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.

Quote: Itchy Arsenal "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.'" International fixtures won't count towards the maximum number of games (see the link below). https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ex ... -from-2024 I don't so much mind this aspect of the new rules - in fact I remember suggesting it myself a few years ago in order reduce fatigue (if clubs cant afford to play less games then the only other way would be to put a cap on the number of games a player can play). There are significant challenges however: 1) Coaches would have to plan ahead and pinpoint the games in the year where they will want their full squad 2) Fans will be buying season tickets in the knowledge that the best set of players will not be available for a number of games 3) Clubs with limited depth in their squad will really struggle to be competitive and could find themselves in a real hole if injuries bite. 4) It may be more difficult to develop cohesion in your team, thus impacting quality of games

Quote: Itchy Arsenal "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.'" International fixtures won't count towards the maximum number of games (see the link below). https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ex ... -from-2024 I don't so much mind this aspect of the new rules - in fact I remember suggesting it myself a few years ago in order reduce fatigue (if clubs cant afford to play less games then the only other way would be to put a cap on the number of games a player can play). There are significant challenges however: 1) Coaches would have to plan ahead and pinpoint the games in the year where they will want their full squad 2) Fans will be buying season tickets in the knowledge that the best set of players will not be available for a number of games 3) Clubs with limited depth in their squad will really struggle to be competitive and could find themselves in a real hole if injuries bite. 4) It may be more difficult to develop cohesion in your team, thus impacting quality of games

I guess where there's no will, there's no way.

it may not be as simple as that. i have worked in logistics for 20+ years, with racking, shelving and bulk storage

one year our insurer came along and said that bulk storage - cannot now be more than 1 pallet high (not really bulk storage) as the sprinklers wouldnt handle the heat generated - it had been fine for the previous 10 years or so, without issue that they assessed and insured us

racking - too many levels with insufficient sprinklers - it had been fine for the previous 10 years or so, without issue that they assessed and insured us

shelving - needed to be solid metal shelf, not steel mesh / wooden - it had been fine for the previous 10 years or so, without issue that they assessed and insured us

as you can see from my examples above from work, if an insurer decides there is a "perceived risk", alongside increasing premiums, they may also insist on significant changes. I argued til i was blue in the face, but got nowhere with the assessor, who merely said, what was sufficient before is no longer sufficient etc etc

I agree that games could be thrown - clubs may end up in a position where they can't do anything but.

The clubs simply can't afford to ditch loop games unfortunately. No-one likes them but they're an economic necessity it seems. They can't even increase the number of SL teams in the competition to go with 13 home and 13 away as the broadcast money would be split across the larger number thus everyone gets less.

The salary cap is an interesting one - you could make the argument that with three marquee players now being allowed then the salary cap is bordering on redundant anyway.

We can will all we want. Legal precedents have been set, all be it in other countries but the statute of law will transfer, and we are in no position to throw money at a defence either.

I can’t help but keep going back to the same question ‘will lowering the tackle height actually make the game safer?’ and I just don’t see that it will. I’m fully behind the fact that ‘change has to happen’ but this move feels to me like a change for changes sake, to just be seen to be doing something and the real time results may well prove to have actually made things worse.

Reduced playing time, concussion spotters, increased sit down times etc are all things we can get behind but this tackle height change is something that I believe could do more harm than good and not just because it is getting peoples backs up but because it might actually work in the opposite way to it’s intention.

I saw a professor involved in the process earlier give his number one argument for change and that was that concussions have increased in the last 10 years but that’s an absolute given. The game is far more educated in all things concussion now and it’s being taken far more seriously. In real terms I would be pretty confident that concussions have gone down by a decent percentage in the last 10-20 years, it’s just 20 years ago players were getting on the smelling salts and cracking on and now they don’t (and rightfully so). It is the diagnosis of a concussion that has increased IMO, not the number of concussions themselves. It is impossible to make this sport ‘safe’ but with the banning of the shoulder charge and the protocols already put in place, I think we’ve taken it as far as we can go and at some point you have to say enough is enough. Increase the sit down times, limit the number of days players can play/train etc and have all the spotters you want but it shouldn’t stretch any further than that.

Just out of interest, and this is a genuine question, how do they cope in other heavy contact sports - boxing, MMA etc?

I don't hear about this sort of thing happening there.

In addition, Fozzard and co haven't won their case yet, have they? Or have I missed that? (Again, a genuine question).

With boxing and MMA (depending on the governing body) they are not allowed to make contact to the head up to a certain age.

They also limit the number of contacts that they are subjected to in sparring over a certain age.

The main issue I believe is the potential instances of exposure to head knocks rugby players get in training and weekly competition.

The frequency of fixtures (weekly for one 30 weeks of the year) increases the risks.

The case being put against the RFL by the former players has not been won no, however the precedent has been set backed by the medical evidence in the case against the NFL.

If the game really does put player welfare at the top of the tree then reduced income is a potential outcome from the changes and clubs will have to look at other ways of offsetting this reduction e.g. increase spectator pricing, reduce players salaries (less playing time equals lower incomes), improve other income streams etc.

I’ve been thinking about other rule changes that might be required because of the changes. We will have to make tries scored direct from dummy half obsolete because how can a defender tackle on his line a dummy half barging over low a la Kieron Cunningham? In such circumstances every tackle would be a penalty or would the defending team just have to let the dummy half score?
The current 10 metre rule enables both defenders and attackers to build up speed and momentum prior to collision. A move back to 5 metres must surely be reviewed.
Deep kicks from kickoff to defensive line results in high speed collisions as players run the ball back to the oncoming defending team. Maybe we will need to ensure that kickoffs can only go say 10 or fifteen metres?