Refereeing The Magic Round sin bin directive

[Perth Red]

Meh, don't aim above the ball and near the neck region. Sorry but I'm over players whinging. As a tackler you have a duty of care to not hit people high.

then we are heading like union where it’s waist tackles only. When we went to two and three men tackles it meant that at least one of the players would be in the upper body region. Either we totally change the rules of the game and in doing so alter the fabric of the game forever more, or we accept that head highs happen and deal with them accordingly. And by that I mean deliberate off, accidental penalty and one or two match ban. Like it has been for the history of the game!
In the quest to soften the game “for the mums” we will lose the reason most people started playing and watching the game in the first place, it’s toughness.

 

[lockyno1]

then we are heading like union where it’s waist tackles only. When we went to two and three men tackles it meant that at least one of the players would be in the upper body region. Either we totally change the rules of the game and in doing so alter the fabric of the game forever more, or we accept that head highs happen and deal with them accordingly. And by that I mean deliberate off, accidental penalty and one or two match ban. Like it has been for the history of the game!
In the quest to soften the game “for the mums” we will lose the reason most people started playing and watching the game in the first place, it’s toughness.

Sorry but high tackles are not "tough", we have so many players with dementia after their career right now. We don't need more of this. Hate to bring this into it but it's a factor. Duty of care is everything, and tacklers need to not make high contract it's simple.

 

[some11]

It's such a shame Jack Hethrington is suspended. He is made for this round.

I could be wrong but I think hipgrave managed to get binned twice in a game.

Sportsbet needs a new market for this.

 

[t-ba]

I get where your coming from but same game and this then is not a penalty?
View attachment 48480

Marty certainly made contact with the head after first contact which probably counts as a penalty if the new directives are followed to the letter but it certainly didn't start high like the Gamble tackle. The Gamble tackle could have been a penalty before the directive came out whilst your example wouldn't have been one beforehand.

Here's the initial point of contact.



The thing with the rules is that they're never applied consistently. Brisbane got absolutely belted by the refs last night but it's a but sus to be using out of context frames in these two examples.

 

[AnonymousLurker]

Sorry but high tackles are not "tough", we have so many players with dementia after their career right now. We don't need more of this. Hate to bring this into it but it's a factor. Duty of care is everything, and tacklers need to not make high contract it's simple.

Please don’t compare yesteryear to the tackles of today

They used to do brutal,stiff arm head highs , the players coped more punches to the head then boxers do in fight night

Also out of curiosity , can you name who has dementia , the hordes of them and confirm that they also never partook in recreational drugs or used to get drunk as a skunk a few times a week

 

[mave]

You won’t see it because tackling around the legs will not prevent the offload, unfortunately.

More offloads is exactly what we want to see.
It's a natural risk/ reward for both defence and attack.

 

[t-ba]

If they really want to eliminate head high contact and stop a million offloads they might have to change the rules for stri...I'm gonna stop now in case someone from the NRL gives Abdo and V'landys any ideas.

 

[Valheru]

Meh...

Simple solution...

DON'T TACKLE HIGH!

I'm seriously over players whinging over a soft 'high' tackle. Simply put don't put yourself in a position to get penalised it's actually not that hard. Players are just flat out brain dead the most of them who refuse to play by the rules. A high tackle regardless of how soft it is....is still illegal!

No one is saying it isn't illegal. That doesn't mean it needs to be a sin bin offence.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Can’t wait for PVL to push Annesley out the door again on Monday to face the media and roll out the “Players need to learn...” line again...

 

[Nerd]

Marty certainly made contact with the head after first contact which probably counts as a penalty if the new directives are followed to the letter but it certainly didn't start high like the Gamble tackle. The Gamble tackle could have been a penalty before the directive came out whilst your example wouldn't have been one beforehand.

Here's the initial point of contact.

View attachment 48481

The thing with the rules is that they're never applied consistently. Brisbane got absolutely belted by the refs last night but it's a but sus to be using out of context frames in these two examples.

Tapau's arm is around the head of Haas whether it's initial point of contact or not doesn't matter so it's not out of context. Look Manly bashed our forwards and played all over us last night but what I am trying to highlight is not only the stupidity of the knee jerk high tackle directive to the refs but also the inconsistency in the application of these new rules.

