Quote: KaeruJim "I think we can all agree on the need to keep players as safe as possible. Nobody wants to see degenerative brain disease (although again the causal link is very difficult to establish scientifically).
The question is how we go about it. To what extent is risk inherent in the game? Is it possible to reduce the risk to nil, and if not what is an acceptable level? This is a pragmatic approach.
Also we have the refereeing of said rules. Because they are over-complicated and too broad at the same time, games are frequently being spoiled due to interpretations.
Show me a game of under-armpit level tackling that looks anything like rugby league, or which is any way refereeable and I might change my view. It turns games into penalty-fests and the result a lottery. There were lots of academy games trialling this last year and they were pretty much horrendous. I also still saw some head knocks despite the new rules.'"
Great points. It's impossible to mitigate the risk completely. Regardless of the rules around the tackle, if there is tackling of any sort in the game then there will always be head knocks. Changing the game to remove any chance of head knocks means no tackling of any sort. If that comes to pass, there'll be no need to worry about insurance costs.