Those first few games when it is introduced will be penalty fests. That happens with any new rules they bring in over the off season. Hopefully having a year to prepare, and the fact it is being introduced for academy and reserves this year will mean that we are well prepared as a sport and players adapt quickly. It's interesting that two people from our club have been at the forefront of pushing the positives of the new rules. Denis Betts and Prof. Chris Brookes are both in favour and have spoken to Gary Carter from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25010866 ... TtGfKKgtRc https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25003075 ... ans-rules/

Those first few games when it is introduced will be penalty fests. That happens with any new rules they bring in over the off season. Hopefully having a year to prepare, and the fact it is being introduced for academy and reserves this year will mean that we are well prepared as a sport and players adapt quickly. It's interesting that two people from our club have been at the forefront of pushing the positives of the new rules. Denis Betts and Prof. Chris Brookes are both in favour and have spoken to Gary Carter from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25010866 ... TtGfKKgtRc https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25003075 ... ans-rules/

Seems like a bit of a nanny state approach & a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

What happend to personal choice? If I could go back to being 16 years old, knowing what I know now, but had an opportunity to play for Wigan RL - I'd take the gamble every single time.

Plenty of boxers step into the ring, knowing there's a chance of serious injury. Why do they do it? Because, for them, the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

Quote --[ WW --="--[ WW --"Those first few games when it is introduced will be penalty fests. That happens with any new rules they bring in over the off season. Hopefully having a year to prepare, and the fact it is being introduced for academy and reserves this year will mean that we are well prepared as a sport and players adapt quickly. It's interesting that two people from our club have been at the forefront of pushing the positives of the new rules. Denis Betts and Prof. Chris Brookes are both in favour and have spoken to Gary Carter from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25010866 ... TtGfKKgtRc https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25003075 ... ans-rules/'" Yeah, I saw that too. That's all we bloody need. What I still don't understand why the rule that you're not allowed to hit a player in the head isn't good enough already. Head injuries are the sole problem here, and they've already already been legislated against. Some of these people in the game who support this measure are literally turkeys voting for Christmas.

Quote --[ WW --="--[ WW --"Those first few games when it is introduced will be penalty fests. That happens with any new rules they bring in over the off season. Hopefully having a year to prepare, and the fact it is being introduced for academy and reserves this year will mean that we are well prepared as a sport and players adapt quickly. It's interesting that two people from our club have been at the forefront of pushing the positives of the new rules. Denis Betts and Prof. Chris Brookes are both in favour and have spoken to Gary Carter from The Sun https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25010866 ... TtGfKKgtRc https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/25003075 ... ans-rules/'" Yeah, I saw that too. That's all we bloody need. What I still don't understand why the rule that you're not allowed to hit a player in the head isn't good enough already. Head injuries are the sole problem here, and they've already already been legislated against. Some of these people in the game who support this measure are literally turkeys voting for Christmas.

Sadly the former players who are suing the game have removed the free choice principle.

They are all just money grabbing t0ssers tbh. They've had a chance to do and see things most of us only dream about, all whilst earning a pretty good living. They've literally lived the dream of 1000's of people.

I'm a used to be a big RU fan (funnily enough before they made similar changes) and I'm always seeing comments saying "tell that to Steve Thompson" whenever anyone argues against these types of changes. For those that don't know, Thompson is one of the most vocal ex players & is involved in the case again RU over CTE. He also happens to a player who won and did it all, including winning the 03 world cup. I find it hard to have any sympathy for him tbh. I'd happily swap places. He's created a legacy that will last for generations.

It would be interesting to know how boxing, MMA etc get around this.

They must do.

There must be some mechanism by which people voluntarily competing in an obviously high-risk sport can be legally tied down to accepting that it's their personal responsibility. Otherwise we wouldn't have any such sports, and yet we have plenty.

I'd be far more impressed if the RFL went down that route instead of trying to find a way to make RL as soft and safe as pillow-fighting.

The Chris Brookes article says that "a trial of lower tackle heights reduced concussion rates from 25 per 1,000 tackles to 22."

I don't know how many concussions are deemed safe, but it seems that those who study brain injuries feel that this reduction in concussions makes the new rule a worthwhile step.

Worthwhile seeing off the game for?

I guess we all have different priorities.

When I was a kid, I broke my leg in a school game. I remember the doctor in the Casualty area saying: "If I had my way, they'd ban rugby."

That's what this boils down to.

My daughter dislocated her elbow when she was 7 trampolining (training) stopped after that,she made that choice.Are we to ban trampolining if you bounce higher than 3ft.
According to the doctor it is the worst sport for injuries to kids.

taking it away from RL for a minute
just seen a clip on facebook of a RU game from the weekend

line out, blue player gets lifted, and drops onto the white team player. Penalty and sent to the sin bin for 10

dangerous play - how can the lifted player get sent off - he is being controlled by 2 players lifting him?? I get that he landed on top of someone and its a penalty, but surely it would be one of the lifters at fault?

And, onto the next debate, are RU going to get rid of lineouts if there are dangers to players

Firstly, I don't see how this sees off the game. Players need to tackle a bit lower, 4 inches or so. I don't see how that will ruin my enjoyment of the sport. In days gone by, when the people complaining presumably still enjoyed rugby, tackling lower was much more common anyway.

Secondly, brain injuries are different to broken bones and pulled muscles. A broken bone will heal in the vast majority of circumstances. A broken brain will not. And even in the worst cases of physical injuries where someone might have a permanent disability I'd still choose that over dementia