 

[franklin2323]

then we are heading like union where it’s waist tackles only. When we went to two and three men tackles it meant that at least one of the players would be in the upper body region. Either we totally change the rules of the game and in doing so alter the fabric of the game forever more, or we accept that head highs happen and deal with them accordingly. And by that I mean deliberate off, accidental penalty and one or two match ban. Like it has been for the history of the game!
In the quest to soften the game “for the mums” we will lose the reason most people started playing and watching the game in the first place, it’s toughness.

Works in Union. RL post contact metres are important going waist height doesn't work in those cases.

Clearly a rule decided by people with no knowledge of the fundamentals

 

[franklin2323]

Sorry but high tackles are not "tough", we have so many players with dementia after their career right now. We don't need more of this. Hate to bring this into it but it's a factor. Duty of care is everything, and tacklers need to not make high contract it's simple.

Who purposely highs high these days? Accidents happen in a contact sport the rules should always account for that

 

[t-ba]

Tapau's arm is around the head of Haas whether it's initial point of contact or not doesn't matter so it's not out of context. Look Manly bashed our forwards and played all over us last night but what I am trying to highlight is not only the stupidity of the knee jerk high tackle directive to the refs but also the inconsistency in the application of these new rules.

Under the current directives both would be penalties if the refs were calling everything (which never happens), but beforehand the type of contact Marty made almost never got called, and Gamble's would have. So yeah, it's rather important to point out how the two tackles are quite different. Also, using stills where Gamble is not making contact with the head but then putting up footage of Marty making contact with the head is a bit sus.

It's swings and roundabouts. The Broncos ate a big pile of referee shit last night. It sucks when you're on the end of it but Manly is going to get completely bodied later in the season by a ref.

 

[lockyno1]

Who purposely highs high these days? Accidents happen in a contact sport the rules should always account for that

Not saying they do, but players need to have a higher duty of care with what we know involving concussions and ongoing dementia.

 

[lockyno1]

No one is saying it isn't illegal. That doesn't mean it needs to be a sin bin offence.

We wouldn't have this if refs actually had the nuts to send blatant send offs like the swinging high tackle on Tedesco off let alone the Dylan Brown fiasco.

 

[t-ba]

My favourite dumb and bizarre penalty of last night was Gamble getting penalised in the first half for being, and I quote, "a bit forceful".

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Sorry but high tackles are not "tough", we have so many players with dementia after their career right now. We don't need more of this. Hate to bring this into it but it's a factor. Duty of care is everything, and tacklers need to not make high contract it's simple.

Agree with @AnonymousLurker ..

The players now suffering from brain issues such as price, Horsnell, Mortimer etc played in a far different era of the sport, with no protocols around concussion, and no knowledge of the issues that may result later in life as a result. Further to that, while it’s awfully sad for these former players... it’s not the case that all/a significant majority of players of that era have similar issues. They don’t.

What we’ve got now is a farce of a situation which could inadvertently make the game actually more unsafe for players...

Mass Sin bins aren’t the answer at all. If they continue, we could see more and more players trying to go low to tackle opponents again....

Meaning if the tacklers get their head in the wrong place..... knock outs....

And more of them. These are the tackles gone wrong which have the most savage effect on the players... the most knockouts... not the errant, harmless contact we’re seeing people binned for this round.

And so sin binning everyone who makes contact with the head can be a catalyst for even worse issues with concussion... while ruining the fabric of the sport...

Further to that, many people believe fatigue is causing the level of injuries this year. I’m not convinced myself... but if indeed it is... isn’t having teams playing regularly with 12, or even 11 players only going to make that worse?

 

[nick87]

I’m personally very excited for my stupid arse football team getting 5 sin bins and defending with 10 men for a period of time and then Stuart’s presser

 

[AnonymousLurker]

I’m personally very excited for my stupid arse football team getting 5 sin bins and defending with 10 men for a period of time and then Stuart’s presser

I’m personally very excited for my stupid arse football team getting 5 sin bins and defending with 10 men for a period of time and then Stuart’s presser

The one time everyone wants sticky to whinge so they can stop this farce , he will be quiet like a mouse as the raiders will put 50 on the dogs

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Tapau's arm is around the head of Haas whether it's initial point of contact or not doesn't matter so it's not out of context. Look Manly bashed our forwards and played all over us last night but what I am trying to highlight is not only the stupidity of the knee jerk high tackle directive to the refs but also the inconsistency in the application of these new rules.

Ok 8 point try and sin bin for Oates trying to rip Saab’s face off.