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.

More to the point, how have Salford successfully appealed Briely’s ban? Direct contact to the head with a swinging arm, but now it’s not.

It's all bollox

Most worrying times I can remember for the game. I get the current climate, but spectacle getting lower and lower….

Honestly, the pearl clutching over this is a bit OTT.
The WCC will be played under international rules, contact with the head is still illegal, and the NRL have have been cracking down on head contact for years now, so it likely won't make any difference to game anyway.

As for the cards and bans, how many of them wouldn't have resulted in a ban or a card last season?

Agree on the NRL stance on head height tackles. However, it has also said it has no intention of following suit with regard to RFL tackle height changes, so clearly their insurers are ok with their current stance. Same with WCC. We're told RFL insurers have demanded the changes the RFL has instigated. No idea if this is right or wrong but clearly there are other insurance options. Are they affordable for the game here? Again, I dont know, but to say that the only option was for these changes to be made or there would be no game is wrong. Also bizarre that players weren't involved in any of the discussions. They clearly feel that way too.

It's not wrong. Insurers costs have doubled in the last few years, and there is talk of premiums tripling or quadrupling in price again if changes aren't made. Perhaps if we had the money the NRL and their clubs have we could take the hit, but we don't.
In the NFL, they have a dozen doctors at every game and a billion dollar annual fund which they use to compensate players with brain injuries. If RL was forced was forced to do something similar then there's no way it could survive financially.

Personally, I think the changes will have a positive impact in the long-term. Sure, it's annoying at the moment, but over time, it will reduce the wrestling and speed the game up, and increase the number of offloads in the game.