You may well be right. I got KO'd a couple of times and KO'd a couple of opponents - all were poorly executed low tackles. And many other players say the same. Whether that still holds true is something the gumshield technology may confirm.
But assuming it does, where does the game go then? A ban on tackles below the waist? Can't say the spectacle of unionesque mauling until a player is halted appeals much.

Union has loads of issues with aggressive rucking and mauling - laying prone beneath five 110kg angry men isn't my idea of head injury heaven.

More force through the front rowers in the scrums too (significantly).

Rugby is a risky game by its nature, you cannot remove that risk. You can only reduce it, or just not have a game any more. The question is how much we can reduce the risk without killing the game itself - they are trying to spin it but ultimately these changes harm the game.

We're not the only sport to face similar issues but... how the heck boxing and MMA/UFC can be OK and RL isn't, is beyond my tiny intelligence to understand.

The only thing I can assume with boxing is they have relatively few fights in a year.

In GB boxers have an annual brain scan and blood tests to check for deterioration. I'm guessing the cost of testing all playing staff in similar way wouldn't be insignificant.

Agree with the majority of what's been said here. The proposals are the ultimate knee jerk reaction and incredibly poorly thought out. Even a casual observer over a number of games would see that the overwhelming majority of HIA's are caused by poor tackle technique (head in the wrong place) or tackling so low that contact with the ball carriers hip/elbow is inevitable. If this is the way we're going as a society, I really don't understand how a sport where the aim is to physically hurt your opponent by hitting them in the, amongst other places, head, isn't mired in litigation. Yet it isn't. It's almost as if the risks associated with boxing are so overt that any claim would be doomed to failure. Perhaps RL, and RU, are taking the lazy way out, and in turn, condemning the sports to oblivion in the process.

We could do more to penalise foul play - if someone intentionally takes your knees out or whatever it can still lead to significant injury. Then we had ridiculous bans robbing our international team of players. They have just got it wrong at the moment on a number of levels.

Agree with that. Boxing is an inheritently dangerous business, yet the sport and its practioners seem to have made peace with that years ago. They did away with 15 round bouts in the late 80's and weigh ins on the day of the fight not long after. Beyond that not much has changed rules wise since. The risks are self evident yet despite the chaotic proliferation of world titles it retains its appeal.

Spot on mate. totally agree. I really do now fear for the future of the game. This has the potential to kill it, no doubt about it

I suspect if you polled the players and supporters, an overwhelming majority would be against these significant rule changes on top of others in recent years which have been frustrating.

What is the point in running "trial" games under these new rules, which I can confirm were disastrous, if the decision had clearly already been made? Where is the consultation? Totally agree with those posting on the risks of head injury in D, which in my view outweighs the now small risk of head high tackling. Are we going to outlaw tackling too? Where are they going with this?

I don't personally want to see a return to the Mick Cassidy outrageous elbow to Adrian Morley's head acts... I'm glad that kind of thuggery is disappearing. But that was always illegal. They would do better improving the quality of refereeing under the existing rules rather than introducing more rules to make their jobs even harder.

I've only just watched the video introducing the rule change, wow. Loads of penalties and when a tackler actually manages to not commit an offence how do they wrap up the ball and prevent offloads without conceding a penalty?

This will change the way the game is played more than the 10m rule. There will be a lot of unintended consequences and it won't ever completely remove the risk. It will take some seasons for it to "bed in" while players, referees and coaches get used to it.

Some foreseeable effects will be the obvious increase in penalties to begin with. More players ducking to "milk" penalties. Lots of red cards for "instinctive" high tackles. Lots of injury and concussion for players trying and failing to get in the right body position to effect a lower tackle. Lots of players running in with knees up or shoulder charging the defender. Lots of frustration all round.

Longer term as players get used to it I can see a lot more offloading. I can also see smaller players becoming more common as there's less of a need to have huge bulk.

Hopefully it will make the game safer to play but it's not guaranteed - it could even make it more dangerous to begin with. Who'd be a referee?

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... google.com Thoughts? Maybe RS is ahead of his time?

