The change to the 18th man is potentially significant. Previously they could only come on after 3 failed HIAs, now they can be used after 2 HIA failures, or injuries caused by foul play, resulting in a Yellow/Red card, where the player will not return to the game.

Will be fun watching Walmsley navigating the PTB when he has stepped of the mark by 2 metres and told to go back to start again as he never plays it properly anyway and now he has the added pressure to PTB correctly.

We have poss the fastest backline and if the ruck is speeded up it will be of a massive benefit to Wigan.

Whilst I agree that it is better, for me a team should be allowed to use the 18th man after the first failed HIA.

I'm fine with the changes .... I thought most was in the rules anyway just not policed fully. The 6 again is right the stepping off the mark to side and forward has been exploited already and was getting worse. The 18th man should come into effect on any HIA or player lost to foul play, penalty for the incident or put on report should qualify as at least then the team infringed against get some reward, I can live with the odd time it's wrong call especially with all matches being on TV which should help.

Exactly how I read it. Most of these aren't actually changes, maybe just less leniency on the ruck.

Tackles only permitted below armpit from next season https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/67658523

Tackles only permitted below armpit from next season https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/67658523

So, looking at the above photo, this is a foul.

I don't like this but can understand why we have to do it. If insurance premiums become unaffordable, there is no future for UK rugby league as a full time sport.

Then there's no future for it.

Because the version they're proposing here is not Rugby League,

It’s a really worrying time. The game needs to be improved, not watered down and it’s tough to see how we can attract new fans when the games will be littered with penalties. In the first trial game of these rules there were 54 penalties IIRC and the average over the whole trial was in excess of 40 per game. That isn’t the sport I know (and love) and we’ll have to see how much it impacts on people’s enjoyment.

The fans don’t want it and more importantly the players seem to be gutted by the changes and they’re changes I think that potentially make the game more dangerous (for defenders). If somebody told me that in 15/20 years time the sport in the UK is semi professional, I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

Nevertheless, the same rule changes will surely come to the NRL too, and they will have to cope with it.

Is this factual or just theoretical?

Are the NRL thinking of bringing the same rules in?

Bear in mind that when it comes to legislating the game out of existence and basically telling the fans, who've had no say, that they'll now have to watch something else, the NRL has more to lose than SL as RL's a vastly bigger game over there with more vested interests.

I'd be genuinely interested to know if they are in the same position as us. If not, of course, that will put serious question-marks against all future internationals, WCCs, all of which are hard enough to organise as it is.

Also, despite asking several times, I've still not heard a coherent explanation as to why the same inevitability is not set to befall boxing, MMA etc. Again, I'd be genuinely interested to know how they are managing to resist when we supposedly can't.

£££

Without this the RFL's insurance premium was shooting up way past what they could afford. I don't know whether the NRL's insurance has also gone up but clearly they will be in a better financial position to consider just paying the increased bill rather than changing the sport.

I'd guess the key reason is boxers and MMA fighters are self employed and responsible for their own welfare