more seriously now and why I think high tackles should be taken more seriously. Because a high tackle in 2015 is a completely different thing to a high tackle 20 or 30 or even 10 years ago.

And that's without the twisting, cannonballs etc that we're now seeing cause lots of injuries. The majority are unintended injuries from players trying to turn the ball carrier and slow the play the ball. Some are designed to cause pain to the ball carrier. The former should lead to the rules tweaked to avoid as many injuries as possible. The latter should be massively harshly punished and clubs and coaches punished if necessary until those sh|thouse tactics are hounded out of the game.

But both need addressing. As I don't want to see players hurt and their welfare threatened unnecessarily and I don't want to see RL's best players sat on the sidelines or retiring early.

Having been in a60mph car crash I find this very hard to believe.

From a Daily Telegraph piece, featuring an interview with Mark Bitcon:



The figure I've seen is 50mph - but what's 10mph between friends?

Neither are right. Two players running at each other flat out would both be running no more than 15mph at impact (give or take) would equate to 30mph impact.

30mph is the figure I seem to remember hearing. It's still frightening, especially when you consider it happening around 20 times a game.

But in a car you are in a seat with a seat belt and an airbag plus the crumple zones of the car.

The only thing that crumples in an RL tackle is the 2 people involved.


The Jamie Peacock 60mph figure comes from Jason Davidson and Ben Jones at Leeds.

Agree with this, more and more techniques have come into play to slow pob, some reasonable (putting more men into the tackle, reasonable in that it has the negative of making the defensive line harder to set up with a man missing) some not so (attacker holding onto collars to cannonball challenges)

Instead of banning each new technique post game would it not be easier to install a 2nd ref? It would mean a quicker game which is better for the speccies, would mean the only way to slow pob would be to win the initial collision rather than roughhousing, again better for speccies and it would mean players, forwards especially, would have to be fitter so lighter and so it might reduce the overall collision injuries?

This would keep the game the rough contact sport which requires courage and toughness yet reduce the injuries and the naff tactics that have crept in.

Yep agree with that. A 2nd ref is a must in my view. It doesn't have to be like in the NRL where there are 2 full refs on the pitch and they swap over. We can have 1 ref but have a "roving touch judge" that can be behind the ruck and relay instructions to the players and give an often invisible viewpoint to the ref.

Aren't they called fans?

I think some of the analogies about the power of impacts in sports are a bit OTT. The amount of energy might be similar but not the effect. I remember reading an article before Frank Bruno fought Mike Tyson saying that Tyson's punch was the equivalent of being hit with a sledgehammer. I don't think many boxer's hands would last too long if they spent their time knocking down walls with their hands, even wearing gloves.

It probably is, but it's to try and get over the force and power going into what are considered just "regular" hits these days. Because many people really don't realise the effect of these hits on the body and think of it as not that far away from amateur level, when it's a million miles away.

We have many RL fans saying players and coaches should stop moaning about playing more than 1 game per week and that the game is going soft and even ex-players like Schofield saying players could play 3 games in 3 days like he did in the 80's.
So they clearly have absolutely no idea how powerful these hits are despite that coaches and conditioners say players need at least 4/5 days recovery due to the effect on the body and that due to post game recovery a lot of players will only get 1 training session in before the next game and some, like Jamie Peacock, will get none.

Not wanting to derail the thread, of course.

But I'd like to question this modern idea that RL has to be played at an optimum of 1 game per week.

Maybe, just maybe if RL was played more regularly (on the weekend, with weekend fixtures), most coaches would be concerned with the game itself, working on tactics, moves, and game plans. Rather than teams spending half the week in the gym, getting stronger, and as a consequence more destructive.

It seems counter-initiative that RL was played on weekends and during midweek for many seasons, despite 80% of the players being semi-pro and having employment on the side. But I think this focused teams to work on the game, play the game better, rather than constantly beefing up its players.

That said, what other sports have their teams play just once-a-week? Football is jam-packed with fixtures. What about NFL? NHL?

The time spent lifting weights will be only around four hours a week. The rest if rehab/prehab. Don't think game or skills work is being neglected for those.

NFL is once a week. Outside the NFL, seasons are just 10-12 games long. The NFL is 4 pre-season games where the major players play very little, 16 regular season games, and up to four playoff games. The shortest turnaround between games would be Sunday-Thursday, but that only happen once a season for most teams. Soccer isn't an intense collision sport.

