I believe that there is already a lot kickback from the community side of the game but unfortunately this will have zero impact. Young kids play the sport because of the physicality of the game. As I said previously these changes may just be the thin end of the wedge and further changes will dilute the game to tick and pass if we are not careful. Nothing wrong with tick and pass but it isn’t a long term spectator sport.

Not sure that if SL did break away they would rescind the below the armpit tackling.

Well, it certainly won't happen if they all get on board with this garbage.

But I consider myself a lifelong Wigan supporter. Have been following them since the late 1960s, and was there for all the home games even during their period in the 2nd Division, but hand on heart, I can honestly say that I've got doubts about whether I can stick this one out.

For the first time in my life, I'm contemplating a future without rugby league, and I while I can't speak for anyone else, I strongly suspect that I won't be alone.

I'm too young to remember the reaction to the introduction of limited tackles, the 10 metre rule, or summer rugby, but I imagine there were a lot of people decrying the end of rugby league as we know it, it'll never work, nobody wants to see it and so on. Those same people probably found something new to moan about after a few months or years and carried on watching the game like they always had

Out of curiosity I've just pulled up a game from 1993 on Wigan TV. There are a lot more tackles below the armpit in that game than we see today, and the ruck speed it ten times quicker. If this rule change takes the game in that direction then bring it on

Sounds like we are of a similar age Cruncher. My first home game was in 1967 when all of our great players like Boston, McTigue, Ashton etc unfortunately were past their best.
At this point, because of the timing, my main concern with the changes is at the junior level. Kids need to get aggression out of their system and if we are not careful RL will become a non contact sport. I don’t think that I’m over reacting but I’m genuinely concerned that in the near future RL will become obsolete as we know it. I’d like to see the evidence that shows the vast majority of head injuries are due to head high receipt of tackles over and above actually making tackles.

Personally I can’t do without my RL and I will continue to watch the game with the changes and during 2024 I will make the effort to watch even more junior and amateur matches. My worry is that the changes for 2024/25 will be superseded by even more tougher changes. Hope I’m wrong.

I’ve no problem whatsoever with evolution of the game. The introduction of limited tackles probably saved the professional game but in typical RL fashion we went from unlimited tackles to 4. It’s a while ago but I can’t remember much opposition to summer rugby particularly in the professional game. 10 metres or 5 metres I’ve no particular preference as long as the rules are adhered to and I don’t think many people would vehemently disagree with that. The difference now is that changes could creep into the into the game that ultimately will irrecoverably change the physicality part of the game.

I’m all for a quicker play the ball but you’ve got to blame coaches, players and referees for the current at times shambolic play the ball situation. Maybe we limit 2 tacklers ie no 3rd man or refs just shout held a lot earlier. Essentially mere technicalities.

I actually thought we had rules re -head high tackles its a penalty offence.
I agree with most poster that some rules coming in just dont make sense under armpit tackles ok above its a penalty,player steps you and you grab a the collar or a shoulder that is your first reaction and that could be a penalty that is so wrong it will eventually destroy the game,next is you cannot tackle below the waist as you might damage a joint.
We already have rules for dangerous play which get penalised a new set of rules will only increase the penalties by a substantial amount where we could get the ball in play around 15 mins a half or the half last for over a hour if we stop the clock at each infringement.
This is taking us away from the game we love to a game we dont recognise.

You admit you don't remember the game before those big rule changes and in the same breath slate the people who didn't like them. As always, it's not the administrators' fault, it's just the usual suspect fans who like to have a moan.

Well, I do remember those rule changes, and I can assure you that they were nothing like as controversial as this. The plain fact is that we already have overzealous officials who penalise for the slightest contact with the head, even if it's accidental and light. The thought of those same men in charge of a rule whereby this also applies to contact with the shoulder is blood-curdling.

Just think about that. Is it possible to play a contact sport like RL under those conditions? Will there be a single set of six without a penalty incurred?

It's total nonsense.

Someone else made a comment that the game we older fans grew up with was 'barbaric' by modern standards. But that's an irrelevant point. Violent play has always been illegal. The same way dangerous tackles have always been illegal. The rules are there and can and should be applied by the game's disciplinary. We don't need to keep tightening them up to the point where non-dangerous play is also severely penalised.

This is a classic example of a bunch of little men with power, who are never happy unless they're imposing themselves further. Give them an inch and they will always take a mile.

