Agree with this, more and more techniques have come into play to slow pob, some reasonable (putting more men into the tackle, reasonable in that it has the negative of making the defensive line harder to set up with a man missing) some not so (attacker holding onto collars to cannonball challenges)

Instead of banning each new technique post game would it not be easier to install a 2nd ref? It would mean a quicker game which is better for the speccies, would mean the only way to slow pob would be to win the initial collision rather than roughhousing, again better for speccies and it would mean players, forwards especially, would have to be fitter so lighter and so it might reduce the overall collision injuries?

This would keep the game the rough contact sport which requires courage and toughness yet reduce the injuries and the naff tactics that have crept in.

Yep agree with that. A 2nd ref is a must in my view. It doesn't have to be like in the NRL where there are 2 full refs on the pitch and they swap over. We can have 1 ref but have a "roving touch judge" that can be behind the ruck and relay instructions to the players and give an often invisible viewpoint to the ref.

Aren't they called fans?

I think some of the analogies about the power of impacts in sports are a bit OTT. The amount of energy might be similar but not the effect. I remember reading an article before Frank Bruno fought Mike Tyson saying that Tyson's punch was the equivalent of being hit with a sledgehammer. I don't think many boxer's hands would last too long if they spent their time knocking down walls with their hands, even wearing gloves.

It probably is, but it's to try and get over the force and power going into what are considered just "regular" hits these days. Because many people really don't realise the effect of these hits on the body and think of it as not that far away from amateur level, when it's a million miles away.

We have many RL fans saying players and coaches should stop moaning about playing more than 1 game per week and that the game is going soft and even ex-players like Schofield saying players could play 3 games in 3 days like he did in the 80's.
So they clearly have absolutely no idea how powerful these hits are despite that coaches and conditioners say players need at least 4/5 days recovery due to the effect on the body and that due to post game recovery a lot of players will only get 1 training session in before the next game and some, like Jamie Peacock, will get none.

Not wanting to derail the thread, of course.

But I'd like to question this modern idea that RL has to be played at an optimum of 1 game per week.

Maybe, just maybe if RL was played more regularly (on the weekend, with weekend fixtures), most coaches would be concerned with the game itself, working on tactics, moves, and game plans. Rather than teams spending half the week in the gym, getting stronger, and as a consequence more destructive.

It seems counter-initiative that RL was played on weekends and during midweek for many seasons, despite 80% of the players being semi-pro and having employment on the side. But I think this focused teams to work on the game, play the game better, rather than constantly beefing up its players.

That said, what other sports have their teams play just once-a-week? Football is jam-packed with fixtures. What about NFL? NHL?

The time spent lifting weights will be only around four hours a week. The rest if rehab/prehab. Don't think game or skills work is being neglected for those.

NFL is once a week. Outside the NFL, seasons are just 10-12 games long. The NFL is 4 pre-season games where the major players play very little, 16 regular season games, and up to four playoff games. The shortest turnaround between games would be Sunday-Thursday, but that only happen once a season for most teams. Soccer isn't an intense collision sport.

. Not that I would necessarily want a try-fest free-for-all.

A maximum of two defenders involved in the tackle (with an exception for a defending side's in-goal area). With only two men involved, the tackle area should clear more quickly and the tackled player will have a better opportunity to regain his feet and play the ball at pace.

Would also stop players coming in third man and looking to chop the legs out from underneath the ball carrier. If a defender wants to take the legs, then he can only have one team-mate up top to secure the ball which gives players more opportunity to offload.

That would sometimes be to the detriment of the attack as you wouldn't be able to draw multiple defenders and move them out of position?

I'd say make the ball carrier play the ball "correctly". Many play the balls are taken "incorrectly". Either players haven't properly regained their feet, are still moving forward, not facing forwards and of course often don't roll the ball back with their foot.

If we make players play the ball properly it would obviously slow it down. So would defences then not focus quite so intensely on slowing the play the ball themselves?

Also I think the refs calling held quicker and the held call being similar to the surrender call I think would help reduce some twisting injuries.

But that wouldn't reduce the impacts/size or power of players.

A reduction in interchanges?