RULE CHANGES IF HEAD INJURY PROTECTION IS PRIORITY #1.

 

 If the NRL are serious about head injuries moving forward, these rule changes should be considered.

 1. Many head injuries occur due to high-speed collisions. The best way to reduce collision speed is by shortening the space between defenders and attackers. To do this the 10-metre rule must be made less, possibly 5-metres would be the best option. Another area that currently provides many high-speed collisions is from kick-offs. Changing this part of the game is nearly impossible unless the kick-off is removed totally. 

 2. Player numbers in tackles and target areas. If the total number of players allowed in tackles was set at 3 and contact was limited to below the shoulders would help. If players were somehow rewarded for legs tackles coaches would quickly change the way players are expected to tackle currently. 

 3. The shoulder charge rule. I have said for many years the current shoulder charge rule is stupid. Shoulder charging is not allowed if your defending. The ball carrier can turn their upper body and shoulder charge as much as they want. The shoulder charge must be either allowed but punished severely if head contact happens, or it must be banned totally for both attackers and defenders.

 4. Lower the amount of interchanges. When you have fresh players more often on the field collision speed is increased more often. Lowering the interchange rule by 50% from 8 down to 4 would work in more than 1 way. Not only would it result in lowering the amount of time with fresh players on the field it would also change the ideal body shape we see today. The average weight of players would become lower and the smaller / faster players would become more valuable. 

 

 Obviously, there would be many other rules that should be looked at. Unfortunately, it's only a matter of time until former players suffering from head injuries caused by playing Rugby League take legal action. If / when this happens the NRL could have massive problems. Personally, I can't see how the NRL would survive if enough former players joined each other and took the NRL to court.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Change the rules around back slams too. Usually happen when a player is wrapped up by two others, cowardly tackle for mine. There's some simple answers, but the overall problem is a hard one without making the game less. 

  • Head protection mandatory.  

    2 men in tackle tops. 

     

    • Brain trauma is caused by impact.  Head protection does not stop impact/dispacement etc to the brain within the skull,  It protects from cuts and the like.  

      • What he said 👆, headgear has been proven to be ineffective for concussions.  NFL players wear helmets and they're still suffering brain trauma based injuries in their post playing years. 

  • Or we can just acknowledge and accept that Rugby League is a violent & dangerous sport and the people who play it at the professional level know this and accept the risks. 

    • About 50% of what everyone else mentioned and 50% of what you just said but there needs to be both. 

    • I don't think so Brett  The sporting body has a responsibility and has lessened the risks somewhat over the past 5 years and still discussions need to be had on how to further lessen the risk. 

       

      • With everything they've done there are still as many concussions as before. 

        • yes but now they are coming off the field not playing on like the old days and missing the following weeks game to 

    •  No Brett Allen we can't take that approach anymore. Unlike boxing and MMA where everyone knows the intention is to strike the head many times, head Knocks in the NRL are not the intention, so players need to be protected by the game as much as possible, the game has a duty of care and legal action could badly damage the game if it can be shown the games administrators did not infact afford the players a duty of care as best as reasonably possible with rule changes and punishments. 

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Hell On Eels replied to Steel be with you's discussion 2026 Parramatta Eels Season Preview
"A good preview, Steel. A neat wrap up. Short and sweet. Relaxed. No expletives. Thumbs up."
26 minutes ago
iamnot replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion ‘Leaks and grandstanding’: Storm boss unloads on Eels over Lomax
"Didn't Ryles have an additional clause in his contract relating to Bellamy? That is, if Bellamy signed on for another season, Ryles weas free to just walk?"
2 hours ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion ‘Leaks and grandstanding’: Storm boss unloads on Eels over Lomax
"When that's what's coming out of their pieholes you know they are flapping.
It's not even another fruit, it's like comparing Apples & Dildos 
( I see that you have overcome your crippling Porn addiction Kurupt...good on you)"
3 hours ago
Kurupt - He Be Trippin On A Matt replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion ‘Leaks and grandstanding’: Storm boss unloads on Eels over Lomax
"True, Ryles would have a get out clause and he would have been the one who applied for the Eels job, Parra didn't need to do sh!t with the Storm. He's trying to compare apples with oranges."
6 hours ago
More…