Free Interchange

[Eels Dude]

Anyone else not like this rule?

I'm talking about when a player is injured in a tackle, and the offending player is put on report, and the side get to substitute the injured player without using up an interchange.

Last night in the Eels v Warriors game Michael Luck basically headbutted Fuifui Moimoi in the bicep. He shouldn't have been penalised let alone put on report. The SOLE reason he would have been put on report was because Luck had to go off the field and be gifted an interchange.

I understand the rule has a purpose, and this incident will be disregarded by the match review committee. However, I don't think it's right that players get reported for what is really a non reportable offence solely to assist the other side.

Any thoughts?

 

[Dutchy]

I don't mind the rule. Extra punishment for breaking the laws. But that FFMM hit was NOT report worthy. Probably not even penalty worthy. Like you said, he is only facing a charge because the player was injured.

 

[Johns Magic]

Last night in the Eels v Warriors game Michael Luck basically headbutted Fuifui Moimoi in the bicep

LOL, you're joking

 

[Stagger eel]

LOL, you're joking

you think it deserved to be on report? :?

the decision was ridiculed by the roast panel this morning and deservidly so.

 

[Iafeta]

Anyone else not like this rule?

I'm talking about when a player is injured in a tackle, and the offending player is put on report, and the side get to substitute the injured player without using up an interchange.

Last night in the Eels v Warriors game Michael Luck basically headbutted Fuifui Moimoi in the bicep. He shouldn't have been penalised let alone put on report. The SOLE reason he would have been put on report was because Luck had to go off the field and be gifted an interchange.

I understand the rule has a purpose, and this incident will be disregarded by the match review committee. However, I don't think it's right that players get reported for what is really a non reportable offence solely to assist the other side.

Any thoughts?

Forgetting this incident (although as a Warriors fan I could point to Jerry Seuseu getting 6 weeks for the same tackle in 2004 when the judiciary was anti-Warriors to the extreme), and forgetting to laugh at your comment that Micheal Luck headbutted Fuifui's shoulder (suurreee), of course you should get a free interchange for dubious play causing injury.

Remembering the times where Fuifui has been sent off for dangerous head high tackles, and the other bloke who he took out was out of the game, why should the team who were impacted have to use one of their 10 interchanges because of foul play? That's just insane, and almost a reward for the player causing the injury through untoward play.

 

[Eels Dude]

Forgetting this incident (although as a Warriors fan I could point to Jerry Seuseu getting 6 weeks for the same tackle in 2004 when the judiciary was anti-Warriors to the extreme), and forgetting to laugh at your comment that Micheal Luck headbutted Fuifui's shoulder (suurreee), of course you should get a free interchange for dubious play causing injury.

Remembering the times where Fuifui has been sent off for dangerous head high tackles, and the other bloke who he took out was out of the game, why should the team who were impacted have to use one of their 10 interchanges because of foul play? That's just insane, and almost a reward for the player causing the injury through untoward play.

I don't have a problem with the side recieving a free interchange. That's fair the way I see it. I have a problem with an 'offending' player being put on REPORT. It's not consistent. I know to some it's just a term that means nothing until the match review committee look at it but still.

The refs should have the discretion to award a free interchange based simply on a penalty if need be. However currently they use this loophole a lot more than they should. A player should only be put on report for a reportable offence, not because someone happens to suffer an injury.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Actually it was a genuine high tackle. Even a shoulder charge can go on report if it connects with the head.

 

[Eels Dude]

Maybe according to the rules and the definition of 'high' but anyone could see there was no malice or intent in it. The bloke was running at him with his head down and forward and in level with Fui's lower chest. By running like that you're putting yourself in a dangerous position. Moimoi had barely even started to move his arms yet.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Yeah I don`t think it was malicious. But there`s no connection between placing on report and the free interchange, so I`m not quite sure what your complaint is. I assume you agree that it was an illegal tackle, even if not bad enough to go on report. You don`t need to be malicious to get penalized. Had there been no illegal contact with the head, there would have been no free interchange. But then Luck wouldn`t have been knocked out.

 

[Eels Dude]

Um yes there is. The Warriors were given the extra interchange because Fui was put on report. Had he just been penalised and Fui given a warning they would NOT have been given an extra interchange. That's how it works, the extra interchange is only awarded if the player is put on report. If it's just a penalty, no free interchange. If it's on report, free interchange.

What I am saying is that referees sometimes put players on report not because of the severity of the offence, but because the injured player needs to be removed from the field. If Michael Luck had gone down but got straight up it would have been a penalty and a warning. Yet because he had to be removed from the field he was put on report.

Teams do deserve an extra interchange in these circumstances, however I don't think it's necessary that a player has to be put on report to make that happen. It should be up to a referee's discretion and that's what my point is.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Hmmm I wasn`t aware of this, sorry. In this case you are right, it doesn`t make sense.

 

[shiznit]

Um yes there is. The Warriors were given the extra interchange because Fui was put on report. Had he just been penalised and Fui given a warning they would NOT have been given an extra interchange. That's how it works, the extra interchange is only awarded if the player is put on report. If it's just a penalty, no free interchange. If it's on report, free interchange.

