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.

Im sure the data will change again when the lower body tackles are the norm. Big 6ft 4 players will be obsolete because there's no way they can get low enough on smaller players especially when theyre fatigued on a soggy pitch. Either that or they drop out of the defensive line. It's like natural selection, but a really sht version.

Again, I've no problem with them unionising, go for it. But it won't stop these rules being implemented, and it won't stop former players suing the game. Aren't GMB the player's representatives already anyway?

Maybe it won't but what do they do, just stand by and watch it happen without a voice.

To be fair, aren't upright tackles a relatively recent thing in the game? From memory of games when I was younger, most tackles were made around the waist or lower. It's only been the introduction of the wrestling that has seen the initial contact go higher.



The implications of these changes are huge, but the game has gone through bigger law changes over the last 130 years, and it's still here. I share some of the fears around what it will look like, but it will still be here.

They should 100% have a voice, they should have unionised years ago, in fact, I find it odd it's taken this long considering some of the changes that have happened within the game in the last 30 or 40 years, in particular.

We will see more of this https://youtu.be/BfPSbq9CnrY?si=Yn1ONA1xVHtdAukl I wonder how fozzard feels about the damage fielden experienced

We will see more of this https://youtu.be/BfPSbq9CnrY?si=Yn1ONA1xVHtdAukl I wonder how fozzard feels about the damage fielden experienced

They were certainly less common but players are now much bigger too, would you want to tackle someone like lisone round the hips one on one.

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.