Because nobody cared about concussion until about 5 years ago.

The sport has had a major reduction (75%) on head impacts this season, so much so that the rumour is that the move to lowering tackle height to below the armpit might well be delayed/postponed. So like it or not this seasons tweaks, which were only a stricter application of the actual rules, have been a success.

Depends how you measure ‘head impacts’. If you speak to the players, they feel game more dangerous, as two players try and get low in the tackle, results in more impacts/head collisions between defenders, more impacts of head on thigh from attacker too…..

Hmm. I don't think so. I don't often speak to players, but I'd hazard a guess that slightly changing their tackling technique ( in recognition of the long standing laws of the game) is a preferable and more controllable option to getting smacked round the chops as a matter of course. The gum shields that players are now mandated to wear will provide the scientific data that should drive decision making on this topic, and so far those results look promising. That's surely something to celebrate.

At the end kf the day fans enjoying the biff at the cost of players having brain damage are gone.

I'm all for strict rules around head contact ( especially intentional ) but they have to be applied the same by every ref in every game and I'd like to see a system in place that helps deal with repeat offenders.

Nobody speaks to the players as they have no representative body. All these things just get decided, when it’s actually their future and safety on the line……

I think that's an exaggeration, Shabs. But even if it isn't I think their answer to the question - "would you like us to police the existing laws of the game properly in order to reduce the risk of brain damage to you in later life?"- would be a very predictable one. It is (forgive the pun) a no brainer.

Fair point, but there needs to be a balance with the integrity of the game too. They are very clear with this in the NRL, we have gone OTT here imho…..

The NRL has gone overboard with some aspects, for example pressuring the kicker. Some of the penalties/sin bins/SO's are crazy. Yet what we have seen as SO'here, Vaughan for example against Leigh, is nothing more than a sin bin e.g. Whitehead for the Raiders yesterday. The two comps aren't aligned at all on the rules, never mind interpretation or application.

Two different games - the speed, athletisism and skill set in the NRL demands different interpretation of the rules.

Vaughan gets SO, Whitehead gets 10. NRL less concerned about player safety? And vice versa when it comes to policing pressure on the kicker? I'm not so sure.

NRL equally concerned about safety, but also balanced again the integrity of the sport……

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The NRL has less sending offs, but they have way more sin bins, and their bans are harsher. The fans are equally frustrated by how the rules are interpreted in terms of head contact. Not to mention the ongoing issue regarding hip drop tackles.
They also have the opposite problem SL has in how the ruck is policed, here it's too slow, and over there it's too fast, some of the games have been like touch rugby this season.

From a spectator's perspective I'd far rather have the ruck too fast than too slow. That ought to be the mantra of all referees in RL.

If, and it’s a big if, Catalans can win a close game at Salford, it’s in our hands with two weeks left. We didn’t think we would be able to say that a few weeks ago, so wraps to the whole squad and staff for hanging in there so far. If we can make the 6, which would be a massive task, then we would go in with a bit of form having beaten the top two in our last two outings.