The obvious reason is because they won’t be able to be insured unless these steps are taken. I would imagine that the conditions will be imposed by insurers before they consider insuring the sport. It kind of gives them some rope to put up the premiums also even with the tackle height reduced.

From what I see a number of the head injuries happen more at thigh/hip level anyway. Take Batchelor at magic weekend last year. You rarely see head injury from high tackles these days anyway.

The issue is the game will evolve into something different. There are a number of issues.some immediate ones from a fan perspective:

1. Clubs, coaches and players will exploit the change - catching a player high whilst they drop or lower into the tackle has already been a recent talking point. You can’t tell me this won’t be coached. Drop a couple of inches going into contact so you get hit on the upper chest. It’s a gift of a repeat set and there will be clubs who use this to the fullest. You couldn’t prove it either if it’s small margins.

2. Who draws the line? It’s more pressure and more grey area on the officials to police. Where one offivial sees a tackle above the line another may not (especially at high speed contact). This is going to be a lottery and a minefield. Officials will face the brunt of it too and they’re already receiving a high level of criticism for what I feel is more a lack of resource and support from the governing body. There is an answer for this….. every team shirt has a line on the shirt going from pit to pit which can be a tool to judge by. It won’t be perfect but gives some benchmark at least. Either way officials are going to really get the brunt of this change. I actually feel really sorry for the referees.

3. Grappling in upper body and wrapping the ball will be very difficult to do without being penalised for. Players who carry the ball high up especially. We will end up seeing a ton of offloads potentially and it being more like a hot potato.

4. The 6 again currently speeds up play and is a tool teams use to put others on the back foot and exploit to get further repeat sets. Is the game currently too fast for this kind of change? I think since 6 again the game has become a lot more scrappy and more direct and less expansive. Teams can hammer fast runs behind the play for repeated sets at pace to inch down field and keep teams on the back foot. This change would make it all the easier to do this.

I feel that the sport is backed into a corner with this with very little option but this will signal a huge change.

As long as there are comparable rules for attacking players… eg not ducking into tackles … holding the ball below armpit… keeping their head above the normal shoulder height at all times… no diving…or voluntarily going to ground…

Not if you want to watch a game of rugby with a penalty every other minute then i guess not.

Having witnessed games under these rules its diabolical there aent less injuries probally more if anything not just to head but to other limbs.dont forget the tackeler going to be going lower so there suffering more.and players dont want it.just watch all the talent drain away from sl in 2025 when it comes in there top brits will go to nrl and the aussies wont want to come here

Yes back around may/june time i posted regarding the stupid rules

I don't really see why making the tackle limit the armpit is such a great sport killer.
You've never been able to hit the head, it's just not been policed properly, so they've effectively lowered it by 2-3 inches.
It doesn't make the tackle any softer.
A big rackle in the chest is still a big tackle.
Or, as most people are taught initially, around the waist.

Banning all the wrestle moves hasn't hurt the sport. I'm sure this won't either.
The winning team will be the one that adapted quickest.

I wonder if maybe the solution to the penalties is for coaches to teach their youth teams to tackle by the rules.

It's not the concept, it's the implementation.

At speed and from distance, pretty hard for any ref to define below the armpit, or whether it's purely accidental, or due to the player falling into the tackle. It's another one of those rules that are far too subjective, and I think it will kill the spectacle for a while until someone finally realises it can't be done.

It is/ was the gladiatorial nature of the sport which attracted me to play and watch… if these rules had applied when I was a kid would it have made a difference to me getting involved as a player? Who knows? As a paying spectator… yes it would absolutely have affected my decision… I don’t pay to watch touch footy… I don’t really like Union.. but the new rules have made it totally unwatchable for me…

I understand why the adaptation… with some technical reservations… and…
I’m sure new generations will adapt and enjoy… AND… I will always love and watch trinity whatever version of whatever sport they play.

But, in my old age, I think I will probably just end up watching 70s 80s and 90s games on YouTube … for that’s the sport I fell in love with!

Why don't they wear head protection like Bish used to wear. That was used purely for protection after a serious head injury.

You mentioned insurance, at the Friday lunch last Friday, Ben Thaler was asked what he thought about the new rules on tackling.
He said one issue was getting insurance for the players, the previous insurance company wouldn’t do business with the RFL anymore, numerous other companies had been approached without success, eventually one company offered to insure at a cost of £1.4/million if i heard correctly, the last premium with the old company was in the region of £450.000, that’s quite a jump in premiums, and considering IMG have just given a bill for nearly £500,000, there isn’t much left in the coffers.

But equally, how much better would it have been to watch Toppo, Millwall, Woods in the 70s if the players not as good as them couldn't just hit them in the head.

It's really not that hard to adjust to tackle below arm pits.

BJB was protecting a previously fractured skull I believe. Head Guards don't protect against concussion.

Its not that simple PT how many penalties for head i do you see where contact starts below the head but the force moves the arm up well there will be more of that now add to this the ball carrier just simply dips just before contact to win the penalty.you get a stop start games we where looking at 70 to 80 penalties a game thats why it will suffer i attended games last season with the rules and there not enjoyable add to this players were still getting headknocks but from tackeling and getting knees in the head

Yet the powers that be allow professional boxing, where the whole aim of "the game" is to do as much damage to the head as possible....crazy!!!!!

I honestly don’t know… (desperately not wishing to ref to Millwall)

Assumedly it is also incumbent upon the ball carrier to consider their own safety also… so ducking into the tackle or diving through a tackle to attempt to score a try should also be banned!?!

