I wouldn't be concerned at the number of penalties, those will always spike whilst players adjust to new rulings and then settle down as they adapt. Whether these are the right changes to address the issues or not is more open to debate.

I can actually see there being a revolt against this change - maybe this is the time for the NRL to step in after all. The RFL has lost the plot with this.

I’m all for the return to play protocols, reducing head impact in training, reducing impact for juniors (although would be interested to see the stats for concussions among the youth).

Obviously this is a difficult and contentious issue, I’m not across all the science but I do believe they are getting it wrong with the balance of risks.

That’s what I always thought. I’m sure they have the data but I get the impression that as many concussions happen from a tackler hitting a knee/hip/elbow as they do a ball carrier copping a high shot.

I also don’t know how the goaline will be defendable against any half decent hooker. Tacklers are gonna find it nearly impossible to get low enough when the player is already close to the ground. Cunningham would’ve had a field day.

The academy game I saw was a farce. The players just could not perform effective tackles low enough, which led to strings of frustrating penaliries. I can’t remember a single penalty which looked like it might have protected a player from concussion.

That meant that the result was basically down to luck and momentum.

Any governing body who used that pilot and then thought it would be a great idea to roll out is not fit for purpose I’m sorry.

Also might just have been me, but if the video that came with the announcement is what we’re going by, we are doomed. There is nothing wrong with the Gannon tackle or the one on Ava in the eyes of anyone that’s ever played.

The Ava one especially we’re gonna penalise the tackler when he’s actually probably put himself in more danger than the ball carrier.

Rather than helping I think the clips they’ve used will have only made people more frustrated.

I didn’t see any of the trails Jim, heard there were lots of penalties. Was it only the high shots or was it teams also trying to lay on/flop/slow down? Because I imagine going that low all the time impacts ruck control which teams are desperate for.

At speed and with direct contact the players just couldn’t keep tackles low enough, there were frequently two or three penalties per set, the defending team gets gassed and frustrated.

It didn’t get better through the game and the players looked dejected.

My main issue is that I just don’t believe the new tackling rule will prevent head injury. The safest thing to do is not to play the sport at all. They have gone too far trying to reduce risk in an inherently risky game.

True but there's an increase then there's more than one a minute.

You can just about get away with this kind of change in RU. It's a game the does not rely on momentum and tackles occur far less frequently. As a comparison about 170 per game in RU and 650 per game in RL. The opportunities for an offence to be committed goes through the roof in our sport. I'm all for a clean game and I'm glad the days of shoulder charges, forearm smashes and malicious high tackles are behind us, but this seems like reaction to a legal action brought by players who participated 20 to 30 years ago. The game is far safer now. I can't see the Aussies following suit, and where does that leave the prospect of international competition?

Next year might be my last season watching RL if this comes in, certainly won’t be committing to Season ticket or tv subscription.

Rarely have i seen a player knocked out in a general play from a hight tackle, I’ve seen far mire players knocked out making the tackle than in the receiving end. Deliberate late hits to the head yes, but players hardly ever ever get knocked out from what i’d call a run of the mill high tackle.

Bring this rule in and the game will haemorrhage fans.

Well unless the NRL follows suit, these RFL rule changes effectively kill the international game don’t they? What are going to do, play under international rules for internationals when our players have been playing a different game?

None of us want to see life-changing injury to RL players. Have to say I fear we are trying to be too woke as a sport and have lost common sense as a result. Players accept the risks, as long as they are managed responsibly.

This legal action is a way off being successful. Proving negligence is going to be nigh on impossible - and even if they are then the ramifications will touch every single contact sport in the world.

More about insurance going forwards. I read a piece (by Robert Hicks iirc) that the game's previous insurer chose not to renew its cover. A grand total of one provider, asking roughly treble the previous premium, offered us a policy. Against that backdrop things look pretty grim. I don't think for a minute that the tackling height change will make the game safer; but a bit like cas and wakeys' stadium plans of decades past, it might just about keep things going for a few more years before a really harsh change comes about.

We can’t be slave to insurance, talk about the tail wagging the dog.

There must be alternatives to provide some funds for insurance purposes, and contracts which allow for some risk etc - we need to think laterally.

Catch 22 as without insurance there can be no game (The RFL don’t have a pot to in so how are they going to fund/cover potential future litigation claims) but when these new rules come to SL there won’t be a game much longer anyway as fans will turn away from the game in droves.

