Its a great shame that after the brilliant atmosphere and general upbeat nature of fans coming into this opening round were already seeing fanbases complaining about corruption at the RFL etc all over social media again.

The beak isnt fit for purpose, theres zero consistency and thats the crux of the argument.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... e-28667136 A Matt Shaw article I know, but still.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... e-28667136 A Matt Shaw article I know, but still.

What worries and annoys me is that the governing body is prepared to stick a middle finger up to all R.L fans and basically say, “we’re gonna cheat, what you gonna do about it ?”
I nearly walked away from the game after the Grand Final of 2022 because of the Morgan Knowles/John Bateman/Rhyse Martin farce. I only just renewed my season ticket on the last day of early bird this season because I find the RFL so loathsome.
Supporters follow the game for pleasure, to get away from the stresses of modern life. They don’t follow it to get angry and upset about the sports governing body being corrupt and immoral.
The RFL drew a line in the sand in October 2022 when they used a loophole in the system to circumvent their own disciplinary procedure, allowing John Bateman to get off basically scot free when he knocked Aidan Sezer out with a dangerous head shot.
Let’s not forget, it robbed us of a main playmaker for the biggest game in Rugby League, The Grand Final. If the R.F.L were prepared to commit such an unethical, immoral act in plain sight, they were damn sure to do it again whenever it suits them.
The only difference between the Bateman situation and the Current Harry Smith shenanigans is that one was immoral/corrupt and one is plain cheating/corrupt.

The fact is the game cannot get insured without these rule changes, apparently only one insurance company was willing to insure the game, and they've essentially doubled the cost of player insurance and demanded changes be made. Added to that are the 100s of legal cases being made against the game from past players resulting in a further potentially massive cost to the game. No insurance means no game. Sure, it's frustrating, but it's undoubtedly the lesser of 2 evils in this case.
At the end of the day, contact with the head has been illegal for decades, but as the initial contact of tackles has gotten higher and slowing down the play the ball has become it's primary focus it's meant more and more contacts are made to the head. I understand it must be frustrating for coaches and players, but they have managed to alter their tackling techniques to accommodate all the wrestling, so I don't see why they can't alter it again to make they tackle legally.

No one will argue with player safety but placing 100% of the onus for due care on the defender and 0% on the attacker is a nonsense. Not consulting with the players, as we're now led to believe is the case, on such a fundamental change is naive and amateurish in the extreme. No players and, to a large degree, no fans also mean no game.

The best thing that could happen (and there's more rumblings of it happening again swirling) is the players pulling their fingers out and organising a proper union.
Yes it will take some investment to set up and there will be doubters, but the only way for players to be heard and have their grievances actioned is to have a strong united front and be properly recognised and represented. The Yates question and Walmsleys column are two prime examples of players feeling aggrieved and represented (if at all) Players are the lifeblood of the game and they need to be listened to.

What's to consult? Either we don't make these changes and the game doesn't get insured, meaning no game. Or, we do what the insurance company has instructed in or order get insured and make sure the game still exists.
The clubs were made aware of the changes ages ago now, and it's not as if the MRP haven't been dishing out bigger bans for the last few years now.

There's the issue. Perhaps consult the players (no players, no game) on changes that are so fundamental. They're the ones in the firing line. State the aim of the proposals, give players the opportunity to comment on whether these proposals
are likely to achieve those aims or are there other avenues that could be explored. Perhaps these changes will have zero impact on reducing head injuries, or even increase them? What then? On the insurance, if the players have had enough then there's no game left to insure.

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.