Hopefully the club have ensured the insurance policy in place enables him to have access to the necessary private medical care and and a suitable income stream.

The lad was pure class when he played, such a shame at such a young age having to give up the game. RU appear to be in front of RL in terms of head high tackles, but changes have to be made to make the game safer.
It starts with rules in the game, and the referee applying those rules., The same applies to the touch judges they need to report what they see to the referee, the number of head high shots that go unpunished because they go unseen. Maybe a case for the video ref to advise what he sees. The head high shots that are seen are not the main problem ( although they are serious) its the head shots that go unpunished and are unseen that are the problem, the knees in the tackle that hit the head. Too much goes unpunished. Its like some players go out to physically hurt players especially in the tackle when the player is on the ground. The game is hard enough without having to accept head shots. Better tackling techniques need to be introduced at a young age.

Head shots straight red card, followed by a ban. It will hurt the game for a couple of years but the players will soon learn,

The only way to stop players from coming into concat with another players head is to send them off and ban them for a long time (10 games +) when it happens, accidentally or not.

Like others I remember the game when the likes of Holmes, Topliss and Millward played and it was "part of the game" for those players to get taken out by fair means or foul (it was usually foul as they were too good). Back then the second man came in not to lock the ball up but to take the your head off.

I remember the game gradually got cleaned up and the headhunters were removed. A series of 8 match suspensions for deliberate high tackles speeded things up in the late 80s.

Back then players weren't as bulked and weren't as spaced apart. Thus collisions weren't as big. The main risks seemed to come from foul play.

As I see it there is a way to make the game safer. It's to penalise high tackles to the degree that union is but I also think there's a need to get players to scale back on the power, perhaps by limiting players by weight? It might sound mad but it would reduce impact in collisions.

I could use a motor sport analogy here, back in the early 80s in rallying the top class of car was known as Group B. The sport had seen technology evolve so some cars had as much as 500hp or more and the speeds they generated were incredible. Unfortunately the drivers were struggling to control the cars and a series of serious accidents occurred that resulted in power limits being imposed and the cars slowed down along with a number of other safety measures.

I guess what I'm saying is that just because players can be fitter, faster and more powerful as sports science evolves doesn't mean we should allow that to happen. I don't think it's safe. You can't bring in mitigations for ever increasingly forceful collisions. At some point you go too far and I think we're probably there. Player physiques are way different to what they were yet the protection for the head and brain is always the same.

Reduce the weight of the player and you reduce the impact, thus reducing the risk. You're never going to eradicate it completely but I think moving the game back to something like it was in the early 90s in terms of player physique while clamping down on high tackles would make the game safer and more sustainable as we find out more about the effects of concussion long term.

I wonder how many players play each week with an element of concussion just to preserve their income/career?

No easy answers on this one. Would limiting the number of players in a tackle to two (maybe with exception of try line defence) help? Would certainly speed the game up to the point where speed and athleticism would be more valuable than bulk.

The problem we have is that no rule changes would have prevented what happened to Stevie. Was innocuous looking tackle.......

In the NRL the six again rule and reducing the number of subs was brought in to speed things up and there was a mountain of complaints when there were blowout scores. Reduce the numbers in the tackle and the game gets looser.

I agree it would reduce the size of players eventually as the really big lads wouldn't cope with the pace but at the same time you need to find a balance so that the game doesn't turn into a farce.

I don't think there's a magic bullet to this, it's about trying things and seeing how they bed in but beforehand having a clear idea of what you're trying to achieve. Is it a faster and safer game? If so how will you measure if you're being successful in achieving that? How do make sure you don't turn the game into something that overly favours the attacking side?

You could probably reduce risk in the way players train. Improvements to preventative measures and rest periods help too. Maybe even more focus on tackle technique training to protect the head more.

At the end of the day it’s about risk mitigation rather than risk elimination.

Might be a bit too radical, but what about some kind of limit to the number of games a player can play within a certain period of time?

Take two players off the pitch. 13 a side doesn't work with modern levels of fitness. The lack of space increases the ease and frequency of big shots. At the same time, it makes it a more boring game to watch.

I would also limit substitutions to 4 per game. Players don't get tired enough, meaning there are big shots from well-rested players right through the 80 minutes. Again, it would have a positive impact on the game we watch too. Might even see a real winger again, and even a bit of creativity, god forbid.

You could also say though that fatigue leads to poorer technique - not sure there is a clear link there between head injury.

Certainly it's hard to bang on about player welfare when we regularly ask players to play 4 games in 12 days or whatever. If we're serious I think we should limit fixtures in a given timescale - you could maybe make an exception for Easter but not allowing players sufficient physical recovery is not on IMO.

Sounding like an old fogey but when you watch matches from the 80s the pitch seems much bigger and there are loads more gaps. This was down to players being more unfit and being less organised in defence. Professionalism and sports science has taken the game down a path where a lot of what made it appealing has gone.

Played well RL can look great. The 2020 Grand Final and the NRL play offs this year show that. But looking good on the eye and being safe for players might not be the same thing.

I'm all for rewarding a player's fitness and endurance by reducing subs and numbers on the field but that may be to the detriment of skill if it leads to making scoring a try too easy. Making big changes can have unforeseen consequences.

It is absolutely true that big changes can (will) have unforeseen consequences, but they have been made in the past (15 to 13, changes to number of tackles, changes to numbers of subs). I'd argue the game needs that sort of change right now in order to survive, in terms of the concussion issue, and remain entertaining full stop.

Of course there are still great games of rugby around, but if you watch old matches to see how it was played in the 80s and 90s, I think it's a totally different level of excitement. I want to see varieties of passing moves, kicks, off-the-cuff running; all the unpredictable stuff that used to thrill me. A huge amount of that skill has gone out of the game now. I'm sure a large part of that is because defences are too fit and organised and there's not enough space/time for players to express themselves in any way other than raw power.

This is more urgent because the days of massive hits and fighting are gone and won't be back, so the game needs a selling point.

On the other hand I also know that I was a lot younger in the 80s and 90s so maybe that accounts for the added excitement of the era.

All very good points and I agree.

I think another thing that is overlooked is that in the 80s and before there was a genuine battle for possession so if you kicked into touch or ran into touch it wasn't a guaranteed turnover as there was a chance you could win the ball back at the scrum. You could also rake the ball back at the PTB and pinch it in the tackle no matter how many players were involved. That meant you could take risks more with possession.

Now I'm not advocating bringing back contested scrums as they ended up a being nightmare with the ref able to penalise every one as all the players were desperately trying to win the ball. That's happen again. But why not allow the raking back of the ball at the PTB? It would introduce a bit more variation and give an opportunity to for defences to win the ball.