Jack Burton wrote:Perhaps. Ken Davy is a pretty big player in the UK insurance industry, so no doubt he's been consulted.
It will come down to what the most cost effective option is. Is changing the laws and asking players and coaches to adapt, resulting in a lot of pain and frustration in the short to medium term more cost effective than not making the suggested changes which will result in huge increase in expenses to the game in the medium to long term, but would stop the criticism from fans, coaches, and players in the short term.
But the fans, coaches, refs and players ARE the game, not the administrators or the underwriters.
Jack Burton wrote:Nope, but I'd probably prefer it to a shot the jaw or the whiplash from a tackle made above the chest.
To be honest, I can see the game going back to 5m defensive lines, as the tacklers won't be able to slow down the play of the ball down sufficiently enough in order to get back onside. But we'll see. As I said, the game has adapted to bigger rule changes and survived. If the players, coaches and governing body work together, I'm sure the game will still be entertaining, in fact, it's an opportunity to make it better. But it is incredibly frustrating at the moment, I accept.
I admire your optimism and you’re right in the sense that there is opportunity here too.
You’re going to have a very hard job persuading me how the game can possibly look better with this current policy framework though mate. Arbitrary cards, inconsistent decisions, over-complex rules, sledgehammer to crack a walnut, no direct correlation between the risk and the punishment… not for me.
KaeruJim wrote:I admire your optimism and you’re right in the sense that there is opportunity here too.
You’re going to have a very hard job persuading me how the game can possibly look better with this current policy framework though mate. Arbitrary cards, inconsistent decisions, over-complex rules, sledgehammer to crack a walnut, no direct correlation between the risk and the punishment… not for me.
There's definitely major issues, but are the issues you mention really THAT bad? They're definitely big issues, but they're definitely fixable. Perhaps, instead of giving red cards out for accidental head contact, they should send both players for a mandatory HIA assessments? That would still force players to adjust their technique, and deter defenders from trying to milk a penalty.
Seth wrote:Would another evolution of the game be going to 11 aside which would lead to aless condensed field and more leg tackles.
If that's the case, just make leg tackles the only legal way to tackle and accept a faster passing game with lots of offloads and trys. It would be more entertaining than the wrestle which has taken precedence over the last 10 years or so.
What a big fuss about following the rules which the RFL have no alternative to follow , in view of the legal ramifications . The big discussion should be why the rules about head high tackling have not been enforced in the past , and then we would not be having this chaotic situation. It is all down to the players to listen to what they have been told - hit the opponent on the head and your in trouble . I agree the refs have to be consistent Donno was a red , and Smith tackle was also a red . Watts tackle - made no attempt to bend his back , although with Westerman stood behind him , we would all have second thoughts about that !!! Listening to KR player , he said Brett Delaney had been hammering the new tackle technique into all the players - this is what is needed at every club . This is the way forward , and much as I love the biff , I am afraid we are now in a different era - get used to it . John Holmes , my favourite player of all times , would have been in his element.
Jack Burton wrote:There's definitely major issues, but are the issues you mention really THAT bad? They're definitely big issues, but they're definitely fixable. Perhaps, instead of giving red cards out for accidental head contact, they should send both players for a mandatory HIA assessments? That would still force players to adjust their technique, and deter defenders from trying to milk a penalty.
My main issue is the way in which the current administration is applying rules ostensibly to protect player welfare - but as far as I can see it absolutely does not.
Wilkin made a sensible suggestion of yellow carding if an infringement looks potentially bad, and then letting the video referees review over the 10 mins and allow back on or convert to red as necessary. Doesn’t stop sides losing games from frivolously given yellow cards though.
We need to find ways to incentivise players to play more safely without ruining the game itself. Yes it IS that bad - the rules the academy played under last year; I’m a pretty loyal and die hard fan but I wouldn’t watch that game. I mean you do you but it isn’t for me when it gets to that.
Insurance companies will not have said to the RFL "you must introduce rules x, y and z." They may have said "you need to mitigate risks a, b and c." The new rules are the RFLs answer to deliver this mitigation. However, in any other industry those at the sharp end would have been consulted as to whether the proposals would achieve the stated aim. That clearly hasn't happened, and what we have, predictably, is an utterly shambolic mess. Poorly thought out, poorly implemented, poorly administered. Also, what if the changes lead to an increase in head injuries? Where does the game go then? Is there a game? Insurance costs will be irrelevant.
easyWire wrote:If that's the case, just make leg tackles the only legal way to tackle and accept a faster passing game with lots of offloads and trys. It would be more entertaining than the wrestle which has taken precedence over the last 10 years or so.
But the science says that leg tackling can lead to brain trauma and insurance claims… so let’s try little tags put in the side of shorts instead.
YosemiteSam wrote:Insurance companies will not have said to the RFL "you must introduce rules x, y and z." They may have said "you need to mitigate risks a, b and c." The new rules are the RFLs answer to deliver this mitigation. However, in any other industry those at the sharp end would have been consulted as to whether the proposals would achieve the stated aim. That clearly hasn't happened, and what we have, predictably, is an utterly shambolic mess. Poorly thought out, poorly implemented, poorly administered. Also, what if the changes lead to an increase in head injuries? Where does the game go then? Is there a game? Insurance costs will be irrelevant.
Representatives from the RFL and other contact sports attended a conference in Amsterdam where the science was explained to them on what causes brain injuries and how to mitigate the risks. The changes that the RFL are introducing next season don't actually go as far as some recommend. The recommendations seem to be more in line with what RU were originally going to introduce. Thankfully, we haven't gone that far. The point is who do you think haven't been consulted who should have been? The players and coaches were all told about what would be expected, and sure there have been some frustrating cards, but generally the players have adapted pretty well overall.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
