There are also limits on the total minutes players can play during the season. Forwards over 22 years old max of 2000 minutes, backs max 2400. Different for younger players. Probably just about ok at those levels. However, the issue is that, once introduced, limits are here forever and only ever move in one direction.

Everyone there could see the academy games were a disaster and the players were as frustrated as the speccies.

I just don’t believe the tackle height rule will do anything to actually prevent head injury, but everything to destroy the game.

The current rules are more than sufficient to manage the risks. They would literally get better results addressing the drinking/drugs culture than this silly farce.

Yep. I honestly thought - after seeing a couple of games - that they would scrap it and try and come up with something else. I've been watching the sport for 45 years now and it's changed substantially over that period, but it's always been unmistakably RL. The trial games bore no relation to that sport. Are they bringing similar rules into the NRL?

The problem with all this is that then means you have to tackle even lower as momentum inevitably causes the tackle to rise up after impact. Best enjoy this season as 25 is going to be a disaster if this happens.

With the defender having to put their head at the same level as the ball carriers forearm/elbow/hip. I can see more head injuries as a result of this, not fewer.

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.