Dunbar

The three best performances I have seen from an English Academy forward have been James Graham against the Australian Institute of Sport when he was 17 and George Burgess and Morgan Smithies against the Australian Schoolboys. All three were physically totally dominant against their Australian opponents.

There is no chance of Leeds finishing bottom. There are four games left and they are 4 points ahead of London with a +246 better for & against differential which is unlikely to be turned around so effectively 6 points (with no draws this year). This means that London have to win three more games that Leeds do in these last 4 fixtures to finish above them. Even if Leeds win none that means London have to win three and if Leeds get one more win London have to win all of their remaining fixtures.

Your description is absolutist in nature. Yes, London are one win worse that all the other Super League teams and quite a lot of wins worse than those at the top. But my point was not absolutist. My point was that London have exceeded expectations. From memory (and I am sure I will find plenty of evidence if I search through the posts from 9 month ago) many people thought that London were going to be way off the pace and cannon fodder for Super League teams. London are bottom of the table yes but they have had a better season than the vast vast majority of us expected. London are below Leeds in the table but I think it is not very controversial to describe the London season as exceeding expectations and the Leeds season as not meeting expectations.

I can see London doing enough points to finish on equal points with at least one of the teams above them but with their negative for and against and no draws this year they will have to finish 2 points above bottom to be safe and realistically that is too big an ask. Which is disappointing as they have exceeded all expectations this year and are a really gusty, well coached team.

Everybody else: "the New Zealand Warriors is the biggest rugby team in New Zealand " Yorkshire Knight: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger" Everyone: "Yes, we know but that's not what we are saying, we are saying that the Warriors are the biggest individual team" YK: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger" Everyone: "Yes, everyone is happy to concede this and that Union is the bigger sport but the original point was that the Warriors are individually the biggest rugby team in New Zealand" YK: "Yes, but when you add them together, the Union teams are bigger" and repeat.

8 game ban. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/49338778

Here is a little analogy to help you understand the error in your thinking. Robert Pershing Wadlow is the tallest man who ever lived at 8 feet 11 inches. Now, if you add up all of the little people in the cast of Time Bandits they are collectively taller than Mr Wadlow. Question (and don't rush into answering this, take your time)... who is the tallest man who ever lived?

My perception from watching is that head injuries leading to HIA are typically from poorly executed tackles or head clashes. Some are from foul play but I would be very very surprised if it were the 'substantial majority'. I have not managed to find any studies in League... the below comes from Union and is a snippet of what I posted on the cross code forum on the topic concerning the ban on tackles above the waist in that sport. .................................... One of the things we have to be clear about is that head injuries incurred in the tackle is far more likely to be the tackler than the tackled player. This study of head injury assessments in Rugby Union concluded that tackles accounted for the highest proportion of head injury (76%) and that the tackler is 2.6 times more likely to be injured than the tackled player. https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0606/968583-rugby-tackle-concussion-research/ .................................... Now, this is Union but the sports at point of collision are similar enough that I would be hugely surprised if the balance of statistics fell the opposite way for League. If you can find research that shows the majority of HIA's in League are incurred through foul play then I will stand corrected.

I'm not claiming anything. A physical contact sport will have head injuries and some will be caused by foul play and some not... most head injuries are incurred by the tackler and not the tackled player anyway. I am simply saying that we should not conflate the issue of managing head injuries with managing foul play as they are different topics with only a small overlap as most head injuries are not caused by foul play.

No, I agree with you. The head injuries in Union are when the ball is moved and the deeper attacking lines (and first phase off line out/scrum in the case of crash ball) means the attackers are moving at speed. I don't think moving the defensive line forward 5m is a panacea as we will still see fast moving bodies and if anything it may encourage deeper attacking lines. I do think it is worth seeing what style of game emerging from this type of change though.

Yes and no (if you will forgive me) Studies in Union show that as a proportion of tackles made backs are more likely to suffer head injury than forwards and the position on the pitch most likely to suffer head injury is the fly half. This implies that the tackles where a player is travelling at speed (the backs overall) and the tackled player is likely to try a legs tackle and the crash ball tackle (big crash centre being tackled by fly half) causes the most problems. These two situations are most closely related to the League action where the ball carrier is invariably travelling at speed when contact occurs with the defensive line being 10m back. In the forwards in Union, it is the body angles that cause problems as the forwards tend to lead with the head as they are looking to find the ground immediately after contact and studies show that bent at the waist attackers and bent at the waist defenders meeting causes head clashes. I would like to see a trial of a 5m defensive line in League. I don't think it would solve all the problems but I think it would produce a different style of play with half backs needing to be more inventive than we see now.

What is it that you have against Audi drivers, you are obsessed? You were very negative about me on AOB when I bought my new Audi. (p.s. sorry for the short message, currently driving)

No, I don't think the logic is becoming torturous at all. For me it is very simple. Head injuries can occur for multiple reasons... some are from foul play while the majority are not. As a sport, we need to have best of breed protocols for head injuries and look at ways in which we can minimize them. Foul play (which may or may not result in injury) needs to be managed under the laws of the game and subsequent punishments. If we want to reduce head high tackles then let's crack down on it. It only gets complicated if were to try and link punishment for foul play with injury caused which seems impossible to manage for me. Punish the act, not the outcome. To conflate head injuries with foul play is a problem and holds us back from solving the problem as the vast majority of head injuries are not caused by foul play.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing for. Are you advocating for stiffer punishments for head shots as your last line seems to suggest otherwise?

