I've no problem with them expressing their views. I just find the clamour for a players's union rich because it's the actions of ex players who are suing the game that has caused this.

As for boxing and MMA, essentially, yes, they can afford the additional insurance and medical costs, as can the NFL.

RL's insurance costs are at least doubling every few years FOR THE LOWEST LEVEL OF COVERAGE, the game can't sustain that cost.

In RU you would have to outlaw rucks and mauls for a start if you proceed with the logic around head contact. It’s frankly a joke.

The elephant in the room is that neither code of rugby can survive this direction of travel. It will become a different sport more akin to tag.

Where has this been reported? You've mentioned it before but I don't think I've ever read about it. Do you have a link?

I don’t know enough about it but I doubt insurers are setting the rules, they will be looking for risk mitigation. The only way to mitigate the risk is not to play. They are there to make profit; they are not interested in insuring RL with the trends in litigation.

Where do you suggest we go with this?

Again, their views are not connected in any way to former players so that's nothing to do with them, theyre not happy with their working conditions so a collective union is the right course of action.

There won't be professional game for them to worry about affording if this is the continued direction of travel. And rules may be more strict but in real terms will that actually affect insurance costs because you cant eliminate risk.

For 35 years I was privileged to play, watch and coach the game. I will remind myself of that when it has been completely destroyed.

We need to think more creatively. Players are going to have to disclaim and accept more risk, and insurance needs to be sorted - maybe codes of rugby combine and form their own regulated insurance product which satisfies legals.

The data seems to suggest that head clashes have the highest risk factor to cause a head injury, (which may explains why even accidental head to head contact is punished), and tackles made around the torso have the lowest risk factor. The risk factor is 3 or 4 times lower.

It’s just weak to screw the game completely on the whim of underwriters. We need an effective way to mitigate risk to players long term health.

What we are looking at now is the reality that insurers don’t want to touch rugby with a barge pole because the risk of loss is too high and they make profit.

RL inherently induces injury. It is inherently risky. We’re being driven by bean counters and nannies. We can significantly reduce the risk or ongoing brain injury and still have an amazing sport; these things are not mutually exclusive and I reject the current approach.

I’d love someone to explain to me what possible point there is in punishing an accident.