RP London

IF it were to be done, and I'm not sure of its merits, but that is exactly the way I would do it.. 5-10 years though or its just not going to do anything at all.

is this not what the green card was supposed to stop.. if you go down holding something then you go off the pitch for 1 or 2 minutes (not really sure).. that means if the decision doesnt go your way all you are doing is putting your team down to 12 for 2 minutes and therefore should stop players milking it.. or at least that was the idea.. i think i've seen 1 used so far.

my heart bleeds.. after 2 seasons finishing dead last you're "threatened" with relegation or being given £1m to "merge" with Sheffield and play all but 2 games in Huddersfield... tough one that! They needed to drop from 14 clubs to 12 but for some reason thats beyond me they were desperate for Huddersfield not to get relegated even though they were dead last for 2 years running.. this was their solution and with a £1m bonus to boot.. Huddersfield should have been relegated its as simple as that to be fair, there was no "duress" they were threatened with what they had deserved for 2 years of being the worst team in the league but not being relegated.. but this is a massive derailment and been done to death.

They also kept their team rather than losing it and having to fight to get readmittance...

agree with both of these but I think the one thing we never do is tie things together.. in isolation very little will work but if we start to tie things up then it just might. the NFL saw an opportunity to try something in London, it worked they expanded it to more games (rather than a 1 off) and then onwards and outwards.. but within that is a lot of other work with the NFL London academy etc.. I think after 2013 if we had taken games on the road to Coventry/Bristol (or wherever the data shows the interest was coming from for the matches) we may have seen nice inroads into the areas as they built off the back of the world cup, as it was we let it just fritter away. If Newcastle are to permanently lose magic then perhaps there is an argument for a couple of games up there during the season. Build for years in one place, a few matches through the season in one place all with tie ins to the the junior games.. work around a larger plan/strategy. As one off games played just became the main pitch isn't available so we will take whatever stadium we can get to etc thats never going to work.

yeah but he got crucified for it by the fans... oooh a coat

No that would be ludicrous.. but seat belts compulsory in the back and front (I remember when cars didnt have them in the back and dont think they were mandatory in the front).. Massive safety inspections and things like crumple zones and roll bars etc.. changes in road lay outs to make it safer, drink/drug drive limits etc etc.. its becuase we learn from research and change things that are important and useful to everyday life to be safer and minimise risk.. there are plenty of people wanting to ban rugby, but the aim is to make it safer and take away some of the risk that is proven to have long term potential problems (not in everybody but same as smoking related illnesses did not kill every smoker).

As pointed out, Sheffield merging with Huddersfield to form the Huddersfield/sheffield Giants but with little to no interest in keeping the Sheffield bit going.. when trying to reform the eagles it was painful to be allowed the opportunity to do so, even to get the challenge cup history back (I believe) was a battle!

The RU one is interesting as they have a "no dipping in" rule at the lower levels where they have reduced the tackle height further than the pro/international game.. I dont see it working on weekends etc and think it needs a rethink of how it will be reffed/work.. I get the idea behind it but it just hasnt worked how they planned. I am not sure it will to be honest but they need to look at it. Things do seem to have calmed down this season though with the High tackles and from what i have seen watching Nat 2 north and coaching the colts (and son playing) they have adapted well to the height change for the most part..

well i'm glad you are not taking an open discussion personally As you note if you read the full post its "if it is proven to reduce injury I don't see an argument against it" I am sure you would agree with that statement, no? you know, taking all of your concerns on board it is proven to reduce injury ie your concerns would be proven not to be true... proven being the operative word rather than just speculating or using our own personal experience (Which I have done later).. it is proven not be the case then I wouldn't bring it in, and would remove it if it increases the likelihood of injury.. Its about proving theories, which cannot possible be a bad thing.. but if you want to take open conversation as a personal insult then go for your life and i'll leave you to it.

also it has to be a longer term plan than just a single game etc.. but I know thats not very RL!

yep thats probably another one to avoid!

DO NOT BRING HUDDERSFIELD TO SHEFFIELD AS A HOME TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I like the idea of on the road games.. have to be really "sold" though and done well.. its also good IMHO to have 1 "home team" at the same venue for a while to encourage people in that area to maybe start supporting them and therefore expanding the reach of that club... it could/should also include something around amateurs and juniors (but this is more long term)... the NFL do this really well with London and now other international venues building the interactions with the locals and in London's case having a "home team" in jacksonville. There are a number of clubs who have a period of time they cannot play at home due to shared stadiums so it can work with those clubs and not feel like we are second class citizens at those grounds..

Interesting take on it and I couldnt disagree more.. the last thing i ever wanted to do (and i'm not the smallest) is try to hit the player you describe higher than the armpits, certainly not as the first man! Low and effective.. I had 1 concussion in 20 years and that was from a swinging arm..

