Wigan Warriors.....possibly the BIGGEST name in the Game.......welcomed 5,555 fans to a SL game.......this is the lowest SL attendance for the club in 26 seasons of Superleague. Now, I get that there's a few folk keen to stay alert, but I thought fans would be chomping at the bit to get to games?

It's undoubtedly impacted massively by covid. A) because of the criminal scaremongering the press have done over the last two years. They have genuinely convinced a lot of people that going about normal life is akin to spraying an uzi at a bunch of children. B) because people are now so used to not going that actually going to the games will be difficult to adjust back to. C) because the massive overreaction to covid has left a lot of businesses on the scrapheap or having to cut back so a lot are reeling financially. It was always going to decimate crowds.

BUT, the clubs have added to it with their attitude to games. Those clubs who have cancelled games at a drop of a hat to suit their schedule (And it's blatanatly obvious that some have done this) have chipped away at the image of the sport. A sport already suffering from years of neglect and a lack of investment and promotion. Public perception of rugby league has never, ever been lower. 'It's a joke' has become the new buzzphrase.

Covid factor but more important the Super League product on display isn't great.

The decline in quality isn't stopping anytime soon.

At Hull FC only members (season pass) holders are allowed in, given that fans had no idea what was going to transpire so didn't renew their season membership plus the insanity of 25% capacity rule, the whole hassle of gaining entry into the stadium, muzzle wearing and so on it's not surprising that supporter numbers are going to be a fraction of those from previous seasons.

Wigan had a slump in fans with their foray into the 2nd division with a home game low of just over 4,000 fans, in their return to 1st divison they had 11 home games with fewer than 5,555 fans, lowest was 3.5k for Whitehaven league game, their biggest league home game was 8k for the visit of Leigh. in the CC however they had a huge high of 17k for the Widnes 2nd rnd match, the fact it was only around 6k for the home league game both at CP and Naughton park shows how imporant the CC was back then.

Honestly I'm not surprised, and the reasons given [reviously are valid, fans have fallen out with the sport, gotten out the habit of going and with the way the sport has been going in how its played has been losing fans on that basis as well. Six again and the vague interpretation of that, no scrums all have an influence as a part of the turn off.

I really want to go to the FCv KR game in late August and take my son and mum when we travel up for her birthday, but it's likely that there won't be a game or worse the game is on but medical apartheid for entry.

Not unusual for you, but that is not true.

6 again and the salary cap have ruined professional rugby league in this country

Its now a joke of a game

At some point, the clubs and the players will realise that, if they keep postponing half of the weekly fixtures, people will make plans to do other things.
We ware killing our broadcasters and killing the game.
There is a bit of an irony here too, in that some people will have stayed away, not wanting to be in a big crowd.

However, the real issue is that clubs cant survive on less than half of their regular attendance

You wont see people staying away from the premier league in a month - only in RL would they say the fans are scared.

The game is in a mess - it needs leadership and Rimmer isn't the man to do that, neither are a small group of championship chairman who seem to think they know best.

Get a quality individual in and give them the authority to change the sport

There doesn't seem to be any hesitancy in cricket attendances, and it'll be the same with football next month.

I think the postponements are hitting the sport hard. It's very hard to get excited about games right now. There is also next to no marketing of games at the moment.

I don't like hyperbolic statements such "the game's dead" but it does seem like we're at a low ebb right now.

If the cricket or football were postponing half of their weekly fixtures on a regular basis, they too would have some issues regarding attendance.
It seems clear that, the strategy of "allowing" postponements due to covid contacts is hurting the game and NOBODY is doing a bloody thing to try and change the situation.
We are sleepwalking into oblivion.
The "product" on the field has become one dimensional. Yeah, we've made the game quicker but, it's like having a sentence without punctuation.
There needs to be a change and some positivity in the game and quick.

The 6 again is fine it's the basic skills which is the problem. The amount of knock ons and unforced errors is a joke.

The NRL is a much faster game than SL right now but the skill level also remains much higher.

Over here we can't even implement the ruling on the PTB correctly. That is a joke!!

I think we need to remember that even before covid we would see play off games played in empty stadiums. Filling stadiums has been an issue for a while.

