In regards to insurance, couldnt the RFL used the same company that covers RL in any otger market? It seems to be just the English that are making such dramatic changes.

I know very little about insurance, and how it works on an international market, but it sounds like a cop-out to me.



I watched a couple of academy games with the trial rules. I don't think I saw a full set of six tackles without a penalty. Most from an arm riding up after making contact with the ball in the tackle.

I actively avoided the academy and reserve games as they were a farce. I have renewed my season ticket, however. Time will tell if that was a mistake.

The video with JJB says initial contact must be below the armpit, the text in the article on the RFL website says any contact above the armpit will be penalised.
I share many of the concerns already posted, but I'm not sure how it is going to be interpreted and will make it really hard to officiate, and confusing to watch.

From the videos, it looks like any player standing upright to wrap up the ball will be pinged.

I had about five head injuries during my career and they were all suffered whilst defending from being hit by the attacking players knees and hips. We will see far more injuries along these lines if these rules are introduced.

In addition, how will they police the forwards and backs total minutes. Someone like Ablett or Martin, who decides whether they are a back or a forward? Does Cullen get to decide?

The best thing that could happen is for the RU case by former players to be held and a firm result comes out one way or another. Fundamentally neither RL or RU can exist if players aren't willing to take risks.

I just don't understand what grounds someone from the 80s or 90s would have for claiming the sport didn't do enough. There wasn't mass outrage at the likes of SBW or Sam Burgess potentially inflicting life-altering damage on opponents with shoulders as late as a decade ago. The reason concussed players in the 80s and 90s used to get a sponge to the head and then back on wasn't because the game was negligent, its because nobody understood the risk of long-term damage.

The other issue for former RL players is quite frankly even if they were successful, what would they get financially? There's no insurance policy that would cover a player who retired a decade ago, and most clubs don't even own their own ground so have no assets, and make losses. That doesn't mean the game doesn't owe them morally and should do its best to help, but if any of the players involved in the class action think they're going to get any meaningful compensation out of RL they are kidding themselves. Dividing not much money by a lot of players means sweet FA.

There's a late shoulder then there's this. Agree with the post, btw

Great post. Spot on.

Some of the changes are good but some of the critical ones seem very clumsy and poorly thought through. It's hard to fathom.

Whenever you put an approach in place, you have to start with a clear idea of the problem first. What exactly are we trying to achieve? Significantly reduce short and long-term brain injury whilst maintaining the integrity of the game. We won't know whether the laws introduced over the last 2-3 years will be effective until about 10 years have passed or more, and even then it's hard to differentiate between conditions which are "natural" and those incurred through contact, or how many fewer contact injuries have occurred as a result of the law changes.

At Leeds we would always be mindful of Rob Burrow and his tragedy. Nobody wants to see that happen. My beef is that I just don't see how these proposals would prevent another Rob Burrow scenario from happening, but I can see they would stop a Rob Burrow wanting to play the game or stay in it.

What really bothers me us that all this is on the back of a four game/week trial. Seems a very short period in which to arrive at such sweeping conclusions. Were the players and coaches who took part consulted? Were the fans? The big worry for me is that these recommendations change the game so profoundly that it completely loses it's appeal to fans and broadcasters. It feels like this could hasten the sports demise rather than safeguard it's longevity.

Were the Burrow head knocks / concussions caused by high tackles or in defence because of his height, he had to tackle low and thus, took stray knees and hips when tackling as well as getting his head in the wrong position.

I suspect he suffered more head knocks as a defender rather than an attacker. We seem to be encouraging players to tackle lower but in my view, this will increase head knocks not reduce them.

You make a great point and I can recall a few times where Burrow was knocked around attempting to tackle. He was flipping great in D, barely ever saw anyone get past him what a champion attitude he had.

I really think the authorities are over-estimating the medical effect of stray arms to the head. It's becoming impossible to make effective tackles and the whole thing frustrates players and fans alike. I fundamentally believe they should be working to SIMPLIFY the rules and stop over-engineering everything to the point where it is impossible to officiate. They've got this all wrong I'm afraid to say.