Quote: sergeant pepper "Just no on every level and with all due respect, as I don't know you, that's exactly what I'd expect a ref to say.
Firstly, you can't adjust for things like last night. Heck, I'm not even in favour of lowering the tackle height. It would just mean softer defence, more stupid offloads and games ending 60 points to 40. Give me a 8 - 4 Wigan Vs Manly, or a low scoring, attritional SOO game any day of the week. Brutal defence, big hits, hard running and a bit of good old biff.
There is nothing wrong with the game. Players don't need to be protected. The game doesn't need it's gladiatorial elements removing from it.'"
I mostly agree with this. I'd argue that player welfare is important, but it's also plain that the best and surest way to protect players is for them not to participate at all.
It's their choice. As it always has been.
No one is forced to play rugby league. And anyone who says they didn't know how dangerous it was is simply lying. They shouldn't even be given the time of day, never mind be allowed to put a court case together.
In all honesty, I don't know what rankles with me more: the fact this is happening just when we were entering a new age of mass publicity, or the names of some of the players who are causing it.
You talk about two-bit troublemakers. That doesn't even come close to describing them.
