The rules around high contact will be relaxed for the WCC, farcical.

Farcical indeed. How does insurance work for the WCC game? Presumably the same as NRL, which doesn't appear to have the same issue as Super League.

Personally I'd give any union that proposed calling a strike in support of more dangerous working conditions instead of taking on the salary cap, say, a very wide berth.
Could be wrong but I don't think many players will bale out and seek other employment either.

The conditions wouldn't be more dangerous though, they'd be the same as they were. However, perhaps the changes have made things more dangerous - unintended consequences and all that. Anyway, I read it as their beef is around significant changes being imposed on them without consultation. Asking those at the sharp end if the changes are likely to help, have no effect or make the problem worse, before imposing them, seems like a pretty sensible thing to do in any walk of life.

More to the point, how have Salford successfully appealed Briely’s ban? Direct contact to the head with a swinging arm, but now it’s not.

It's all bollox

Most worrying times I can remember for the game. I get the current climate, but spectacle getting lower and lower….

Honestly, the pearl clutching over this is a bit OTT.
The WCC will be played under international rules, contact with the head is still illegal, and the NRL have have been cracking down on head contact for years now, so it likely won't make any difference to game anyway.

As for the cards and bans, how many of them wouldn't have resulted in a ban or a card last season?

Agree on the NRL stance on head height tackles. However, it has also said it has no intention of following suit with regard to RFL tackle height changes, so clearly their insurers are ok with their current stance. Same with WCC. We're told RFL insurers have demanded the changes the RFL has instigated. No idea if this is right or wrong but clearly there are other insurance options. Are they affordable for the game here? Again, I dont know, but to say that the only option was for these changes to be made or there would be no game is wrong. Also bizarre that players weren't involved in any of the discussions. They clearly feel that way too.

It's not wrong. Insurers costs have doubled in the last few years, and there is talk of premiums tripling or quadrupling in price again if changes aren't made. Perhaps if we had the money the NRL and their clubs have we could take the hit, but we don't.
In the NFL, they have a dozen doctors at every game and a billion dollar annual fund which they use to compensate players with brain injuries. If RL was forced was forced to do something similar then there's no way it could survive financially.

Personally, I think the changes will have a positive impact in the long-term. Sure, it's annoying at the moment, but over time, it will reduce the wrestling and speed the game up, and increase the number of offloads in the game.