Ah, so we allow the virus to spread among the population and pick off the "low hanging fruit".
If only they'd thought of this 18 months ago and we could possibly have had half a million dead, instead of the 125,000 or so.

Great idea. Perhaps you could stand for Parliament.

Cracking down on high shots isn't farcial, it's about modifying how participants play the sport, it needs to continue and expanded to neck tackling, well it needs to continue if we are actually really as bothered about player welfare as the words seem to imply.
The problem with some of the interpretations by both on field and disciplinary is that there's a failure to understand kinetic energy/pyhsiology of humans in motion and how fast the human brain can determine an ever changing environment or motion of other players actions or state of motion.

Whence a player decides to make contact/ a tackle they are making that decision a certai period before the contact is made, sometimes you can adjust how that cntact is made leading up to it, however there are a fair few occasions in every match were the time between your initial decision to make contact and what's unfolding in front of you is too short for the human brain to decipher (reaction time) and even if it could, your physical motion (kinetic energy) canot simply be moved or stopped in that time frame to avoid the contact point you were aiming for. Thus head high shots occur when the initial movement was legitimate.

Penalising players severely on the back of those instances is not just wrong but unjust and ignorant, it could lead to a fundamental change in contact sport and not for the better. We only need to look at how gridiron decided to 'protect' its participants and the outcome from that has been a pandemic of brain injuries (to the extent of suicide to alleviate the symtpoms of CTE) and massive injury increases in other parts of the body, this mostly due to the effects of the intervention. So rugby either goes down the headgear route (very bad), it becomes a soft contact sport, which means its no longer rugby as we know it, or it lives with the fact that in some instances injuries/contact to the head cannot be avoided.

The issue is the zero tolerance on headshots is more about avoiding a lawsuit than protecting the players.

You are right sometimes there will be accidental headshots where a player had no intention to hit the head and those ones should be seen as accidents and not result in sin bins.

The ones where there is no doubt and a player is clearly trying to hurt someone should be the bin or red card depending on the severity of the shot.

Clearly the effect of of zero tolerance has seen defence become more passive. Players are worried about getting sent off or sent to the bin so the contact has changed which is worse for the game. Some argue tackle low but the game really doesn't allow just below the waist tackles as without trying to stop the ball carrier off loading we would have a game which would be so advantageous to attack that defense would become irrelevant.

As for the 6 again. Its a good rule which stops defences happy to give a way pens to either slow the game down or concede 2 points instead of a potential 6.

What it has done in the NRL is expose the sides who can't get there defensive line in shape quick enough and those who's players can't handle the speed of the game.

As the Arctic Monkeys sang "drowning in denial", You keep on believing bro'

I couldn't disagree with you more, bending your back and making a waist tackle is massively more effective at stopping the opposition. You cite the offloading of the ball as to why this would lead to more advantage to attack, however I shall explain to you why you, and indeed many others are incorrect in that thinking.
Firstly, have a look at how many yards after contact most players effect, particularly forwards, if there is a waist/legs tackle in like for like scenario, would you agree or disagree that that this prevents yardage been made upfield?
Would you agree or disagree that having 3 or 4 players in a stood up tackle is a better use of resources than one or two players making a waist/legs tackle and one to help out?
How many defenders are having to make back the 10m from a 3 or 4 player stood up tackle compared to a one or two player legs tackle?
Would you accept that having 3 or 4 players in the tackle is more fatigue inducing with the reitrement of the additional tacklers back 10m than none and this in fact has a detrmental affect on the defensive line that because that 3rd and 4th tackler might not be onside can get a penalty drawn against them or they are not in a position to make a defensive move?
Would you agree or disagree that a falling player (from a leg tackle) has less control over an offload than one whom is stood up?
Which player takes longer to make a PTB a player leg tackled/dominated and on the ground, or one that is stood up in a tackle being smothered?
Would you agree or disagree that offloading out the stood up tackle is prevelent in the sport despite best attempts to smother tackle?

if you've watched the game for any period of time you'll notice how many easy yards players make when the up top tackle is performed (hence the 3rd or 4th man in and indeed this increases chances of the cannonball tackle), players get handed off/fended far more easily as well.
Falling players from a legs tackle have far less control over an offload so are less likely to do it than if they are stood up. A legs tackle gives you more defenders in the line than an up top tackle with 3 or 4 players, this means if there is a quick PTB you've more chance of being an effective defensive line compared to a line missing up to 4 players (incl two at the PTB). Fewer committed tacklers means less fatigue overall as it's a better and quicker way to halt an attacker and less time spent retreating 10m.
Dominant leg tackles not only gee up your team mates but they can knock the stuffing out of the opposition, it hurts more to be knocked onto your back or fall onto your shoulder/body as an attacker than it does just being held up, it fatigues you more as well.

If players started bending their backs again, not only does this reduce chances of head/neck injuries, it's a more effective way of defending. problem is coaches are too indoctrinated itno thinking one way and can't accept that they might be wrong because they're either scared of failure or simply acknowledge that most their players can't tackle for @@@t

The likes of Houghton, Tommy Leuluai and some others are great exponents of the one on one tackle and often dominate much bigger players, this not only means their defensive line is fully set but the attacker made no more yards after contact and more often than not did not offload the ball.

Go back and watch games over the last 20 years and more, look at what happens after a good legs/waist tackle, where defenders are, how much yards after contact was made, how often offloads occured, how long it took for the attcker to PTB.
Compare that to the up top grab tackle and see how ineffiecient it is and how it leads to more head shots occuring and indeed neck tackles.

You've made some cracking points and yes leuluai one of the very best but it would take a huge change in tackling technique to get a game such as you describe. Players are not coached to tackle like that and getting them to change into that mode now would be one hell of an ask. I think if we saw more below the waist tackling too many would get it wrong and the game would be full of missed tackles.

Am I right in saying we want the bigger guys to have to work harder as we want them to get fatigued so the smaller strike players get more space in a game?

There’s a reason why people who aren’t sick are tested. I don’t know what that reason is but I’m sure they are right and you are wrong because remind me what your PHD is? It reminds me of a tweet I once saw that went something along the lines of

Spend 3 years getting a degree
Spend 2 years getting a masters
Spend 2 years getting a PHD
Spend 5 years researching a topic
Spend 3 years collaborating the info required to publish your thesis
Publish your thesis and wait 2 years whilst it’s peer reviewed
Peer review agrees with you
Random idiot on a website like rlfans claims …..bull****

Ergo, you have no idea what you are talking about

Being tested isn't the issue. The most important result should be whether someone is infectious. If one isn't infectious a positive test is irrelevant.

So then......getting crowds back to games in the short term (ie, this year)
any ideas?

I agree with all this I’ve loved RL all my life but the game is in a massive hole

you think?
It's pretty much done.....wire v wigan should be 12k....13,106 in 2018....13 miles apart, both sides in with a shout of the title....

Ensuring games are in would be a start.

Spot on, but the doom mongers are having a field day.

Sadly with Ralph Rimmer running the show and with some Super League clubs thinking of themselves and not the future of the game we have become a rudderless ship