. Not that I would necessarily want a try-fest free-for-all.

A maximum of two defenders involved in the tackle (with an exception for a defending side's in-goal area). With only two men involved, the tackle area should clear more quickly and the tackled player will have a better opportunity to regain his feet and play the ball at pace.

Would also stop players coming in third man and looking to chop the legs out from underneath the ball carrier. If a defender wants to take the legs, then he can only have one team-mate up top to secure the ball which gives players more opportunity to offload.

That would sometimes be to the detriment of the attack as you wouldn't be able to draw multiple defenders and move them out of position?

I'd say make the ball carrier play the ball "correctly". Many play the balls are taken "incorrectly". Either players haven't properly regained their feet, are still moving forward, not facing forwards and of course often don't roll the ball back with their foot.

If we make players play the ball properly it would obviously slow it down. So would defences then not focus quite so intensely on slowing the play the ball themselves?

Also I think the refs calling held quicker and the held call being similar to the surrender call I think would help reduce some twisting injuries.

But that wouldn't reduce the impacts/size or power of players.

A reduction in interchanges?

My pet hate is tackled players moving off the mark at the PTB, either forwards to gain yards and more in particular sideways, thus leaving the markers open to be pinged for not being square.

I don't blame players for moving sideways to get some room because the previous tackler has failed to clear the ruck and is lying around on the ground in the way. Would you rather they tried to ptb on top of him and 'milked' a penalty?

The advent of the gang tackle was for precisely that reason - to slow down the clearing of the ruck and by extension, slow down the ptb; by the time the mess of bodies has been resolved, momentum is lost and the defensive line is set.

I wouldn't be against limiting the number of defenders allowed in a tackle and I'd instruct referees to call held much quicker - thus discouraging the 'holding up' of the tackled player while other defenders arrive; if the held call is sooner, they'll want him on the floor asap. And I'd enforce the bejesus out of clearing the ruck as soon as the held call is made - again, discouraging the wrestling, twisting and turtling that currently happens. And finally, insist that the play the ball is done properly, from the correct position, and that markers are square - ideally with a touch judge rigorously enforcing the ten metre rule. And while you're at it, penalise the life out of anyone who a) milks a penalty b) traps the defender in the tackle or c) shouts and screams at the official.

If all of that was done with ruthless efficiency and consistency, coaches and players would get the message pretty sharpish and the game would be better for it.

I agree that stricter enforcement of existing laws wold probably do more good (and less harm) than bringing in new ones.

As mentioned by a few the ref's need to call held sooner. Regularly neither attacker or defender has won collision and a wrestle ensues, momentum has stopped but the ref doesn't call held allowing other players plenty of time to join the tackle late and put the player to the floor. It's rarely against the rules but often dangerous. If held was called sooner, ie when momentum has stopped, the attacker would still be on his feet allowing a quick play the ball which is exactly what the defenders are trying to prevent. Defenders would then be encouraged to put the player to the floor sooner effectively eliminating the third man in problem.

I agree with those who said the attackers should be made to play the ball correctly. I've no issue with them stepping to the side to avoid a defender who hasn't cleared the rook but they shouldn't be allowed to step forward.

By the way, if you're interested in the conditioning work a player goes through, there's a nice article here: rugbystrengthcoach.com/a-week-of ... parations/ Whilst it's RU, and not quite a normal in-season our out of season session, it's a good insight. Keir is working in RU right now, but a league guy at heart.

By the way, if you're interested in the conditioning work a player goes through, there's a nice article here: rugbystrengthcoach.com/a-week-of ... parations/ Whilst it's RU, and not quite a normal in-season our out of season session, it's a good insight. Keir is working in RU right now, but a league guy at heart.

BUMP - having seen the tackle on Crabtree ( yellow card ) noone would have batted a eyelid 5/10 years ago and the Wardle tackle wasnt great but would never have been a red card in a millions years

To be fair, Crabtree landed with his head and neck bent, I'm sure we all want to see more Alex McKinnon's don't we?
And the Wardle one was a red card every day, it wasn't malicious but it was lazy.

There is more emphasis on duty of care now, especially concerning heads, than there was 10-15, 20 years ago, and rightly so, i don't think rugby league has gone soft, i think society has, because there has to be more responsibility and care now, otherwise you're likely to end up in court.