This is the crux of it. Most head injuries with players having to leave the pitch in SL I have seen have happened from hip level tackles where the head was in wrong position (Batchelor at magic) or two players going low and clashing heads.

I am actually struggling to recall many hard head shots in SL this season. Direct hits to the head are much rarer these past 2 seasons.

The simple fact is the player with the ball will have less risk but the defending players will have exponentially increased risk. Why??? They will be having to lower their own heads potentially to the height of a ball carriers forearm/elbow or hips (a reason why some I suspect avoid putting their heads there so they don’t cop a head knock).

I actually predict head knocks will rise… what then?

The issue is the RFL and insurers are reacting to players old head injuries from years ago when there were punch ups, stiff arms to the face and shoulder challenges. The game these days is much more controlled to the point where I expect far fewer of current SL players would suffer long term effects.

As I say the risk is from before the game evolved into what it is now. Which I think is sufficient as a fan. Players presently are much more protected than they were even 5 years ago.

If the premium is 1.4 million. I’m afraid I would pay it and just take 80k off each SL club or ask each SL. Club to sacrifice short term and do a comprehensive study over 2/3 seasons to evidence how head injuries are a much rarer occurrence and dealt with much more professionally than they were years ago with a view to bringing down that premium.

Feels like a very knee jerk reaction in some respects.

Alot of players are moaning

Can’t say I’d be happy if as a defender I’d have to put my head in body in a more vulnerable position either. At least with head up you can judge better and keep away from brutal head collision with own players and incidents like that at Magic (Jane’s Batchelor).

Also if two players went low on me I’d literally just offload the ball which I’m sure would be easier with less attention up high.

It's an absolute farce but it doesn't surprise me that there are some I could have predicted defending it.

It's not a matter of defending it. It's just the way it is.
Once the ex players started a law suit the game, as well as other sports would be bankrupt unless they followed the advice.

Watched a couple of games from the 80s this morning and 20 mins of a championship game from last season …. Between 95 and 90% of the tackles I observed would be illegal under the new rules… one interesting observation was watching Trinity full back Gary Spencer … every drive he skips and ducks under the armpit of the attempting tackler… putting his head in a very dangerous position..,

Interestingly during the first ten mins of the championship game… the teams went set for set… aggressive running and tackling but not one…(I watched it twice to confirm) of the tackles in that period would have been legal.

I think we are in grave danger of ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’!

I can see future defensive patterns being akin to rugby sevens where no one wants to commit to the tackle, for fear of offending or off loading

And I can see the offside line being reduced to 5 to compensate in some way and reduce the impacts.

The game will be a poor spectacle from 2025 I expect full of penalty kicks, penalties and tries. Defence will be none existent and territory will be teams camped in oppositions 20 forcing repeat sets.

Players like Mikey Lewis, Tomkins style players etc who like to duck and dive will get so many penalties for their teams it will be unfathomable.

One more thing…. International game. If the NRL are not doing this where does that leave international fixtures? If players in uk aren’t insured then surely they can’t play full contact under a different set of rules? The NRL would enjoy a huge gap i would think as how the NRL and Superleague would be coached for tackling would become quite different.

It doesn't really matter if the supporters like it or not. Fact there seems to be only one company willing to insure the players and no doubt they will have stipulated that a condition of the insurance would be a drive to reduce high shots. Head knocks from poor tackle technique or friendly fire is not foul play but accidental. Perhaps there is an acceptance this can't be mitigated from the game. Ultimately if no one is prepared to insure the game then it will not exist.

I’ve a number of thoughts on this but will try to keep it short and to the point.

Firstly we can thank the former players many of whom polluted their bodies with drink and recreational drugs and didn’t look after their money for this bandwagon jumping exercise to get a quick quid. They are responsible for this action.

I even saw one of the most high profile players involved in the legal action calling the new rules “ridiculous” which blows my mind given he is one of the main guys suing the RFL.

Wasn’t interested till he got a divorce and ran out of cash, then suddenly was all for it.

As others have highlighted the game would cease to exist given the litigation and the potential insurance situation so thanks to this group of individuals it has been forced to change.

The reality is we are reducing tackle height by a couple of inches. It’s not such a big deal. Will there be increased penalties initially, obviously, however just like what happened in Union when much more aggressive measures were put in place the number of penalties will ease over a short time when players get used to them.

You cannot just let kids play under the normal rules anymore and say their parents know the score, its rugby etc, again times have changed and this would cause huge potential issues down the line.

I’ve no doubt some players in the amateur game will have a knee jerk reaction and walk away….i will also bet nearly all of them return once the season gets underway and things calm down.

It’s the refs I feel sorry for as it’s going to be a hell of an undertaking to get on top of initially in already challenging environments in some cases.

I’m not for it in any way shape or form, my main issue is we are protection the ball carrier however I believe we are shifting risk on the defenders rather than reducing or mitigating it, but that seems to be ok, even the example the RFL issued of a now legal tackle from a Salford v Leigh game shows the 2 tackling players clash heads as there is a reduced target where players can put themselves.

End of day though, like it or not (abd im firmly in the not campaign) we are future proofing the game to give it the best chance of being a sport in 10/20 years time.

The advent of hitting higher and locking up a players upper torso with maybe 2 other defenders coming in to control and take down the attacking player mainly became prominent when we went to the 10 metre retreat
The extra 5 metres allowed teams to make more yardage by just taking a drive. That then fostered bigger, fitter players with good leg speed to maximise that yardage. The philosophy was that you can make enough yardage, even without getting a roll on and a fast play the ball, to reach midfield and put in a kick without taking a risk.

Maybe we should be looking at reducing the 10 metre retreat and reversing the trend.