But the fans, coaches, refs and players ARE the game, not the administrators or the underwriters.

I admire your optimism and you’re right in the sense that there is opportunity here too.

You’re going to have a very hard job persuading me how the game can possibly look better with this current policy framework though mate. Arbitrary cards, inconsistent decisions, over-complex rules, sledgehammer to crack a walnut, no direct correlation between the risk and the punishment… not for me.

Would another evolution of the game be going to 11 aside which would lead to aless condensed field and more leg tackles.

There's definitely major issues, but are the issues you mention really THAT bad? They're definitely big issues, but they're definitely fixable. Perhaps, instead of giving red cards out for accidental head contact, they should send both players for a mandatory HIA assessments? That would still force players to adjust their technique, and deter defenders from trying to milk a penalty.

If that's the case, just make leg tackles the only legal way to tackle and accept a faster passing game with lots of offloads and trys. It would be more entertaining than the wrestle which has taken precedence over the last 10 years or so.

What a big fuss about following the rules which the RFL have no alternative to follow , in view of the legal ramifications . The big discussion should be why the rules about head high tackling have not been enforced in the past , and then we would not be having this chaotic situation.
It is all down to the players to listen to what they have been told - hit the opponent on the head and your in trouble . I agree the refs have to be consistent Donno was a red , and Smith tackle was also a red . Watts tackle - made no attempt to bend his back , although with Westerman stood behind him , we would all have second thoughts about that !!!
Listening to KR player , he said Brett Delaney had been hammering the new tackle technique into all the players - this is what is needed at every club . This is the way forward , and much as I love the biff , I am afraid we are now in a different era - get used to it . John Holmes , my favourite player of all times , would have been in his element.

My main issue is the way in which the current administration is applying rules ostensibly to protect player welfare - but as far as I can see it absolutely does not.

Wilkin made a sensible suggestion of yellow carding if an infringement looks potentially bad, and then letting the video referees review over the 10 mins and allow back on or convert to red as necessary. Doesn’t stop sides losing games from frivolously given yellow cards though.

We need to find ways to incentivise players to play more safely without ruining the game itself. Yes it IS that bad - the rules the academy played under last year; I’m a pretty loyal and die hard fan but I wouldn’t watch that game. I mean you do you but it isn’t for me when it gets to that.

Insurance companies will not have said to the RFL "you must introduce rules x, y and z." They may have said "you need to mitigate risks a, b and c." The new rules are the RFLs answer to deliver this mitigation. However, in any other industry those at the sharp end would have been consulted as to whether the proposals would achieve the stated aim. That clearly hasn't happened, and what we have, predictably, is an utterly shambolic mess. Poorly thought out, poorly implemented, poorly administered. Also, what if the changes lead to an increase in head injuries? Where does the game go then? Is there a game? Insurance costs will be irrelevant.

But the science says that leg tackling can lead to brain trauma and insurance claims… so let’s try little tags put in the side of shorts instead.

Guys you’re going around the houses I’m afraid.

Representatives from the RFL and other contact sports attended a conference in Amsterdam where the science was explained to them on what causes brain injuries and how to mitigate the risks. The changes that the RFL are introducing next season don't actually go as far as some recommend. The recommendations seem to be more in line with what RU were originally going to introduce. Thankfully, we haven't gone that far. The point is who do you think haven't been consulted who should have been? The players and coaches were all told about what would be expected, and sure there have been some frustrating cards, but generally the players have adapted pretty well overall.

The risk is 3 or 4 times lower though, so it's not really comparable. As you've mentioned, it's about mitigation.

It's not who I think hasn't been consulted. I know the players haven't. They've said so themselves. In your own words, they were told. There's a world of difference that I surely don't need to explain and that is being played out now, evidenced by the complete mess we're witnessing.

Quote ="Seth"We will see more of this https://youtu.be/BfPSbq9CnrY?si=Yn1ONA1xVHtdAukl I wonder how fozzard feels about the damage fielden experienced'" Just me then that can see more occurrences of this type of incident then? Was fieldens concussion less severe than the bumped heads last night? Are we not going to mitigate for these low tackle concussions?

Quote ="Seth"We will see more of this https://youtu.be/BfPSbq9CnrY?si=Yn1ONA1xVHtdAukl I wonder how fozzard feels about the damage fielden experienced'" Just me then that can see more occurrences of this type of incident then? Was fieldens concussion less severe than the bumped heads last night? Are we not going to mitigate for these low tackle concussions?

What would the consultation be here for the players? The coaches have provided input and helped agree the frameworks and mitigations, no doubt they would have spoken to the players.

