Just become a dad and maybe getting soft

I see mr wilkin publicly stated more or less the same thing are you still chuckling

He knew the risks of the job when he took it up.

Like a fireman knows he may die in a fire when he takes the job.

Well there are plenty of risks but obviously the players love the game and the physicality or they would have quit a long time ago.

They get paid to do a job, and paid alot better than our Firemen/police not even mention our lads and lasses in the armed forces. I never want a player to get hurt, but its part of the job.

But my point being can you make the game less stressfull on the body but just as fast and entertaining by a simple rule change,its always been a physical game however i remember games in the 80's 90's being just as good with less injuries

A five metre rule would make the game ridiculous and extremely boring. Teams get away with offside with the ten metre rule now - we'd probably end up having defending players in the attacking line almost as soon as they'd played the ball

The other thing that has to be said is what has happened with Adam Watene and Leon Walker is tragic, very tragic, what happened with Joe Westerman was scary, BUT, these are very rare occurrences, just they've all happened in a short period of time.

We're lucky there aren't more serious injuries, but the same goes for rugby union, gridiron, any physical sport such as ours. How can you take out the intensity when you are dealing with professional sportsmen who have all the advantages of modern training techniques, diet and recovery to keep them playing week in, week out at the highest possible performance levels?

The two deaths are tragic, but werent caused by impacts in rugby. Injuries insport will always happen and a 5 mtr rule instead of ten would ruin the game IMO, but we could trial it for one round.

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?