Watched a couple of games from the 80s this morning and 20 mins of a championship game from last season …. Between 95 and 90% of the tackles I observed would be illegal under the new rules… one interesting observation was watching Trinity full back Gary Spencer … every drive he skips and ducks under the armpit of the attempting tackler… putting his head in a very dangerous position..,

Interestingly during the first ten mins of the championship game… the teams went set for set… aggressive running and tackling but not one…(I watched it twice to confirm) of the tackles in that period would have been legal.

I think we are in grave danger of ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’!

I can see future defensive patterns being akin to rugby sevens where no one wants to commit to the tackle, for fear of offending or off loading

And I can see the offside line being reduced to 5 to compensate in some way and reduce the impacts.

The game will be a poor spectacle from 2025 I expect full of penalty kicks, penalties and tries. Defence will be none existent and territory will be teams camped in oppositions 20 forcing repeat sets.

Players like Mikey Lewis, Tomkins style players etc who like to duck and dive will get so many penalties for their teams it will be unfathomable.

One more thing…. International game. If the NRL are not doing this where does that leave international fixtures? If players in uk aren’t insured then surely they can’t play full contact under a different set of rules? The NRL would enjoy a huge gap i would think as how the NRL and Superleague would be coached for tackling would become quite different.

It doesn't really matter if the supporters like it or not. Fact there seems to be only one company willing to insure the players and no doubt they will have stipulated that a condition of the insurance would be a drive to reduce high shots. Head knocks from poor tackle technique or friendly fire is not foul play but accidental. Perhaps there is an acceptance this can't be mitigated from the game. Ultimately if no one is prepared to insure the game then it will not exist.

I’ve a number of thoughts on this but will try to keep it short and to the point.

Firstly we can thank the former players many of whom polluted their bodies with drink and recreational drugs and didn’t look after their money for this bandwagon jumping exercise to get a quick quid. They are responsible for this action.

I even saw one of the most high profile players involved in the legal action calling the new rules “ridiculous” which blows my mind given he is one of the main guys suing the RFL.

Wasn’t interested till he got a divorce and ran out of cash, then suddenly was all for it.

As others have highlighted the game would cease to exist given the litigation and the potential insurance situation so thanks to this group of individuals it has been forced to change.

The reality is we are reducing tackle height by a couple of inches. It’s not such a big deal. Will there be increased penalties initially, obviously, however just like what happened in Union when much more aggressive measures were put in place the number of penalties will ease over a short time when players get used to them.

You cannot just let kids play under the normal rules anymore and say their parents know the score, its rugby etc, again times have changed and this would cause huge potential issues down the line.

I’ve no doubt some players in the amateur game will have a knee jerk reaction and walk away….i will also bet nearly all of them return once the season gets underway and things calm down.

It’s the refs I feel sorry for as it’s going to be a hell of an undertaking to get on top of initially in already challenging environments in some cases.

I’m not for it in any way shape or form, my main issue is we are protection the ball carrier however I believe we are shifting risk on the defenders rather than reducing or mitigating it, but that seems to be ok, even the example the RFL issued of a now legal tackle from a Salford v Leigh game shows the 2 tackling players clash heads as there is a reduced target where players can put themselves.

End of day though, like it or not (abd im firmly in the not campaign) we are future proofing the game to give it the best chance of being a sport in 10/20 years time.

The advent of hitting higher and locking up a players upper torso with maybe 2 other defenders coming in to control and take down the attacking player mainly became prominent when we went to the 10 metre retreat
The extra 5 metres allowed teams to make more yardage by just taking a drive. That then fostered bigger, fitter players with good leg speed to maximise that yardage. The philosophy was that you can make enough yardage, even without getting a roll on and a fast play the ball, to reach midfield and put in a kick without taking a risk.

Maybe we should be looking at reducing the 10 metre retreat and reversing the trend.

Tom Johnstone his concussion was caused by banging his head on the floor I think. You can't protect players from everything some concussions are just accidental.

When I first played rugby at secondary school back in the early sixties we were always taught to tackle round the legs and by and large that was the ethos in the senior game. Above waist tackles were a bit of a rarity. Over the years tackles got higher and higher until round the neck and upper body tackles appear to be the norm. It was much more exciting to see a player perform a flying leg tackle than to watch three or more defenders reaching out to grab the opposite player's collar or hug their shoulder. Perhaps coaches should emphasise the leg tackle once again.

His recurrences maybe but I reckon that headshot from Willie Isa back at the start of 2021 started the problems.

Leg tackles generally mean you are conceding contact and are promoting a quick play the ball for the opposition. They also increase the chances of an offload.

The game would have to change massively as a sport for the leg tackle to be the norm.

Same as me, and that was in the 80s through to the 90s and just to add I played both codes as well, and we practiced hitting the tackle bags or proper game practice the same way by all sets of coaches in both codes through the years.

Even though we see some great textbook tackles, usually when a back's been put through a gap in the defensive line, and then either the fullback or winger comes across and wraps his legs up and takes him into touch they're few and far between.

In SL It's got gradually worse since more and more Aussie coaches started coming over and teaching their defensive tactics from the NRL, because down under controlling the ruck speed and therefore the defense is what their game is built on. But let's be honest, if we hadn't moved with the times we'd have been left further behind than we appear to be as a competition. Gonna be interesting when the players get used to the new way of tackling and then the next game we'll be playing down under or even against Samoa, how's it all gonna fit together at the international level?

Any body fancy a game of touch and pass.

These new laws are knee jerk and clearly meeting an agenda. Why not simply clamp down harder on head shots and off the ball hits when the body is relaxed, a bunker system would police this instead of these embarrassing new rules. Players are very conditioned for high impact, strengthening of neck muscles is proven to help prevent concussion, what it doesn’t protect is lazy/dirty high tackles and off the ball shots. I wish common sense would prevail.

Always been illegal.

Yes exactly, so like I say a bunker system like the NRL have that will catch the ones that are consistently missed throughout a game.

So there is no point bringing in new rules to legislate against it then. Concussion will continue to happen, it's impossible to prevent, even if no contact at all was brought into the game. What this is a a repsone to only having one company who will insure the players. They will have put an onus on the RFL to reduce head knocks from foul play, accidental clashes are unavoidable.