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="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="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.