News 18th man??

[SBD82]

Just gonna throw this out there.

A lot of people are using “player welfare” as the basis for change. But I’m yet to see anyone criticise Canberra for leaving Curtis Scott on. Playing with busted ribs can’t be good for you. I’m no doctor, but depending on the fracture, surely that’d put you at risk of damage to internal organs.

It sucks, but you can play the game with 12. Send offs are (allegedly) a part of our game.

All I’m saying is that it’s hypocritical to fall back on the “player welfare” angle, when the real crux of most people’s motivation is attempting to make sure that both teams remain competitive.

Maybe we should just step back sometimes and think “well that sucks. But Shit happens”.

 

[Chimp]

Just gonna throw this out there.

A lot of people are using “player welfare” as the basis for change. But I’m yet to see anyone criticise Canberra for leaving Curtis Scott on. Playing with busted ribs can’t be good for you. I’m no doctor, but depending on the fracture, surely that’d put you at risk of damage to internal organs.

It sucks, but you can play the game with 12. Send offs are (allegedly) a part of our game.

All I’m saying is that it’s hypocritical to fall back on the “player welfare” angle, when the real crux of most people’s motivation is attempting to make sure that both teams remain competitive.

Maybe we should just step back sometimes and think “well that sucks. But Shit happens”.

Agree with this, particular the last paragraph. In game injuries are actually a variable that sport needs - if all teams always had 17 fit players, the Storm or Roosters would just win every time. Sport needs an element of luck too for it to be competitive.
The only caveat is that the HIA rule forces players out of the game who otherwise would likely have played on - so having a replacement for those where teams are severely disadvantaged by multiple forced withdrawals from the game does make sense.

 

[myrrh ken]

Just go back to quick taps instead of set restarts. Gives teams the opportunity to set themselves up defensively and use proper tackling technique. It's not rocket science that increased injury has come along with the new rules.

Quicker game might be good for fans but it's devastating on the players

 

[Pete Cash]

Just gonna throw this out there.

A lot of people are using “player welfare” as the basis for change. But I’m yet to see anyone criticise Canberra for leaving Curtis Scott on. Playing with busted ribs can’t be good for you. I’m no doctor, but depending on the fracture, surely that’d put you at risk of damage to internal organs.

It sucks, but you can play the game with 12. Send offs are (allegedly) a part of our game.

All I’m saying is that it’s hypocritical to fall back on the “player welfare” angle, when the real crux of most people’s motivation is attempting to make sure that both teams remain competitive.

Maybe we should just step back sometimes and think “well that sucks. But Shit happens”.

But surely it would have been potentially dangerous to the players to play with 12 players with literally no bench when it comes to exhaustion and injuries caused by fatigue.

This is the crux of the issue. Contact sports are inherently dangerous. It used to be simple. A player would go off the field if they were literally too injured to continue. So players would play on with injuries that they probably shouldnt have played on with like rib injuries and the like. Especially if the club doctors could shoot them full of painkillers.

Then we discovered that players were getting their brains turned to swiss cheese through concussions. The thing is though a player can technically go out to play with a concussion. He is physically capable but the game has concerns over his long term health and their liability for it. Kris was cleared by the doctor at first but then the doctor later doubted his decision so even these tests still need development.

The logic cricket took with the concussion sub was that injuries happen and there is a 12th man to cover it. You can wheel out a guy with a f**ked knee to bat if you want to we aren't gonna stop you but we are going to stop you from playing the guy who took the head knock so we will give you a sub for him.

The NRL doesn't care if players play injured (as you mentioned Scott) but they will stop a player with a head injury returning to the field because they are concerned about legal responsibilities

 

[Danish]

But surely it would have been potentially dangerous to the players to play with 12 players with literally no bench when it comes to exhaustion and injuries caused by fatigue.

This is the crux of the issue. Contact sports are inherently dangerous. It used to be simple. A player would go off the field if they were literally too injured to continue. So players would play on with injuries that they probably shouldnt have played on with like rib injuries and the like. Especially if the club doctors could shoot them full of painkillers.

Then we discovered that players were getting their brains turned to swiss cheese through concussions. The thing is though a player can technically go out to play with a concussion. He is physically capable but the game has concerns over his long term health and their liability for it. Kris was cleared by the doctor at first but then the doctor later doubted his decision so even these tests still need development.

The logic cricket took with the concussion sub was that injuries happen and there is a 12th man to cover it. You can wheel out a guy with a f**ked knee to bat if you want to we aren't gonna stop you but we are going to stop you from playing the guy who took the head knock so we will give you a sub for him.

