Very true, but there was the report in The Sun (I know) in the week after Walker's death which made the same point. Didn't we have 5m before?

Players know what they are letting themselves in for and know that somewhere down the line they will be injured, but nowadays Rugby league is a collision sport as opposed to a contact sport and players today are getting bigger and faster, meaning that hits get bigger. That coupled with playing in the summer means that after a hit they then fall onto firm ground, so who knows what health problems todays players are storing for themselves in the future with the high number of joint injuries that they get now.

As players retire and get older we may see 40-50 year old former SL players with the mobility of 70-80 year olds as the likelihood of players suffering from arthritis and the need for joint replacements increases. If that does happen though players will look back and won't have any regrets about what they chose to do for a living.

the quote/story in the sun was made by the salford scout (iirc) who first spotted leon walker, saying that he'd been on at rfl bosses to change the rule for a while. the pro's know the risks and they get paid. the amatuers dont get paid and run the same risks! my knees are completely knackered and i'm only 32, but i'll keep plodding on

It's not the physically demanding nature of the game that needs adjusting but the recovery time you give these blokes. Unfortunately, we live in an age when TV companies have more influence over the fixture lists of all professional sports than those in the know when it comes to measuring the risk to players.

- but TV companies pay the wages, so...

i think this leads me straight towards the great paradox of the modern game padding!

Modern players earn money for what they do and some earn a fair amount compared to other dangerous occupations. however one of the things they do is wear padding to protect themselves against injury. in much the same way as clubs force creatine onto players (it bulks the cells with water and acts like a cushion, amongst other benefits)

if you look at the history of contact sports the injury rate has increased after the legalisation of padding. a study from edinburgh uni in 1999 found that after RU leagalised padding the injury rate went up over 500% in one season.

their conclusion because the player hears the word padding they psycologicall think protection, and go into tackles harder and with poorer technique leading to injuries.

are there more shoulder injuries now than before? or is it that due to the net and modern media coverage we are just more aware of them?

as for a 5m rule i can see the logic in your argument. players now are generally faster stronger and heavier than 5 years ago leading to greater forces at the moment of impact.

instead of wasting research money on the memory of a goldfish perhaps some sporty types should do a study into the forces generated in a head on tackle. if due to the increase in size and mass of players this force is now getting towards a dangerous level then there will be no choice but to depower it somehow.

If not then leave it alone

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has very little to do with a 5m offside rule.

And whoever 'remembered' fewer injuries in the 90s... really?

I'm sure there was a report in Aus about this and they worked out that one particular tackle had the equivalent of 10Gs of force produced. Though this is just from memory and may be completely wrong.

who mentioned hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? granted this is usually attributed to the sudden death of many young athletes but it is not relevant to this discussions. i was making the connection between a 5m offside rule reducing the speed of both players at the moment of impact thus reducing the forces.

I think the main reason we are seeing more of certain injuries is because of the interchange we now have. Large very fit young men who if had played under the older rules would not have been able to last 80 minuets even with todays training, (Paleasena for one) they would have tired quickly & become liabilitys not assets as they are in the modern game.
The 5 meter/yard rule only worked as the room appeared when the players got tired & gaps opened the close proxcimity of the defence did encourage better ball handling skills but the knowlage & conditioning was no where as scientific as it is now. One other factor to think about is that people of my age (near bus pass time) excepted risks & injury as part of our working lives (how stupid we were) we were also better looked after by the health service as there was no team of lawyers waiting to sue at the first opertunity.

The ultimate in modern full-time RL is the "roll" - a succession of fast play-the-balls with the pass fed to a fast, heavy and powerful forward on a well timed and well rehed run, each drive making 10 or more yards. A set of such drives can smash the defence apart or put the team close to the opposition line. Most fans love it, and most coaches and teams rely on it for the bulk of their progress in the match. It necessitates large fast forwards and it reduces the need for lighter players with good footwork and ball handling skills.
The referee calling "held" when a tackle nears a stalemate, and ensuring that the PTB is not allowed until the defenders clear the ruck (as it actually states in the laws) could change the emphasis of the game. A slower, more controlled PTB would reduce the effectiveness of the giant athletes and require teams to look for a greater use of ball-handling and footwork skills to break the defence (it would also cut out some of the joint damage caused by extended wrestling in the tackle).
Of course, the "roll" is what delights the crowd at the moment, and full-time clubs have an enormous vested interest in the status quo, in that they already have the big players on their books, and the systems within the clubs for making the best use of them. It takes many years to develop ball-handling and footwork skills: it is much quicker to bulk up a willing player and turn him into a battering ram. I can see no desire in the game for a slower PTB. I can see more and more high impact injuries, and an increase in the number of players who, one day, will regret some of the things they did to their one and only body.

would it really make much of a difference? if anything the fast PTB makes that aspect of the game safer as the its only the attacking playing carrying full momentum. surely the attacking player is past the point of PTB and gaining ground by the time the defensive line is onside. this would make the defsenive line not being able to reach full speed at the moment of impact.

Take on board your arguement and I'm not one of these folk who think players are in any way hard done to. If you don't like it, go and work in a factory or office somewhere, like the rest of us. I'll trade places with Jon Wilkin any day of the week.

But its not the day of the week or the kick off time I'm talking about, it's the scheduling to suit TV, and even the TV companies make no bones over the fact this happens. Anyone who thinks clubs can decide exactly when and - crucially - how many matches they play is deluded - why do you think they're all bloody moaning about it?

In cases where a club can decide whether they play on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday and they choose to give their players a longer rest, it clearly gives em a shorter break before the following game. That works vice versa too and therefore has little bearing on this arguement.

I'm talking about too many games in a season (and not a long enough closed season) for sportsmen now testing their bodies well beyond the rigours of what Kel Skerrett and Kevin Ward put themselves through. Sure, the game's always been 'tough' - perhaps even more so in the old days than now - but the impact of collisions and the speed around the ruck are light years from where they were even 10 years ago. It's a different game with different physical attributes required. Mal Meninga was the Man Mountain, a fine physical specimen at his pomp, but he wasn't the athlete Israel Folou is (IMO), and yet he was probably the best of his generation.

Like everyone else, I'd watch a game every night of the week if I could, but if it's at the expense of players' medium to long term health and the quality of what I'm watching, that doesn't make any sense at all. My only suggestion was that we err more toward doing what's best for the game and its players, and not what's best for the pockets of the big telly bosses. Unfortunately, TV money rules the world so you either live with it, or find a compromise.

What I'm saying is that it's up to the main power-brokers in our sport to take a lead, do some research, put this on the agenda and find a compromise - but I wouldn't hold your breath as they seem to understand it about as much as you. 3.60693359375:5