Edit :- Sorry mods, didn't realise it was already being discussed in the Penrith thread. Feel free to delete. Phew https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/68341481 Interested to see what the Hull FC prop gets. 10 matcher for me that.

Edit :- Sorry mods, didn't realise it was already being discussed in the Penrith thread. Feel free to delete. Phew https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/68341481 Interested to see what the Hull FC prop gets. 10 matcher for me that.

Talk in the media that Superleague players are starting to throw around the idea of going on strike if the disciplinary decisions and the new rules from 2025 onwards aren't looked at. I doubt it would come to that but I do hope the players are listened to and they can get around a table with the powers that be. It's a huge shame that a dedicated players Union isn't already in place to help in that regard.

Without a union I suspect the chance of a strike is almost zero unless the disciplinary decisions go even more extreme. I’ve joked about the “Wigan” decisions but some of them eg the Crowther one are bizarre in the extreme.

Yeah, they're not going to get a strike off the ground without first getting a players Union set up. Walmsley mentioned how Clint Newton spoke to the GB players on the tour of 2019 about how one could be set up but nobody has taken the bull by the horns since. Maybe Walmsley himself fancies it (he does like to try and make officials decisions on the field, so he could transfer those skills...couldn't resist) but whoever leads it, I just hope they can get something going and at least start to add some push back. Nobody is asking for open season on dangerous play but there has to be some common sense applied. There is no way on this earth that Watts and Micky Macs challenges were worthy of missing a 5th of the league season.

Totally agree with you. I don’t want to “bring the biff back” I just want some common sense and consistency applied. My other worry as I’ve stated previously is what will the game do if/when the changes do not reduce the number of head injuries?

They're getting so much better at spotting the signs of concussion that I can't see how cases will go down regardless of rule changes. I look at the below armpit rules and can see more concussions for defenders hitting knees and hips. I look at all the bans being handed out and can see clubs with smaller squads having to draft in young players who aren't yet ready for mens rugby and that causes it's own problems. The lads on the Wigan Way podcast raised a great point about Harry Smiths tackle. He gets nice and low as they would want but as bodies collide, there will be a natural throwing motion in some cases, so you then can't win either way.

I can see the need for more on field sanctions so we're seen to be cracking down but to punish people on the field and then throw big bans at them for incidents of accidental contacts seems extremely harsh and OTT.

I said after the weekend that it almost needs to be a 'one or the other' solution. Either tougher on field or off field but not both. My preference would be tougher on field as these long bans for incidents that don't merit it are ultimately going to be counter productive as mentioned above. Apart from which it's going to ruin the game for the fans too who want to see the stars of the game on the field not sat in the stands.

More red cards, more young inexperienced players not quite ready for FT professional rugby and as many if not more head injuries isn’t going to be a great result. The rfl and referees really need to talk to the players sooner rather than later. All the talk is negative re disciplinary issues rather than record crowds and increased access to all matches.

There's always discussion around teams not getting any advantage from foul play on game day and teams then benefiting the week after when a ban is issued

Sadly, I think there's more likely to be a fans' strike.

For the first time I can remember, I'm contemplating life after rugby league, and it might be coming as soon as the 2025 season. This is not guaranteed, but I'm not joking either.

This drift towards trying to make safe a game that is inherently unsafe is totally ridiculous. The focus should be on stamping out clear and unambiguous foul play (not inflicting draconian punishments for accidental contacts), and then trying the participants up legally with regard to their knowing the game is dangerous and being prepared to play it anyway, at their own risk.