The NRL is also a complete mess too. Their six again implementation is no better than our's and it's hated by the fans. Their crackdown on high shots also made the game farcical for a month or so and I suspect we have that to come.

When did this change as it was certainly the case when fans were allowed back into the grounds.
What is the conditions for entry currently and how mahy fans are alowed in?

Get rid of testing people who are not sick (with tests that cannot detect infection in any case), stop doing track and trace which causes pingdemic and requests people to isolate when they are also not sick and stop restrictions on entry into grounds and the sport might have a chance. All of which are guidelines not laws.
If the RFL and clubs have anything about them and want the sport to get back on its feet theyt have to stand up and be counted, otherwise the sport is done as we know it.

Ah, so we allow the virus to spread among the population and pick off the "low hanging fruit".
If only they'd thought of this 18 months ago and we could possibly have had half a million dead, instead of the 125,000 or so.

Great idea. Perhaps you could stand for Parliament.

Cracking down on high shots isn't farcial, it's about modifying how participants play the sport, it needs to continue and expanded to neck tackling, well it needs to continue if we are actually really as bothered about player welfare as the words seem to imply.
The problem with some of the interpretations by both on field and disciplinary is that there's a failure to understand kinetic energy/pyhsiology of humans in motion and how fast the human brain can determine an ever changing environment or motion of other players actions or state of motion.

Whence a player decides to make contact/ a tackle they are making that decision a certai period before the contact is made, sometimes you can adjust how that cntact is made leading up to it, however there are a fair few occasions in every match were the time between your initial decision to make contact and what's unfolding in front of you is too short for the human brain to decipher (reaction time) and even if it could, your physical motion (kinetic energy) canot simply be moved or stopped in that time frame to avoid the contact point you were aiming for. Thus head high shots occur when the initial movement was legitimate.

Penalising players severely on the back of those instances is not just wrong but unjust and ignorant, it could lead to a fundamental change in contact sport and not for the better. We only need to look at how gridiron decided to 'protect' its participants and the outcome from that has been a pandemic of brain injuries (to the extent of suicide to alleviate the symtpoms of CTE) and massive injury increases in other parts of the body, this mostly due to the effects of the intervention. So rugby either goes down the headgear route (very bad), it becomes a soft contact sport, which means its no longer rugby as we know it, or it lives with the fact that in some instances injuries/contact to the head cannot be avoided.

How does testing people who are not in primary or secondary care benefit public health?

People who are well do not have either a) any infection, or b) cannot pass on any small amount of whatever it is you think 'it' is, the mere fact that someone is not sick means they can't pass anything on. This is basic science, despite the lies coming out of government regards 'anyone can spread it'.

As for your 125k number, you have actually read the governments own documents regards death by any cause right, decreeing covid on the back of tests that can't detect infection and using a massive list of symptoms for a medical person to 'guess' what someone has died WITH (not of) whilst adding to that number all pneumonia deaths (as per the governments own edict last year) makes that number not just misleading but a lie. Check FOI requests from hospital trusts for a more accurate number of deaths by coronaviruses. University of Glasgow centre for virus studies have data that proves coronaviruses are 7-15% cause for critical respiratory ailments every year, this data is over a 15 year period. Go ask them for the data under an FOI if you don't beleive me.

Hallf a million dead, lol, are you Neil Ferguson, do you have even one iota of understanding of how his numbers were brought about, no, I guess you don't. I'd explain it in detail but you're not interested in the science or the truth about what has happened and will continue to happen.

The issue is the zero tolerance on headshots is more about avoiding a lawsuit than protecting the players.

You are right sometimes there will be accidental headshots where a player had no intention to hit the head and those ones should be seen as accidents and not result in sin bins.

The ones where there is no doubt and a player is clearly trying to hurt someone should be the bin or red card depending on the severity of the shot.

Clearly the effect of of zero tolerance has seen defence become more passive. Players are worried about getting sent off or sent to the bin so the contact has changed which is worse for the game. Some argue tackle low but the game really doesn't allow just below the waist tackles as without trying to stop the ball carrier off loading we would have a game which would be so advantageous to attack that defense would become irrelevant.

As for the 6 again. Its a good rule which stops defences happy to give a way pens to either slow the game down or concede 2 points instead of a potential 6.