Ensure that as a sport we are: 1. at the forefront of thinking about what can be done to mitigate the effect of head injury in contact sports. Ensure that the care we offer to players who are injured and the protocols we have in place to ensure that injured players are looked after are the best across professional and amateur sport. 2. thinking about the laws of the game and the enforcement of those laws to manage and limit the potential contact with the head. 3. educating all coaches and administrators at all levels of the sport on what is the best practice is for managing and mitigating head injuries. 4. ensuring that all junior coaches are teaching the appropriate techniques in tackling and contact and we only introduce full contact when young people are ready. 5. ensuring that we are discussing things openly and honestly with all players (professional and amateur) and parents of young people new to the game. We need to be mindful that the new research on the impact of head injuries and persistent head contact has on Rugby League players later in life. Ignoring this or being 'bullish' about the outcomes will get us nowhere. I am happy for people to play full contact Rugby League and all we can do is ensure that we have done what we can to support the people who want to play our game. Educate people, support them and let them make their own educated choices and they will continue to play the game. Put your head in the sand and we are doomed.

What's your recommendation to how we move forward as a sport?

If the head knock is caused by foul play then that will be dealt with under the laws of the game. However, many head injuries are caused by poor tackling technique or accidental collisions. A study from the other code showed that the tackler is 2.6 times more likely to suffer a head injury than the tackled player... and this is rarely a result of foul play on the part of the ball carrier.

Very well said.

I started playing League in 1985. Did I know that I would be at risk of suffering concussion during a game. Yes, and I did suffer concussion quite a few times... and always played on. Did I know the risks of long term ill health due to the effects of multiple concussions? No, as that research has only just emerged in recent years. I am 50 next year and my mother, in her 70's now, suffers from both Dementia and Alzheimer's and I am not afraid to say that I am crapping myself that my multiple concussions will have a very significant effect on my health over the next 20 to 30 years. I am not looking to blame anyone but I do want young people to make decisions on what they could and should do to mitigate the effects of concussion on long term ill health. As a sport, we should be doing this, not because of the threat of law suits but because we give a sh!t about the people who play our game.

I think you need to get yourself an urban dictionary if you think is what people mean by 'snowflake'.

I'm OK with the way the NRL has the ball steal law now... a one on one ball steal even if there was previously more than one defender in the tackle adds a bit of variety to the sport and is in itself a skill (both individual and team skill as they clearly practice players dropping off the tackle if a defender is in a position to attempt a steal). It's a high risk defensive play as a penalty or a new set could be conceded but I am all for a bit of innovation and variety in the game. I see that Trent Robinson was against it https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/08/11/robinson-stripping-rule-placing-unnecessary-pressure-on-referees/ but I was surprised to read that Ricky Stuart is also against it seeing as though the Raiders have all but perfected the tactic.

Let's entertain the conspiracy theory and say the NRL don't want the Warriors in the competition. Therefore we are assuming that they are trying to get rid of them through dodgy refereeing. I can see just a couple of tiny little flaws with that theory. 1. It would mean that all of the referees in the competition have been induced to participate in a huge conspiracy and have agreed to cheat against the Warriors... that's a hell of a thing! 2. And if the above were true, it is a strange tactic to get rid of a team from a league that doesn't have any relegation.

I agree that the Roosters and Storm are the teams to beat and should make up the Grand Final but the Raiders pushed the Roosters all the way this morning and so it's not a done deal by any means. In the top 4, I think the Rabbitohs are the one's under pressure... coming off the back of two losses and their final three games of the season are a massive grudge match against the Broncos, a trip across the Tasman to the Warriors and then the local derby against the Roosters. I can see them dropping out of the four if the Eels or Manly can maintain a bit of form.

I agree in principle with the last several posts. I think the game has reached a point where the referees have an almost impossible task... we have a consensus in the sport that we will universally ignore some of the key laws of the game (the scrum, play the ball etc) while all the time putting the onus on the ref to referee in the modern 'interpretation' and then we have the temerity to ask for consistency in decision making. What I don't agree with is finding fault with the referees in getting us to this position. Where we are today is the result of a gradual evolution and it is players, coaches, administrators and even us fans to blame as we demand some of the laws are ignored as we crave a faster and faster game. The referees are innocent parties in this and actually they are in the hardest position because if they penalise a piece of illegal play actually written in the laws of the game we rip them to shreds. I am sure the referees would love a chance to actually referee a game as it is written down in the laws for a change. I wish we could press a reset button and go back 25 years in how the game is played... not because of rose tinted glasses, just that we could perhaps not make the same mistakes again.

I remember him being interviewed a while ago (several years) on Sky after a game and he had got a knock on his knee and he said something like "and it was my bad knee as well". As he had not been injured for a while I can only assume the knee that injured a couple of times early in his career continued to cause him problems. Only speculation but maybe it is just a recurring thing he manages.