If you think this is okay and that fans will just have to get used to it, fine ... that's exactly how the RFL are thinking. But at some point, these idiots are going to come unstuck (not least because half of them wouldn't even know to lift the toilet lid when they're having a wee if someone didn't tell them to). There's been lots of talk in the past of a SL breakaway. Personally, I think that's more likely than the fans just walking away in droves. But it may be that the fans need to walk away first. I fear that only when the clubs start losing money will they realise what an error this was.

This is what we are saying ,we have rules that determine foul play we dont need anymore.

To be honest all arguments either way are fairly irrelevant until we see the new rules and how they are interpreted in action, and in action for probably 6 months.

I’m anticipating there will be very little noticeable difference (after an initial flurry of penalties) once the players get acclimatised to the rule .

In the community game in Union all tackles were to be below sternum height, that rule is simply not being enforced by the refs.

Those first few games when it is introduced will be penalty fests. That happens with any new rules they bring in over the off season. Hopefully having a year to prepare, and the fact it is being introduced for academy and reserves this year will mean that we are well prepared as a sport and players adapt quickly. It's interesting that two people from our club have been at the forefront of pushing the positives of the new rules. Denis Betts and Prof. Chris Brookes are both in favour and have spoken to Gary Carter from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25010866 ... TtGfKKgtRc https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25003075 ... ans-rules/

Those first few games when it is introduced will be penalty fests. That happens with any new rules they bring in over the off season. Hopefully having a year to prepare, and the fact it is being introduced for academy and reserves this year will mean that we are well prepared as a sport and players adapt quickly. It's interesting that two people from our club have been at the forefront of pushing the positives of the new rules. Denis Betts and Prof. Chris Brookes are both in favour and have spoken to Gary Carter from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25010866 ... TtGfKKgtRc https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25003075 ... ans-rules/

Seems like a bit of a nanny state approach & a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

What happend to personal choice? If I could go back to being 16 years old, knowing what I know now, but had an opportunity to play for Wigan RL - I'd take the gamble every single time.

Plenty of boxers step into the ring, knowing there's a chance of serious injury. Why do they do it? Because, for them, the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

Quote ="--[ WW --"Those first few games when it is introduced will be penalty fests. That happens with any new rules they bring in over the off season. Hopefully having a year to prepare, and the fact it is being introduced for academy and reserves this year will mean that we are well prepared as a sport and players adapt quickly. It's interesting that two people from our club have been at the forefront of pushing the positives of the new rules. Denis Betts and Prof. Chris Brookes are both in favour and have spoken to Gary Carter from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25010866 ... TtGfKKgtRc https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25003075 ... ans-rules/'" Yeah, I saw that too. That's all we bloody need. What I still don't understand why the rule that you're not allowed to hit a player in the head isn't good enough already. Head injuries are the sole problem here, and they've already already been legislated against. Some of these people in the game who support this measure are literally turkeys voting for Christmas.

Quote ="--[ WW --"Those first few games when it is introduced will be penalty fests. That happens with any new rules they bring in over the off season. Hopefully having a year to prepare, and the fact it is being introduced for academy and reserves this year will mean that we are well prepared as a sport and players adapt quickly. It's interesting that two people from our club have been at the forefront of pushing the positives of the new rules. Denis Betts and Prof. Chris Brookes are both in favour and have spoken to Gary Carter from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25010866 ... TtGfKKgtRc https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25003075 ... ans-rules/'" Yeah, I saw that too. That's all we bloody need. What I still don't understand why the rule that you're not allowed to hit a player in the head isn't good enough already. Head injuries are the sole problem here, and they've already already been legislated against. Some of these people in the game who support this measure are literally turkeys voting for Christmas.

Sadly the former players who are suing the game have removed the free choice principle.

They are all just money grabbing t0ssers tbh. They've had a chance to do and see things most of us only dream about, all whilst earning a pretty good living. They've literally lived the dream of 1000's of people.

I'm a used to be a big RU fan (funnily enough before they made similar changes) and I'm always seeing comments saying "tell that to Steve Thompson" whenever anyone argues against these types of changes. For those that don't know, Thompson is one of the most vocal ex players & is involved in the case again RU over CTE. He also happens to a player who won and did it all, including winning the 03 world cup. I find it hard to have any sympathy for him tbh. I'd happily swap places. He's created a legacy that will last for generations.

It would be interesting to know how boxing, MMA etc get around this.

