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

This is pretty much my stance.

I don’t like the new rules but I think they could be a lot worse.

I don’t see how they will ruin the game although initially we need to accept there will be an increase in penalties through a natural transition process.

If doctors had their way they wouldn't just outlaw boxing and rugby, they would outlaw motor racing, rock climbing, surfing, paragliding etc etc ... anything with a modicum of risk.

The people who participate in these activities know the dangers they face.

Those players currently arguing that they didn't know are bare-faced liars, being encouraged to tell these ridiculous lies by the blood-sucking lawyers currently rubbing their hands with glee at the whole new world of big-time earning opening up in front of them.

We need to call them out. Because anyone who thinks this is going to stop at 'broken brains' can think again. Once they've exhausted the brain injuries, they'll start looking at kidney damage, busted hips and knees etc. They'll find plenty of useful idiot doctors to assist, and it will go on forever until there's nothing left of us.

Unless the game makes a stand now.

If the game makes a stand…it will lose.

It’s that simple.

I don’t think that anyone has mentioned limited minutes yet? Apologies if someone has.
Using Harry Smith as a back example he cannot play more than 30 full games per year ie 2400 minutes per year.
Even assuming zero internationals, he won’t be able to play all possible games assuming we get to the CCF and GF.
What will the club do in 2025 when there is a planned tour of Australia? Assume that Smith will play 3 games in Australia and limit his game time for Wigan to 27 full games?
Could this be the end of internationals and/or the World Cup for English players?
Liam Farrell for example will be limited to 25 full games per year so I assume that he retire from international rugby as potentially most forwards will going forward.
Obviously this may lead to most teams having a “back” on the bench to reduce the number of 80 minutes games played but would say Leeming be “accepted” as back substitute for game A if he replaces Smith but a forward substitute if he say replaces O’Neil?
If player welfare is now paramount then why continue with meaningless loop fixtures and the even more preposterous Magic Weekend?
Obviously Jon questions not just aimed at yourself.

Internationals and finals can be used in credit I believe as they cannot be planned for. However they have to be accounted for in the following season.

I anticipate in certain games squads will be rotated which again is why I see Rocky as a key signing.

Having versatility is essential under this new protocol.

You would expect most players to be unavailable for a couple of games a year minimum due to injury and I think we will manage the process depending on opposition.

I think with our squad depth it’s less of an issue given the quality of depth we have, some clubs may really struggle though with thinner squads.

London, Cas and Salford in particular look to have very thin squads.