Personally I think it will calm down, players will adapt so i dont think we will see this throughout the season... All of the comments seen here are/have been made with all rule changes.. That said I've mentioned on a different thread that with all games now having a tv ref the red/yellow card rule introduced in RU is a good one where a serious yellow possible red can be reviewed while they are sitting in the bin.

totally agree.. there would be more 1 on 1 hits that can be bigger too... I just dont get the logic behind the arguments put forward.. its like the cards stopping good players playing yet injuries to other good players stopping them playing dont seem to be a concern

explain then.. why does an offside 10 meters away mean you cannot tackle below the armpit? did you see the simms v williams tackle.. have you seen every other big hit, and below armpit tackle made under the current rules? I played the game with a 10 metre offside for 20 years and managed to hit people below the armpit quote comfortably. So please explain the relevance..

dont know why you think it is a grab for the moral high ground.. thats a very bizarre take on what is written.. the armpit rule is eminently sensible when taken with risk calculations (insurance).. the ability to "accidently hit the head" is reduced by moving the initial point of legal contact to below the shoulder, there is also a shoulder in the way to get to the head.. to be hitting around the shoulder means (by the shape of the shoulder) a larger possibility to hit the head due to "riding up".. it really is quite an obvious move. As I said "if proven to get injuries down" what exactly is the argument against it?? you can still have massive hits (look at Simms on Williams from this weekend) and it be perfectly legal so "the spectacle" is not damaged... if its cards then 1. stop doing it and there wont be cards and 2. who is better to have on the pitch for longer the offender or the player that is getting injured, how do you judge a "better player" who is now missing games... there really isnt a good argument not to implement the rule across the game IF it is proven to do this (and you only get proof by testing). Its not a moral high ground its just common sense. no idea what the offside rule has got to do with the argument about armpit tackles being introduced to the NRL after being "tested" in the super league.

"I believe" is not a statement of fact.. If it is proven to have a major effect insurance will demand it (same as car safety and business insurance) if it is proven to not have as much of an effect it will not be mandatory but may simply get the premiums down etc.. therefore the NRL may well have no choice. If it is proven to help against injury then surely we would accept this as a good thing, after all we all want the best players on the pitch as much as possible (hence all the people getting upset with red cards and bans for the "best players" who now miss games). Win win! There really isnt much of an argument against this rule if it is proven to get injuries down.. unless you just like thuggery.

if you believe it is all about insurance and that RL would not get insured then the specific part of my post that you quote answers your question... if you don't accept that then insurance isn't the sole driver for these decisions.

and his credentials for making that comment?? is he an insurance broker or deal with the insurance purchase of the RFL? He is also involved in the community game not the professional game, community RU for example has a different tackle height rule than the pro game.. As stated, if it is purely an insurance reason then it is highly likely that the Australian game will have to follow suit if it is proven to have an impact as that is what the world of risk and underwriting will demand.

If someone is sitting shouting that the only reason for the change is for insurance purposes then yes they will change, becuase the fact that the same sport in a different country has changed due to medical research and insurance will almost certainly mean that they will have to (there will be no reason not to)... simple risk profiling says as much and underwriters look at this sort of thing.. now if its not purely for insurance issues then they may well not.. but you cannot say the RFL are changing for purely insurance reasons and not think that the same exact pressure will be put on the NRL.

taking into account the fact that the NFL has always been happier with higher hits, after all they used the helmet as a weapon in past (who'd have thunk they would have concussion issues?!?) they have gradually been lowering and tightening this up since the mid 2000s when they got into trouble... which BTW is going to be one of the issues around the rugby cases as this is all based on knowledge that the US sports industry had at the time and were acting upon, but they knew about it earlier (hence losing their cases and paying an awful lot of money out).. since the mid 2000s they have lowered the tackle height (starting much higher as they have had to ban strikes with the helmet etc).. horse collars, moving that lower and lower every couple of years.. blindside and defenceless player strikes due to the whiplash concussive effect issues etc.. Will it get to the point its below the armpit, probably not but the accidental hits with less power are less of a problem with the helmets, they are a big problem for injuries to players in our game therefore make the "margin of error" lower by lowering the tackle height slightly. I am not sure this is "all about insurance" I have not seen that.. i have seen quite a lot about player safety and yes the insurance companies will have a say but equally its the right thing to do and we do have to be aware of long term issues in insurance/PR and general "being ethical" stand points.. Equally, and it gets my goat when i see the argument around the bans, surely we want to see our best players on the pitch as much as possible, we dont want to see them sitting on the sidelines with concussion or retiring early due to concussion. We can bemoan players being banned and not playing but they can actually stop that happening, what about those players injured and therefore not playing! Lets take away some of the big injury potential and the long lay offs players can have for concussions.. surely that is the right thing to do for the spectacle of watching the best players every game (those that keep getting banned are not the ones we should consider in this argument)

So what you are saying in your last paragraph is a game against England, a game against France and a game against Wales (similar to the France situation) is possible and a good outcome.. excellent we agree its what I suggested originally when it was mentioned France may already have plans... The fact we are having this discussion though is a joke and one of the reasons we are in the position, as a sport, that we are.. the one thing that can get eyes on the sport is left to fester and ruination by the game.