I cannot see anyone who saw any of the academy games where these rules were trialled last Summer wanting to renew season tickets.

The academy games I saw last season with these rules were ‘unwatchable’ live and would be ‘unwatchable’ to the tv audience on SKY

In regards to insurance, couldnt the RFL used the same company that covers RL in any otger market? It seems to be just the English that are making such dramatic changes.

I know very little about insurance, and how it works on an international market, but it sounds like a cop-out to me.



I watched a couple of academy games with the trial rules. I don't think I saw a full set of six tackles without a penalty. Most from an arm riding up after making contact with the ball in the tackle.

I actively avoided the academy and reserve games as they were a farce. I have renewed my season ticket, however. Time will tell if that was a mistake.

The video with JJB says initial contact must be below the armpit, the text in the article on the RFL website says any contact above the armpit will be penalised.
I share many of the concerns already posted, but I'm not sure how it is going to be interpreted and will make it really hard to officiate, and confusing to watch.

From the videos, it looks like any player standing upright to wrap up the ball will be pinged.

I had about five head injuries during my career and they were all suffered whilst defending from being hit by the attacking players knees and hips. We will see far more injuries along these lines if these rules are introduced.

In addition, how will they police the forwards and backs total minutes. Someone like Ablett or Martin, who decides whether they are a back or a forward? Does Cullen get to decide?

The best thing that could happen is for the RU case by former players to be held and a firm result comes out one way or another. Fundamentally neither RL or RU can exist if players aren't willing to take risks.

I just don't understand what grounds someone from the 80s or 90s would have for claiming the sport didn't do enough. There wasn't mass outrage at the likes of SBW or Sam Burgess potentially inflicting life-altering damage on opponents with shoulders as late as a decade ago. The reason concussed players in the 80s and 90s used to get a sponge to the head and then back on wasn't because the game was negligent, its because nobody understood the risk of long-term damage.

The other issue for former RL players is quite frankly even if they were successful, what would they get financially? There's no insurance policy that would cover a player who retired a decade ago, and most clubs don't even own their own ground so have no assets, and make losses. That doesn't mean the game doesn't owe them morally and should do its best to help, but if any of the players involved in the class action think they're going to get any meaningful compensation out of RL they are kidding themselves. Dividing not much money by a lot of players means sweet FA.

There's a late shoulder then there's this. Agree with the post, btw

Great post. Spot on.

Some of the changes are good but some of the critical ones seem very clumsy and poorly thought through. It's hard to fathom.

Whenever you put an approach in place, you have to start with a clear idea of the problem first. What exactly are we trying to achieve? Significantly reduce short and long-term brain injury whilst maintaining the integrity of the game. We won't know whether the laws introduced over the last 2-3 years will be effective until about 10 years have passed or more, and even then it's hard to differentiate between conditions which are "natural" and those incurred through contact, or how many fewer contact injuries have occurred as a result of the law changes.

At Leeds we would always be mindful of Rob Burrow and his tragedy. Nobody wants to see that happen. My beef is that I just don't see how these proposals would prevent another Rob Burrow scenario from happening, but I can see they would stop a Rob Burrow wanting to play the game or stay in it.

What really bothers me us that all this is on the back of a four game/week trial. Seems a very short period in which to arrive at such sweeping conclusions. Were the players and coaches who took part consulted? Were the fans? The big worry for me is that these recommendations change the game so profoundly that it completely loses it's appeal to fans and broadcasters. It feels like this could hasten the sports demise rather than safeguard it's longevity.

Were the Burrow head knocks / concussions caused by high tackles or in defence because of his height, he had to tackle low and thus, took stray knees and hips when tackling as well as getting his head in the wrong position.

I suspect he suffered more head knocks as a defender rather than an attacker. We seem to be encouraging players to tackle lower but in my view, this will increase head knocks not reduce them.

You make a great point and I can recall a few times where Burrow was knocked around attempting to tackle. He was flipping great in D, barely ever saw anyone get past him what a champion attitude he had.

I really think the authorities are over-estimating the medical effect of stray arms to the head. It's becoming impossible to make effective tackles and the whole thing frustrates players and fans alike. I fundamentally believe they should be working to SIMPLIFY the rules and stop over-engineering everything to the point where it is impossible to officiate. They've got this all wrong I'm afraid to say.