They must do.

There must be some mechanism by which people voluntarily competing in an obviously high-risk sport can be legally tied down to accepting that it's their personal responsibility. Otherwise we wouldn't have any such sports, and yet we have plenty.

I'd be far more impressed if the RFL went down that route instead of trying to find a way to make RL as soft and safe as pillow-fighting.

The Chris Brookes article says that "a trial of lower tackle heights reduced concussion rates from 25 per 1,000 tackles to 22."

I don't know how many concussions are deemed safe, but it seems that those who study brain injuries feel that this reduction in concussions makes the new rule a worthwhile step.

Worthwhile seeing off the game for?

I guess we all have different priorities.

When I was a kid, I broke my leg in a school game. I remember the doctor in the Casualty area saying: "If I had my way, they'd ban rugby."

That's what this boils down to.

My daughter dislocated her elbow when she was 7 trampolining (training) stopped after that,she made that choice.Are we to ban trampolining if you bounce higher than 3ft.
According to the doctor it is the worst sport for injuries to kids.

taking it away from RL for a minute
just seen a clip on facebook of a RU game from the weekend

line out, blue player gets lifted, and drops onto the white team player. Penalty and sent to the sin bin for 10

dangerous play - how can the lifted player get sent off - he is being controlled by 2 players lifting him?? I get that he landed on top of someone and its a penalty, but surely it would be one of the lifters at fault?

And, onto the next debate, are RU going to get rid of lineouts if there are dangers to players

Firstly, I don't see how this sees off the game. Players need to tackle a bit lower, 4 inches or so. I don't see how that will ruin my enjoyment of the sport. In days gone by, when the people complaining presumably still enjoyed rugby, tackling lower was much more common anyway.

Secondly, brain injuries are different to broken bones and pulled muscles. A broken bone will heal in the vast majority of circumstances. A broken brain will not. And even in the worst cases of physical injuries where someone might have a permanent disability I'd still choose that over dementia

This is pretty much my stance.

I don’t like the new rules but I think they could be a lot worse.

I don’t see how they will ruin the game although initially we need to accept there will be an increase in penalties through a natural transition process.

If doctors had their way they wouldn't just outlaw boxing and rugby, they would outlaw motor racing, rock climbing, surfing, paragliding etc etc ... anything with a modicum of risk.

The people who participate in these activities know the dangers they face.

Those players currently arguing that they didn't know are bare-faced liars, being encouraged to tell these ridiculous lies by the blood-sucking lawyers currently rubbing their hands with glee at the whole new world of big-time earning opening up in front of them.

We need to call them out. Because anyone who thinks this is going to stop at 'broken brains' can think again. Once they've exhausted the brain injuries, they'll start looking at kidney damage, busted hips and knees etc. They'll find plenty of useful idiot doctors to assist, and it will go on forever until there's nothing left of us.

Unless the game makes a stand now.

If the game makes a stand…it will lose.

It’s that simple.

I don’t think that anyone has mentioned limited minutes yet? Apologies if someone has.
Using Harry Smith as a back example he cannot play more than 30 full games per year ie 2400 minutes per year.
Even assuming zero internationals, he won’t be able to play all possible games assuming we get to the CCF and GF.
What will the club do in 2025 when there is a planned tour of Australia? Assume that Smith will play 3 games in Australia and limit his game time for Wigan to 27 full games?
Could this be the end of internationals and/or the World Cup for English players?
Liam Farrell for example will be limited to 25 full games per year so I assume that he retire from international rugby as potentially most forwards will going forward.
Obviously this may lead to most teams having a “back” on the bench to reduce the number of 80 minutes games played but would say Leeming be “accepted” as back substitute for game A if he replaces Smith but a forward substitute if he say replaces O’Neil?
If player welfare is now paramount then why continue with meaningless loop fixtures and the even more preposterous Magic Weekend?
Obviously Jon questions not just aimed at yourself.

Internationals and finals can be used in credit I believe as they cannot be planned for. However they have to be accounted for in the following season.

I anticipate in certain games squads will be rotated which again is why I see Rocky as a key signing.

Having versatility is essential under this new protocol.

You would expect most players to be unavailable for a couple of games a year minimum due to injury and I think we will manage the process depending on opposition.

I think with our squad depth it’s less of an issue given the quality of depth we have, some clubs may really struggle though with thinner squads.

London, Cas and Salford in particular look to have very thin squads.