The NRL doesn't care if players play injured (as you mentioned Scott) but they will stop a player with a head injury returning to the field because they are concerned about legal responsibilities

what would be the liability if Scott ended up with a collapsed lung due to playing with a broken rib?

Similar story if Sam burgess went blind in one eye after playing with a broken eye socket, or god knows what that could have happened to SKD playing with a broken jaw.

we then the really serious stuff like Matt Gillett playing 4 rounds with a broken neck, and Rapana finish a game with a damned fractured skull.

something less serious but 100% permanent is Angus Crichton losing his finger because of bad medical advice playing lower grades at Souths (docs kept needling it up instead of giving him time off, which ultimately led to its removal due to damage).

concussions aren’t the only injury that causes long term negative outcomes to players. It’s just for some reason the only one that the courts have seemingly decided the sport is culpable for. All other injuries players are allowed to just accept the risk for as freethinking adults

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

It will be the only allowed after a 3rd failed HIA

So..

If this is true ... the 18th man can’t come on until the HIA result is in. Yeah?

There’s a 15 minute window for a test to be undertaken/concluded for a team to declare pass/fail. I don’t know how long this process actually takes in practice... but...if it’s say ten minutes...

The 18th man is pretty much useless for any HIA after the 70th minute. Possibly even from the 65th... that’s ridiculous IMO.

So in this case there would be an “incentive” for a club to immediately “fail” a player in order to get the 18th man on ASAP... ie potentially rort it.

I’m not sure of the exact working of the rule but, as ridiculous as the “3rd HIA” protocol is to me... it’s far less ridiculous If the 18th man comes on as soon as the 3rd HIA player comes from the field rather than when an assessment is completed.

Imagine the pressure on a doctor to fail someone ASAP...or indeed pass him ASAP to get him back out there.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

. It's not rocket science that increased injury has come along with the new rules.

Quicker game might be good for fans but it's devastating on the players

What’s the link / evidence here?

Sure, round 3 had an unusually high amount of injuries. But it’s not uncommon to have rounds like this each season.

People look for causes ASAP ... . When Verrills n Radley went down with knee injuries in the same game last year the media latched onto the surface of bankwest. There was absolutely no truth in it... it was just an anomaly.

One round can just be an anomaly. If it continues in further rounds, then there’s a trend and a better case for this suggestion. I’m not jumping on the rules as a cause just yet.

As for the injuries this round..

Keary, Lam, Hunt, Katoa, Hiku - leg/knee.
James, Kris - head clash
Dunn - foot
Marshall King - broken foot

None of these can be directly attributed to the new rules. Others are debatable at best.

In terms of the injured list as a whole, each club missing players...

- many of these were about before the start of the season
- the number of HIA - related is about 5 (inc 3 x roosters).
- the majority are common injuries in the course of a season.

Aside from that, many people, media types especially, have been calling for “fatigue” to come back into the game for ages. And some, including Matt Johns, wanted an even further reduction on the bench... to 6...

We aren’t hearing from any of them on this now...

I honestly don’t see why it’s so important to see blokes knackered... drive them to near exhaustion or similar. That’s my biggest concern...

Not injuries... but by the end of this season players will be absolutely burned out... exhausted. and the overall quality of football will suffer as a result..

Todd Payten has recognised it with intention to reduce Taumalolo’s game time at the start of the year, rather than cook his golden goose. He got howled down by it. I think it’s smart.

Im all for speeding up the game and making it a greater spectacle. But by exhausting players over 26 rounds and finals I fear it’ll be counter-productive.

 

[myrrh ken]

What’s the link / evidence here?

Sure, round 3 had an unusually high amount of injuries. But it’s not uncommon to have rounds like this each season.

People look for causes ASAP ... . When Verrills n Radley went down with knee injuries in the same game last year the media latched onto the surface of bankwest. There was absolutely no truth in it... it was just an anomaly.

One round can just be an anomaly. If it continues in further rounds, then there’s a trend and a better case for this suggestion. I’m not jumping on the rules as a cause just yet.

As for the injuries this round..

Keary, Lam, Hunt, Katoa, Hiku - leg/knee.
James, Kris - head clash
Dunn - foot
Marshall King - broken foot

None of these can be directly attributed to the new rules. Others are debatable at best.

In terms of the injured list as a whole, each club missing players...