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... google.com Thoughts? Maybe RS is ahead of his time?

So was Galileo. Until the less enlightened threatened him with thumbscrews and the rack..

Hardly. We used to try those kick offs in school boy rugby! Used to work a lot to be fair…..

But the use hasn't, until now, been encouraged by a change to the laws. So, thoughts?

I think it rewards mediocrity. The less skillful players can now try a short kick off without any real jeopardy. This is in total contrast to killing the most skilful kickers in the game who could put a kick off to within a yard or so of the dead ball line, only for the goons at the RFL to allow a defender to catch the ball and stick his leg out of play to gain a penalty from a perfectly judged kick.

Why does a player going for a short kick off make them less skillful? Surely its harder for a player to get the correct distance and height on a kick to make it contestable at a shorter distance, rather than just kicking it down field to an opposition player.

What I was referring to was the supposed “penalty” for the ball not travelling 10 yards or being kicked straight into touch from a short kick off. In each case the attacking team is “penalised” by a play the ball given to the opposition 10 yards beyond where the kick was taken. Not much of a chance to take really, the real jeopardy was when it went wrong and the opposition could belt the resulting penalty beyond the 25 yard line and then have 6 tackles, or have a kick at goal. Better, more skillful kickers thrive under the existing rules by virtue of the fact the penalty for an illegal kick off is harsh, so a kick that travels the 10 yards and stays in play is fair reward for the risk. Any chancer or sub standard kicker that isn’t good enough to make a legal kick off ( I.e it goes straight out of play or doesn’t travel 10 yards) will carry on making crap attempts because the deterrent isn’t there any more. It’s a case of fancying around with the rules, rewarding crap illegal kick offs and turning the game more like Rugby Yawnion.

To clarify on this new ruling, what happens if the ball does not go 10m or goes straight into touch without bouncing? The attacking team get a set 10m from the try line? Previously, it was a penalty? I struggled to understand it when it was announced.

So first round of cards for high shots and I’m not impressed.

It’s all way too arbitrary and inconsistent. The punishment is not fitting the crime IMO.

We’re giving referees an almost impossible job to do.

We need to think again about the type of tackle which is dangerous (e.g. head and neck being driven into the ground) versus risky where there might be some head contact in an upright tackle (I’m thinking the Harry Smith tackle v the Watts/Westerman).

We also need to use the match review panel more, I agree with RS. Decisions made in games are often controversial at best and slowing things down way too much.

We already have clear guidelines for dismissal for foul play. What we don’t want to have is this silly situation where our top players are at risk for bans constantly when big matches are round the corner.

We just need a better application of common sense. I get that it’s difficult.

So the application of the new rules have been inconsistent to say the least and it will be interesting to see what the disciplinary review panel come up with in terms of sanctions. I can only comment on the ones I have seen but hers my view.
Momorovski sin bin just a pen as player ran into him.
Salford hooker sin bin complete joke not even a pen.
Brierley although instinctive and no intent would have benn a red under new rules if he was a player with a rep ie BentleyWatts etc
Pele clear red card pure stupid.
Lao can see qhy given but fwlt harsh.
Micky Mac stupid not needed and a red under new rules.
Liam Watts very harsh as no intent and must wonder if his name is on a card ever time he plays!
Harry Smith struggle to understand how thats deemed to be accidental other than hes a current England International and different rules apply!
Didnt see the Leigh game but apparently that was quite feisty

The Salford hooker sinbin was perfectly fine, it was for repeat offences of laying in the ruck.

Nene should have been sinbinned for a professional foul aswell, surprised that wasn’t picked up.

I'm with lingard on the watts one, how do you coach your players to avoid that, ball carrier goes low leading head first. Very soft red for me.

It wasn't as bad as I was expecting. Most of the red cards were given to players who have always struggled to keep their discipline, and I don't have an issue with any of the really. The Watts red is debatable, but I can see why it was given.
With regards to Bourouh's sin binning, I thought was given due Salford giving away several penalties in a short period of time rather than the offence itself.

That was my interpretation.