What I am saying is that referees sometimes put players on report not because of the severity of the offence, but because the injured player needs to be removed from the field. If Michael Luck had gone down but got straight up it would have been a penalty and a warning. Yet because he had to be removed from the field he was put on report.

Teams do deserve an extra interchange in these circumstances, however I don't think it's necessary that a player has to be put on report to make that happen. It should be up to a referee's discretion and that's what my point is.

i think theres nothing wrong with the rule at all. if a player is put on report and the player whos perceived as the victim in the incident gets hurt and has to go off... a free interchange for that player is fair enough..

as far as i know... the free interchange isn't chalked up in reserve if the player on the receiving end gets up and plays on..

i think the problem last night was more bad application of the rules instead of the rule being poor.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

What Eels Dude is saying is that the ONLY reason MoiMoi was put on report was to allow for the free interchange. Because apparently, with the current rules, free interchange is ONLY given if the player causing the injury is put on report. Even if the infringement in itself is not bad enough to go on report.

 

[Iafeta]

In which case Eels Dude would be blatantly lying. The referees did not consult each other and go, "you know what, the Warriors have used up 10 interchanges..." "Hmmm, this isn't fair, put him on report." The decision was made that contact was made with the head and it needed to go on report.

I love how whenever the Warriors win there's always, always, always, a thread deploring the referees or the referees performance or one incident involving the referees.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Somebody could look up the rulebook about when and how free interchange is allowed?

 

[Iafeta]

You only get a free interchange if an offence is committed causing a player to be put on report having injured another player. Sometimes players play on after the opponent has been put on report. Sometimes players get injured and the player does not go on report. It's the action, not the result that matters.

 

[Eels Dude]

In which case Eels Dude would be blatantly lying. The referees did not consult each other and go, "you know what, the Warriors have used up 10 interchanges..." "Hmmm, this isn't fair, put him on report." The decision was made that contact was made with the head and it needed to go on report.

I love how whenever the Warriors win there's always, always, always, a thread deploring the referees or the referees performance or one incident involving the referees.

Do not accuse me of being a lyer. That is completely ridiculous.

I'm talking about application of the rules in general, using last night as an example.

Read my posts properly before you critcize. I will write this in capitals and in bold so you understand it.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE FACT THAT TEAMS RECIEVE A FREE INTERCHANGE IF A PLAYER IS INJURED AS A RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL TACKLE. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY FAIR AND I DESERVED. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY FAIR THAT THE WARRIORS RECIEVED THE FREE INTERCHANGE IN YESTERDAY'S GAME.

What I AM saying is that currently in order for that to happen a player MUST be put on report. They should change that so it is up to the referees discretion to award a penalty in this case. Instead of HAVING to put that player on report for that too happen. I am saying that for the consistency of reporting players, and so players do not get placed on report simply because a player is injured in a tackle.

You may disagree that was the case in last nights game, but in general it does happen every now and then. Some head high tackles are reportable offences, others are accidental and are given a warning and a penalty. There is a difference. There's normally several head high tackles in every game yet you'd be lucky to get even one to be put on report.

This isn't me making a witch hunt against the Warriors you played well and deserved a win. I'm talking about the rules in general.

 

[Glen from the Mount]

Eels Dude is probably right. I'm seen the same thing happen plenty of times in the past with the player placed on report not charged.

 

[Iafeta]

Do not accuse me of being a lyer. That is completely ridiculous.

I'm talking about application of the rules in general, using last night as an example.

Read my posts properly before you critcize. I will write this in capitals and in bold so you understand it.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE FACT THAT TEAMS RECIEVE A FREE INTERCHANGE IF A PLAYER IS INJURED AS A RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL TACKLE. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY FAIR AND I DESERVED. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY FAIR THAT THE WARRIORS RECIEVED THE FREE INTERCHANGE IN YESTERDAY'S GAME.

What I AM saying is that currently in order for that to happen a player MUST be put on report. They should change that so it is up to the referees discretion to award a penalty in this case. Instead of HAVING to put that player on report for that too happen. I am saying that for the consistency of reporting players, and so players do not get placed on report simply because a player is injured in a tackle.

You may disagree that was the case in last nights game, but in general it does happen every now and then. Some head high tackles are reportable offences, others are accidental and are given a warning and a penalty. There is a difference. There's normally several head high tackles in every game yet you'd be lucky to get even one to be put on report.

This isn't me making a witch hunt against the Warriors you played well and deserved a win. I'm talking about the rules in general.

Back into your corner. Perhaps you should read my post, I said if that's what you were saying, as per what atilla wrote, you would be blatantly lying. You are saying that isn't what you were saying. Where's the offence there?

I don't see the issue whatsoever in the incident. There was contact with the head, put him on report. You must understand going on report does not mean you face the judiciary. It goes off to a separate process. It merely highlights the incident in the match report for discussion. I have seen plenty of players put on report without the other player being injured.

 

[petetheileet]

Great rule and it has its place, needs to be used properly though