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.

Without question in union it's defending. All mine (and I had a few which thankfully have caused me no issues) were getting my head in the wrong place making a tackle. When they first started cracking down massively on head contact in Union a few years ago players were getting too low too early so any change of direction from the ball carrier was causing problems. It was carnage.

I'm not sure the "good old days" were better for players' health and brain injuries than today's game.

Maybe RL does need a sea change again, but if we change the game so it becomes unrecognisable, what are we trying to protect in the first place?

I've seen some incredible games in the modern era, I'm not with rose tinted glasses at all. There were some bloody turgid affairs in the 80s with big fat blokes running into each other for 80 minutes in a field of cold mud.

I think raking might end up over-running the game if re-introduced; I can imagine it happening a lot more than it used to.

I think in terms of players' health and brain injuries, as well as entertainment, I wouldn't necessarily frame it as a good old days vs bad new days argument. We can take the best/remove the worst from both. No need for the old-fashioned high shots and punching, and no need for the new constant high-impact, high-power style.

If we're worried about the game becoming unrecognisable, I'd look back to the 60s, to unlimited tackles, to the dog's leg defences of the 70s and 80s. There are no brawls in league any more. Like them or not, they were a pretty big part of the game 20 or 30 years ago. I'd look at other sports - cricket, football. Culture (including sport) changes massively all the time, what interests me more is whether it gets better or worse.

Exactly. People think concussions only occur thru high tackles and its not true. Tackle techniques have changed over the years. In league the first contact is usually in the chest area to prevent offloads but shoulders contact defenders heads and we see more clash of heads these days.

Tackle lower and you can get hips or knees to the head.