I think tag rugby only until 18 effectively sends the sport the way of the dinosaurs. Maybe that's the reality of modern life and I should take up pottery classes to occupy my leisure time.

If you think about any changes that are made are on a spectrum, and the easiest to do is to do nothing and leave things as they are, and the hardest thing to do would be to ban tackling above the belly button, as they were originally going to do in union, then lowering the tackle height to the armpit seems an ok compromise. The trial games were definitely a mess, but the data from those games showed it did significantly reduce the number of head contacts and accelerations, which is the primary objective. But a lot of work and dialogue is going to have to happen by all involved in order to make it watchable.

The coaches seemed pretty optimistic that the changes would be positive in the long-term, prior to the trial, but they'll know it will be a huge task to adjust in time for next season. I just hope they've started incorporating it into their training sessions.

Clearly he meant rugby union.

Check his funding. Am absolutely sick of banal statements in particular anti scientific statements being passed off as facts.

Agree 100%. I'll leave it here. If that's the future it's bleak. If folk are happy to sacrifice the game in pursuit of a perfectly safe future (never achievable, by the way) then crack on. Well done on achieving utopia. A joyless utopia, but who cares, eh?

Pottery to Metallica Clueso…

Yes but I don’t accept it’s necessary to go to armpit and below, that’s the point.

This isn’t scientific. It’s a process of trying to find evidence that someone is right. They’re clutching at straws trying to build a case to reduce tackle height in the senior game. The academy games were literally a shambles and all you say is that players need to get used to it.

Not necessarily mutually exclusive, Jim.

Let's just have done with it and switch the game to Artificial Intelligence.
Leave it to the bots and no-one gets hurt.

Only just seen wilkins (and Carney to be fair) reaction to the Hull red, I don't always agree with or like how he comes over but he was spot on with his emotion and what he said. Carney calls it an existential threat to the game, he's not really one for hyperbole, he's exactly right, if that card is a sign of further things to come then the game becomes unwatchable.

I am very confident that if we lower tackles to below the armpits that we get the same number of concussions if not more than we do from the current rules. We are just moving the risk to another area.

I had you as Patrick Swayze in Ghost

This is a really interesting article about how RU is trying to increase safety in junior RU, and how they fear kids are moving away from rugby because of injury concerns. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... ury-crisis

This is a really interesting article about how RU is trying to increase safety in junior RU, and how they fear kids are moving away from rugby because of injury concerns. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... ury-crisis

Quote ="Jack Burton"This is a really interesting article about how RU is trying to increase safety in junior RU, and how they fear kids are moving away from rugby because of injury concerns. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... ury-crisis'" I wonder if the same holds true of RL? It's still, and probably always will, be played by a different socio economic group. At my little ones primary school assembly today there loads of boys (and some girls) bringing up their rugby trophies and medals.

Quote ="Jack Burton"This is a really interesting article about how RU is trying to increase safety in junior RU, and how they fear kids are moving away from rugby because of injury concerns. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... ury-crisis'" I wonder if the same holds true of RL? It's still, and probably always will, be played by a different socio economic group. At my little ones primary school assembly today there loads of boys (and some girls) bringing up their rugby trophies and medals.

Hicks has suggested it may be the same for RL. Apparently, 80% of childhood concussions are caused by playing contact sport.
He also says there's a lot of discussion going on around whether they'll change how kids are categorised. Instead of age, they will potentially be categorised by size/weight.

More information on the legal action being taken against the RFL. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... r-28808664 Rob Hicks has mentioned before that the ex players suing the game played between 1970 and 2023.

More information on the legal action being taken against the RFL. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... r-28808664 Rob Hicks has mentioned before that the ex players suing the game played between 1970 and 2023.

I just really hope this whole class action gets thrown out. Whilst some of the changes to rules and protocols are very welcome, the new below armpit tackle rules will, I still believe, pretty much ruin the game. Sounds like the reserve fixture at Leigh was against farcical, just as all the academy games were under these new rules. Hopefully the powers that be will think again before we inflict this on the senior competition in '25.

It certainly needs sorting out. Although the US legal system is different, the NFL have paid out $1.2b to over 1,600 former players in the last 7 years. Obviously, the action against the RFL is much smaller, but could still go into the £millions, which would probably bankrupt the game.

There are two main impacts aren't there: potential damages in pure cash terms which the game cannot afford. These are potential damages at this point, but the law can be a fickle thing and who knows what the outcome will be.

The second impact is changes to the laws of the game due to the fear if the first impact. Won't go on about it again because I've made my views clear on this - but let's just say I'm getting my fix of RL in this season because I'm really not sure I'd watch or support the version I've seen under the proposed new rules, and I'd count myself as reasonably die-hard.

I believe the Championship clubs will be playing under the "even newer rules" once the league campaign gets underway. That will be the first time decent numbers of paying spectators will have seen them. Will be very interesting.

Whilst this doesn't allay my concerns, I've a couple of mates who've been playing union with restricted height tackles. After a few games with lots of pens & a few cards tacklers changed their approach. Year and a half on, it's pretty much a forgotten issue now, so they tell me.
Though I do understand all the "buts".

With hindsight, the game should have brought these rules into the junior leagues 15 years ago when the talk around head impacts in contact sports started, so that we'd now have a generation of players and coaches who had already adapted to the new tackle height.
I think it will be chaotic for a while, but the refs will become more lenient over time, as Clearwing mentioned. That's basically what happened with the current rules for most of the games history. Any borderline tackle was usually let go.

Maybe the new rules will work in time. Are the same rules being adopted in Australia?

Quote ="KaeruJim"Maybe the new rules will work in time. Are the same rules being adopted in Australia?'" I think they've introduced them in the junior grades, u15 and below. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... id-us-push

Quote ="KaeruJim"Maybe the new rules will work in time. Are the same rules being adopted in Australia?'" I think they've introduced them in the junior grades, u15 and below. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... id-us-push

Again I’m firmly in the camp of reasonable reduction of risk in training and games, and healthy return-to-play protocols.

We have to decide what level of risk is acceptable and understand you simply cannot design all risk out of a contact sport. Maybe it will be possible to find a balance but I haven’t seen it so far.