What it has done in the NRL is expose the sides who can't get there defensive line in shape quick enough and those who's players can't handle the speed of the game.

As the Arctic Monkeys sang "drowning in denial", You keep on believing bro'

I couldn't disagree with you more, bending your back and making a waist tackle is massively more effective at stopping the opposition. You cite the offloading of the ball as to why this would lead to more advantage to attack, however I shall explain to you why you, and indeed many others are incorrect in that thinking.
Firstly, have a look at how many yards after contact most players effect, particularly forwards, if there is a waist/legs tackle in like for like scenario, would you agree or disagree that that this prevents yardage been made upfield?
Would you agree or disagree that having 3 or 4 players in a stood up tackle is a better use of resources than one or two players making a waist/legs tackle and one to help out?
How many defenders are having to make back the 10m from a 3 or 4 player stood up tackle compared to a one or two player legs tackle?
Would you accept that having 3 or 4 players in the tackle is more fatigue inducing with the reitrement of the additional tacklers back 10m than none and this in fact has a detrmental affect on the defensive line that because that 3rd and 4th tackler might not be onside can get a penalty drawn against them or they are not in a position to make a defensive move?
Would you agree or disagree that a falling player (from a leg tackle) has less control over an offload than one whom is stood up?
Which player takes longer to make a PTB a player leg tackled/dominated and on the ground, or one that is stood up in a tackle being smothered?
Would you agree or disagree that offloading out the stood up tackle is prevelent in the sport despite best attempts to smother tackle?

if you've watched the game for any period of time you'll notice how many easy yards players make when the up top tackle is performed (hence the 3rd or 4th man in and indeed this increases chances of the cannonball tackle), players get handed off/fended far more easily as well.
Falling players from a legs tackle have far less control over an offload so are less likely to do it than if they are stood up. A legs tackle gives you more defenders in the line than an up top tackle with 3 or 4 players, this means if there is a quick PTB you've more chance of being an effective defensive line compared to a line missing up to 4 players (incl two at the PTB). Fewer committed tacklers means less fatigue overall as it's a better and quicker way to halt an attacker and less time spent retreating 10m.
Dominant leg tackles not only gee up your team mates but they can knock the stuffing out of the opposition, it hurts more to be knocked onto your back or fall onto your shoulder/body as an attacker than it does just being held up, it fatigues you more as well.

If players started bending their backs again, not only does this reduce chances of head/neck injuries, it's a more effective way of defending. problem is coaches are too indoctrinated itno thinking one way and can't accept that they might be wrong because they're either scared of failure or simply acknowledge that most their players can't tackle for @@@t

The likes of Houghton, Tommy Leuluai and some others are great exponents of the one on one tackle and often dominate much bigger players, this not only means their defensive line is fully set but the attacker made no more yards after contact and more often than not did not offload the ball.

Go back and watch games over the last 20 years and more, look at what happens after a good legs/waist tackle, where defenders are, how much yards after contact was made, how often offloads occured, how long it took for the attcker to PTB.
Compare that to the up top grab tackle and see how ineffiecient it is and how it leads to more head shots occuring and indeed neck tackles.

You've made some cracking points and yes leuluai one of the very best but it would take a huge change in tackling technique to get a game such as you describe. Players are not coached to tackle like that and getting them to change into that mode now would be one hell of an ask. I think if we saw more below the waist tackling too many would get it wrong and the game would be full of missed tackles.

Am I right in saying we want the bigger guys to have to work harder as we want them to get fatigued so the smaller strike players get more space in a game?

There’s a reason why people who aren’t sick are tested. I don’t know what that reason is but I’m sure they are right and you are wrong because remind me what your PHD is? It reminds me of a tweet I once saw that went something along the lines of

Spend 3 years getting a degree
Spend 2 years getting a masters
Spend 2 years getting a PHD
Spend 5 years researching a topic
Spend 3 years collaborating the info required to publish your thesis
Publish your thesis and wait 2 years whilst it’s peer reviewed
Peer review agrees with you
Random idiot on a website like rlfans claims …..bull****

Ergo, you have no idea what you are talking about

Being tested isn't the issue. The most important result should be whether someone is infectious. If one isn't infectious a positive test is irrelevant.

So then......getting crowds back to games in the short term (ie, this year)
any ideas?