Damien

The clip though does show the issues with trying to promote a sport with the name Rugby in it, particularly when people are just referring it to Rugby and leaving the League part out. To all intents and purposes that may as well be about RU.

The trouble is this stuff is so subjective. Someone else comes along in 10 years and there will be the same kind of calls.

The thing with the tackler lowering the head beneath the armpit, if that is the case, is that it could well also lead to all kinds of issues and could well increase the risk of concussion to the tackling player. It will inevitably lead to the tackler leading with the head more to try and clamp the ball which could well increase the chances of head clashes with other defenders, the attacking player and elbows etc. Even concepts like using bumpers are quite different in Rugby League compared to Union. We already know that the tackler is more likely to suffer concussions than the attacker and the sport should be careful that they don't exacerbate the situation.

Looks like? So it's not just a case of lowering the impact by 4" You are also presuming that, it certainly isn't mentioned, and thats the point isn't it?

Have you actually watched the video? From your posts it doesn't sound like it.

No not for me. I don't particularly see the need to name trophies after anyone.

That's the discussion that has been taking place for the last 10 pages isn't it? Your assertion of this is simply a case of reducing the tackle height by 4” isn't backed up by the message given by the governing body. It is much more than that.

I have no issue with that. That simply isn't the case though is it, based on the video and the examples of the illegal tackles that were given?

Many aren't arguing with that though and I strongly suspect the majority would agree with it. This is conflating getting rid of high tackles and thuggery with these moves. They are not the same.

Why can it technically not be beaten? How does 1988 compare with more tangible metrics like viewing figures and attendances?

Interesting you mention alcohol as it is well known that alcohol is also a cause of dementia. As is drugs. Of course alcohol has always been a large part of the social aspect of both codes. Drugs, well I'll not go there, but what I will say more generally is that it would be very naive of anyone to think that RL lives in a bubble when it comes to them. Then there are things like family history and genetics. The point is yes the sport can mitigate against risk and should. However I think we are way off properly studying dementia when it comes to RL and some studies produce sensationalist headline results due to the poor sampling used i.e heavily skewed by those with issues coming forward by the many without them not. If a player has any family history, drank alcohol, took drugs, smoked, diabetes etc then I think it becomes awfully difficult to conclusively prove it was caused by RL. I am not saying that playing RL isn't a risk factor but it is one of many others.

I've seen plenty of concussions as a result of two defending players tackling from the side and clashing heads. It's certainly not risk free.

In my experience of playing and watching the game I think these changes are more about image and the need to be seen doing something rather than changes that will have any meaningful difference. I certainly think that the game should look to reduce contact to the head, and has been way too lax in this area for too long, but these changes only address a small part of the wider issue. It is the noticable part the game gets criticised for, criticism that has often been justified. When I played the worst hits I got, which I suspect caused some form of concussion, where from cracking tackles to the body where my head rocked back or hit the ground heavily. Then additionally accidental clashes with the knees or elbows of the person I was trying to tackle or fellow teammates. Overwhelmingly in watching the professional game, and from the people I know within it who were concussed, most concussions occur in this latter category. These changes do nothing to address any of these causes and indeed will arguably increase the chances of these incidents occurrring.

I don't particularly have an issue with the below the armpit rule. I think it's perfectly workable and sensible. I have seen similar applied in Union with the sternum and the main thing is an attempt to bend the back and hitting below the sternum. If something similar was the change but with the armpit then I think it would probably be okay. The armpit is much better and really shouldn't be much lower than what should have been a legal tackle in Rugby League anyway, less than 6 inches. The main issue I have is with the message and the examples because they are plainly at odds with each other. The illegal examples aren't illegal as per the message in the video. I think they are plainly copying Union with the need to bend the back part in the illegal examples they are showing but not making that part of the message. That is completely wrong and the RFL deserve all the flack they are getting on that.