- many of these were about before the start of the season
- the number of HIA - related is about 5 (inc 3 x roosters).
- the majority are common injuries in the course of a season.

Aside from that, many people, media types especially, have been calling for “fatigue” to come back into the game for ages. And some, including Matt Johns, wanted an even further reduction on the bench... to 6...

We aren’t hearing from any of them on this now...

I honestly don’t see why it’s so important to see blokes knackered... drive them to near exhaustion or similar. That’s my biggest concern...

Not injuries... but by the end of this season players will be absolutely burned out... exhausted. and the overall quality of football will suffer as a result..

Todd Payten has recognised it with intention to reduce Taumalolo’s game time at the start of the year, rather than cook his golden goose. He got howled down by it. I think it’s smart.

Im all for speeding up the game and making it a greater spectacle. But by exhausting players over 26 rounds and finals I fear it’ll be counter-productive.

Just a theory mate. I bet if you look at per game total tackle counts/ metres gained, it will be higher than in previous games. It just follows that a faster game means players get tired, technique goes out the window and more stress on the body.

 

[Valheru]

Would it have helped the Sharks even? This is the point that swung me on the 18th man vs extended bench... like are serious about player safety or not? Because if we are serious about player safety we should be serious about it on all fronts. Obviously head injuries are the focal point but it's not good for players long term help playing with busted ribs, or strapping up knees, shoulders, ankles and pushing through. Or outside backs playing on with cheek bone, eye socket injuries... player welfare isnt just HIA

It's really got to be looked at providing teams flexibility to allow them to remove a player from the game and ensure they dont exacerbate injuries and end up like so many players today who are retired, 40 years old and cant pick their damn kids up off the ground because they're joints and muscles are so f**ked from playing through so much shit.

I'm just not sure what opposition the NRL have to what seems a logical solution to this problem.

Who really cares how many you have on the bench if the number of interchanges allowed remains the same?

I mean soccer and union both allow more on the bench than the number of substitutions they get.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Just a theory mate. I bet if you look at per game total tackle counts/ metres gained, it will be higher than in previous games. It just follows that a faster game means players get tired, technique goes out the window and more stress on the body.

Yeah its a theory. I'm less inclined to think that way unless/until it becomes more of a trend or significant increase in injuries arise over a period of time. It wasn't an major public issue in the first two rounds, where - if the rule changes do indeed cause more injuries - you'd (I'd) expect far more injuries to occur early in the season as no-one is used to the new rules and still adjusting.

I'm also of the view that with more "fatigue" the impact of tackles will be far less as a game goes on. And to the stresses of impact will be lessened. But agree that technique may also suffer.

But going back to the new 18th Man rule... I still can't agree with what the NRL have done. Amongst other things, the rationale of "it gives emerging players a taste of NRL" just seems a gimmick. Many players under 21 aren't yet ready to elevate to NRL standard. That they are rotated week on week means that a club will eventually have to plow through ALL of their under 21 playing roster...

Yes, the majority of these guys won't get a game. But in the event of a "Sharks" situation, and you've got an 18 year old fullback rotated in that week - lets say a Matt Dufty at 18, 65kg's in a wet jersey, and he gets sent out to play a half .... That in itself is a bigger issue in player safety to me.

Time will tell how this pans out, but the thing that somewhat gives me confidence that things will "work out in the end" is that this current ARLC is happy to amend rules almost instantly. And so if this 18th man rule indeed becomes a farce as many predict, the rule won't be set in stone and can be changed to something more sensible.

 

[myrrh ken]

Yeah its a theory. I'm less inclined to think that way unless/until it becomes more of a trend or significant increase in injuries arise over a period of time. It wasn't an major public issue in the first two rounds, where - if the rule changes do indeed cause more injuries - you'd expect far more injuries to occur early in the season as no-one is used to the new rules and still adjusting.

I'm also of the view that with more "fatigue" the impact of tackles will be far less as a game goes on. And to the stresses of impact will be lessened. But agree that technique may also suffer.

But going back to the new 18th Man rule... I still can't agree with what the NRL have done. Amongst other things, the rationale of "it gives emerging players a taste of NRL" just seems a gimmick. Many players under 21 aren't yet ready to elevate to NRL standard. That they are rotated week on week means that a club will eventually have to plow through ALL of their under 21 playing roster...

Yes, the majority of these guys won't get a game. But in the event of a "Sharks" situation, and you've got an 18 year old fullback rotated in that week - lets say a Matt Dufty at 18, 65kg's in a wet jersey, and he gets sent out to play a half .... That in itself is a bigger issue in player safety to me.

