Double Knock On

"Also, reducing sub-concussive impacts is also covered by the game time limits being implemented. The cumulative effect of hits (not just concussions) is the main drive behind that rule change. So the aim is to make the game safer on numerous fronts". I am not suggesting that concussions are not a problem. The rule changes will reduce head to head contacts. They may increase head to hip concussions (who knows). The total time allowed for a player to play will not, as far as I understand, reduce match time to any significant extent (A reduced number of fixtures, and a mid season break would be both beneficial, but given that clubs won't even get rid of loop fixtures real concerns about player welfare are skin deep) "While sub-concussion events might not be able to be measured by iMG's the evidence suggests sub-concussive head impacts cause an increase in risk of CTE so why would reducing all head impacts not make a difference? Lowering the tackle height does not reduce the number of head impacts, it may reduce the number of head to head impacts. But "head impacts" can be head to the rear of the thigh in an old school side tackle, a bump of the head to the ground. There may be no contact to the head but the rotational forces on the brain can still be high, particularly from being hit from the side. Lowering the tackle height may lead to the first tackler rather than going shoulder height and locking the ball (with heads in close proximity), but instead squatting and hitting under the ball which, while reducing the chance of head to head collisions will increase the g force in the tackle No one knows. There are technologies out there that measure impact on the brain. IMGs do not do this. If RL were to adopt a lower tackle height, similar to English RU, or French RU the game would have to reduce the 10m rule to 5m. NZ RU allow the second tackler to go above the sternum, as it is believed it is the first tackler that creates the big force

A few points to pick up here: The mouthguards (IMGs) are not new. Collision impacts were measured initially in NFL using sensors in the helmet. These were inaccurate as there are not directly connected to the skull (layperson's terms). Papers analysing the effectiveness of IMGs in measuring head impacts have been around for 10 years. Analysis comparing IMGs with video footage in matches and training was published in 2018 by Stanford University using College American Football. The video analysis was far more in depth than the RFL study. In the Stanford study all video footage was multi- angled and the head impacts went through two rounds of assessment. (The RFL-Beckett's study goes into nowhere near the same depth and often uses single angle camera events which are not reliable) The Stanford study also noted that the IMGs only picked up 71.2% of the Head Contact Events picked up on video. Also in a NFL study as well as the sports science researchers all "events" had to be watched by two "former athletes" with more than 10 years' experience (i.e., they knew something about the game that they were assessing). The IMGs issued in RU and RL last year had a pretty low take up by players. This is because they are uncomfortable. In American Football the player can spit it out after 5s and wait 50s until the next "down", RU & RL are more continuous As far as I am aware the newer IMGs (v2.0 as opposed to 1.4) as worn in the WXV will be issued. The chip is in a different place and the mouthguard is more similar to a "normal" dental mouthguard Having said all this. Most people, including the Beckett's researchers, are still obsessing re tackle height and reducing "head to head contacts" leading to "one off" concussion events. This is a "straw man" and easily knocked down. Lower tackle height, fewer concussions equals safer game mantra. CTE is linked to the accumulation of micro "sub-concussion" events. The effect of these cannot be measured by IMGs, they just give you an arbitrary "load"

The problem with Prof Jones X/Twitter feed is that it is largely about concussions This is a "Straw Man" that has been erected to be knocked down. As I stated in my previous post, the main problem is not concussions but the accumulative effect of sub-concussions. The rule changes do not address this issue and are, therefore largely window dressing

There are a number of excellent points made on this topic from a variety of views. However, what is not discussed is that the changes are largely aimed at knocking down a "Strawman" (head to head contact) Reducing the tackle height may reduce the number of "head to head" contacts (These are grossly, & I mean grossly, over-estimated in the Beckett's studies- look at their figures and then watch an game and slo-mo the tackles and see if you come up with their figures) Reducing "head to head" contacts will probably reduce the number of concussions. Are individual concussions the cause of CTE (long term brain disorders)? - No Will wearing IMG measure Peak g force- yes, cumulative g force-yes, Peak Angular Velocity-probably yes. Will any of these measures help in diagnosing brain trauma? -No The science as it is at the moment suggests that CTE is caused by cumulative rotational forces on the brain. These can be measured by chemical markers such as certain proteins in the blood, micro RNA etc.. As far as I understand it they can also be measured by Rezon headbands (it is also my understanding that the authors of the RFL report were not interesting in working with Rezon and the researchers at Loughborough and ICL(?) to further understand the immediate effect on the brain) No one knows "how much is too much". A figure of 2g is assumed to be "everyday occurrences involved in such as sitting and walking", above 50g is "bad" (if I remember correctly). RU has had figures over 70g for individual tackles. However, that does not alter the fact that no one knows if 100 x 2g is worse than 1 x 70g without actually measuring the impact on the brain either concurrently, immediately afterwards or at regular intervals The lower tackle height may also increase the g force in the tackle, as rather than standing and locking the ball the first tackler may now adopt a more squat position and drive through the ball carrier and lift the leg to dump the attacking player in his/her back As for those who say "we used to tackle around thigh etc.," that was under the 5m rule. With the 10m it would lead to scores of 50 -40, as was in the Aussie Super League in 1997 during the "split" when the ruck in that competition was artificially quick

Pointless fixture. Would have been more useful if the coach had picked some "Young Guns" for England to blood some for the next World Cup, rather than picking the faces that played against the Kiwis in the last one

heading in the right direction and no doubt copying the Leeds blueprint From the rumours I here the "Valks" are not copying the Leeds blueprint at all in how they train on and off the field

Daryl Powell to Leeds? He took over ages ago and was moved sideways to the RU team with a view to coming back at a later stage if my memory serves me right

On the question of slowing York down this was also Leeds' tactic the previous week with techniques that would have been penalised in a men's SL game; e.g., turning the player after a non dominant tackle , pushing the ball carrier as she rose to play the ball. The ruck speed is completely inconsistent. York are being penalised for being more dominant rather than the other way round. As a neutral, if i were to put a York hat on for 50/50 calls I'd be a bit peeved. When York 12 (Andrade I believe) is penalised for a knock which turned possession over for the first Saints try she is facing her own line and the ball goes backwards When Owen is dispossessed near the Saints line, this is given as a knock on, when there is clear interference with the ball after the tackle is already complete. This leads to the avalanche that ends in Saints second try When Marshall passes to Field who picks it up on the bounce the referee pulls it as either a knock on or a forward pass neither of which can be seen on the Iplayer. This gave Saints possession for the winning drop goal The referees given to WSL games are below Championship standard. The guy in the York Leeds game was completely out of his depth. The Leeds hooker, Bennett, was sin binned for a spear tackle which on review she got two matches for, IMO it should have been 6+.

Horrendous spear tackle clear red card. Don't know what the officials are doing

Leeds will be playing at home, in clear breach of the regulations Saint Helens will be playing at Warrington before the St Helens' men's game to abide the RFL's own rules the ties should switch venue

It states in section B3:12 of Women’s Super League Competition Rules 2023 The Semi Final format will be as follows: Semi-finalists will be drawn, and games played at neutral venues as double headers with a Men’s Challenge Cup Semi-Final, one game on Saturday and one game on Sunday. This has been disregarded to benefit Leeds and St Helens