I actually thought we had rules re -head high tackles its a penalty offence.
I agree with most poster that some rules coming in just dont make sense under armpit tackles ok above its a penalty,player steps you and you grab a the collar or a shoulder that is your first reaction and that could be a penalty that is so wrong it will eventually destroy the game,next is you cannot tackle below the waist as you might damage a joint.
We already have rules for dangerous play which get penalised a new set of rules will only increase the penalties by a substantial amount where we could get the ball in play around 15 mins a half or the half last for over a hour if we stop the clock at each infringement.
This is taking us away from the game we love to a game we dont recognise.

You admit you don't remember the game before those big rule changes and in the same breath slate the people who didn't like them. As always, it's not the administrators' fault, it's just the usual suspect fans who like to have a moan.

Well, I do remember those rule changes, and I can assure you that they were nothing like as controversial as this. The plain fact is that we already have overzealous officials who penalise for the slightest contact with the head, even if it's accidental and light. The thought of those same men in charge of a rule whereby this also applies to contact with the shoulder is blood-curdling.

Just think about that. Is it possible to play a contact sport like RL under those conditions? Will there be a single set of six without a penalty incurred?

It's total nonsense.

Someone else made a comment that the game we older fans grew up with was 'barbaric' by modern standards. But that's an irrelevant point. Violent play has always been illegal. The same way dangerous tackles have always been illegal. The rules are there and can and should be applied by the game's disciplinary. We don't need to keep tightening them up to the point where non-dangerous play is also severely penalised.

This is a classic example of a bunch of little men with power, who are never happy unless they're imposing themselves further. Give them an inch and they will always take a mile.

If you think this is okay and that fans will just have to get used to it, fine ... that's exactly how the RFL are thinking. But at some point, these idiots are going to come unstuck (not least because half of them wouldn't even know to lift the toilet lid when they're having a wee if someone didn't tell them to). There's been lots of talk in the past of a SL breakaway. Personally, I think that's more likely than the fans just walking away in droves. But it may be that the fans need to walk away first. I fear that only when the clubs start losing money will they realise what an error this was.

This is what we are saying ,we have rules that determine foul play we dont need anymore.

To be honest all arguments either way are fairly irrelevant until we see the new rules and how they are interpreted in action, and in action for probably 6 months.

I’m anticipating there will be very little noticeable difference (after an initial flurry of penalties) once the players get acclimatised to the rule .

In the community game in Union all tackles were to be below sternum height, that rule is simply not being enforced by the refs.

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.

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