Time will tell how this pans out, but the thing that somewhat gives me confidence that things will "work out in the end" is that this current ARLC is happy to amend rules almost instantly. And so if this 18th man rule indeed becomes a farce as many predict, the rule won't be set in stone and can be changed to something more sensible.

Yep its a bandaid. I don't get why they need to limit the type of player or limit it to HIAs. If three blokes do themselves in via HIA or ACLs they can have another bloke in. Its not like a team is going to hide a gun player as no 18 in the off chance he will play - if he's so good he'd be in the 17.

 

[betcats]

Yep its a bandaid. I don't get why they need to limit the type of player or limit it to HIAs. If three blokes do themselves in via HIA or ACLs they can have another bloke in. Its not like a team is going to hide a gun player as no 18 in the off chance he will play - if he's so good he'd be in the 17.

Yep i bet first time it actually gets used a team won't have the right player as 18th man so then the talk will be about having another few guys there to pick from.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Yep its a bandaid. I don't get why they need to limit the type of player or limit it to HIAs. If three blokes do themselves in via HIA or ACLs they can have another bloke in. Its not like a team is going to hide a gun player as no 18 in the off chance he will play - if he's so good he'd be in the 17.

Agreed.

You'd have your top 17 players in the club plus potentially the 35th best player (or even worse) wearing #18. Restrictions / limitations on the 18th have grave potential issues for mine, while the HIA rule can continue to be rorted. This has been explained that a sub of this type will lessen the appeal to "rort" the HIA - presumably because they won't have a benefit over an established first grader. IE - they aren't a first grade NRL player.

If I'm coaching a team where they wheel out a junior wannabe #18, you think I'm not gonna target the absolute sh#t out of them .... if it's under the highball and smashing them, or getting my forwards to smash them on a hit up.... or getting my attack to aim the play toward them in the backs...

Some guys might hold their own ok enough, or be playing with a club like the Storm who can carry them. But what if they are playing for a team like the Bulldogs or Manly right now, languishing at the bottom of the ladder... they could be absolute cannon fodder..

 

[Mr Angry]

So They bought in The HIA, now we need to adjust.

Go figure.

Lol we used to just play on.

Yeah used to.

You either care about concussion or You do not.

 

[siv]

Just go back to quick taps instead of set restarts

So removing scrums has caused everything

 

[nick87]

Yep its a bandaid. I don't get why they need to limit the type of player or limit it to HIAs. If three blokes do themselves in via HIA or ACLs they can have another bloke in. Its not like a team is going to hide a gun player as no 18 in the off chance he will play - if he's so good he'd be in the 17.

Exactly right... there is no advantage to be gained by losing a player in your 17 and replacing them with someone who the coach doesnt think is better than him

 

[Basil Brush]

So They bought in The HIA, now we need to adjust.

Go figure.

Lol we used to just play on.

Yeah used to.

You either care about concussion or You do not.

The nrl know concussion is a massive ticking time bomb, about to explode

 

[Danish]

Exactly right... there is no advantage to be gained by losing a player in your 17 and replacing them with someone who the coach doesnt think is better than him

teams have been hesitant to use 2 x interchanges rotating their backup hooker on and off since it dropped to 8. This has lead to many coaches using their utility bench spot for only 10-15 mins a game and the other 3 getting big minutes.

carrying an extra middle forward as your 18th man with the intent that one of your middle forwards in the 17 will go off with an HIA in the second half frees up an interchange which can be used to rotate your hooker.

keeping your hooker fresh is a big advantage in the modern game

 

[myrrh ken]

teams have been hesitant to use 2 x interchanges rotating their backup hooker on and off since it dropped to 8. This has lead to many coaches using their utility bench spot for only 10-15 mins a game and the other 3 getting big minutes.

carrying an extra middle forward as your 18th man with the intent that one of your middle forwards in the 17 will go off with an HIA in the second half frees up an interchange which can be used to rotate your hooker.

keeping your hooker fresh is a big advantage in the modern game

It's only if 3 go off, not one

 

[Danish]

It's only if 3 go off, not one

i know under the current rule my scenario is not feasible. I’m talking more about those that want a free 18th man for a single HIA.

In saying that having to wait for multiple HIAs to access an extra man is also stupid. Hence why they should just allow a larger bench but any injury substitution (HIA or otherwise) still counts against your 8 interchanges