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 mickey 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