I am a semi-scientist myself and I am just not convinced by the “science” I’m hearing about here. Any trauma to the head could lead to brain injury, and there is significant individual variation of susceptibility too.

Cognitive impairing pathology often takes years or decades to manifest. Cause and effect is hugely difficult to establish.

There you go again. " No doubt". But the players clearly haven't been consulted. They should have been, but they haven't. It's a mess. An utter shambles.

You didn't answer the question. What consultation be here for the players?
At the end of 2022 players, coaches, and referees were consulted on what the determining factors for reducing blows to the head are following a review of the latest studies done on the potential consequences of head impacts in contact sports. They also reviewed data collected from mouth guards since 2022. A list was then put together of potential changes the sport could make in order to reduce the number of head contacts, and if was decided by the coaches, players, and refs that reducing the tackle height would be the most effective thing they could do to reduce the number of head impacts. The players have been consulted, and the refs are having regular meetings with the coaches and have been going into clubs to speak with coaches and players to explain the rules and give them chance to ask any questions. They have been consulted.

I've already posted this, but this is an interview with Rob Hicks on the rule changes and the process of how we got to this point. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1snSw6 ... FnWObrTg8g

I've already posted this, but this is an interview with Rob Hicks on the rule changes and the process of how we got to this point. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1snSw6 ... FnWObrTg8g

Clearly the way the new rules have been implemented is not what coaches wanted because they complain about it every game Jack.

To my mind we have always had rules in place to mitigate against head contact in the tackle. Surely we just need to police the previous rules effectively?

This season some cards have been clear but then others have been a joke. I’m not even sure carding a player in-game is the best way to deal with this; it’s a very blunt instrument.

I can't say I've seen all the cards, but the red card in the Hull game on Friday is the only one I've seen that I've found questionable, but head to head contact is the form of head contact that causes the most damage, so it's the form of head contact that the RFL wants to reduce the most, accidental, or not, so I can understand, to a point, but most contacts like that go unnoticed anyway unless a player goes down injured, and unfortunately they can't determine the force of the impact until they get the data from the mouth guard at the MRP, so I think they should just send both players for an automatic HIA and then determine if a charge is warranted at the MRP.

Regarding your point on just enforcing the rules as they are, you could argue that's what they're doing, but to me, the issue is they've known about the potential for increased risk of brain injuries in RL for over a decade, but instead of doing something about it then, they've allowed stand up tackles and higher initial contact to become ubiquitous to a point where players are going to have to completely change their tackle techniques, and coaches are going to have to completely change how they coach the game, it's going to completely change the game, and it will take time to adjust, but they are full-time professionals, it shouldn't be beyond them to do it. It should be something that they've already started doing because next season will only get tougher.

I think we can all agree on the need to keep players as safe as possible. Nobody wants to see degenerative brain disease (although again the causal link is very difficult to establish scientifically).

The question is how we go about it. To what extent is risk inherent in the game? Is it possible to reduce the risk to nil, and if not what is an acceptable level? This is a pragmatic approach.

Also we have the refereeing of said rules. Because they are over-complicated and too broad at the same time, games are frequently being spoiled due to interpretations.

Show me a game of under-armpit level tackling that looks anything like rugby league, or which is any way refereeable and I might change my view. It turns games into penalty-fests and the result a lottery. There were lots of academy games trialling this last year and they were pretty much horrendous. I also still saw some head knocks despite the new rules.

I have to say (somewhat grudgingly) that last nights WCC tended to support a lot of the points you've been making. Lots of excellent tackling technique on show and scarcely anything round the head. My big worry is that next year will be a completely different and far, far less watchable ball game. Memories of the Academy trial games last year still bring me out in hives.

Great points. It's impossible to mitigate the risk completely. Regardless of the rules around the tackle, if there is tackling of any sort in the game then there will always be head knocks. Changing the game to remove any chance of head knocks means no tackling of any sort. If that comes to pass, there'll be no need to worry about insurance costs.

I heard a professor on the radio the other day. He was of the view that letting children play contact rugby below the age of 18 is tantamount to child abuse.

And he may have a point. It might just be too dangerous to allow youngsters to play with full contact: but then is it more dangerous as adults when and if they do, without the technique being learned?

I suspect we need to scan all pro players brains when they start a career, look for any abnormalities or susceptibility (your brain basically rattles around inside a bony structure), and maybe regular / annual scans too. If we’re serious about the science we need to look at individuals as well as broad rules - e.g. it is possible Ward might have had susceptibility or maybe Gannon does. Brain scanning technology has come on so far in the last decade.