Quote KaeruJim="KaeruJim"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.
