HIA Rule

[nick87]

Looks like the Canberra fans missed the tackle the head knock to Boyle occurred in.

It was a few minutes before he made the high tackle.

So why isnt the game stopped then? Why is it only when that player makes a high tackle, we tap and race off down the field and have Manly in all kinds of trouble is the trainer sprinting to get the game stopped?

Please. Again lets move past this incident because it's clear what went on here, nothing can be done about that. The problem is the rules allow this, and the question is should it allow for this?

 

[Dogs Of War]

From last year
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...s/news-story/3f1c3bd5e9ccd40d346b1d8a9c37a4ca

Is the Head Injury Assessment rule being exploited?

I make no apology for raising this issue and if it upsets a few people, well so be it. I watch this sport for a living and am paid to call what I see.

I am seeking an explanation from Parramatta on the issue of backrower Tepai Moeroa being replaced in the 33rd minute of Friday night’s game against Canterbury, with the Eels taking him off the field for a HIA.

I first want Moeroa’s welfare addressed. The young forward has now played eight games this year and been left the field for a HIA on five occasions.

On the face of it, that can’t be good.

But I would hate to think that his concussion history is now an opening for any possible abuse of interchange rules from a club that like it or not, has come in for scrutiny by the NRL previously.

Back in 2016 it was noted that 46 players from the Eels had undergone HIAs during the season, more than any other club; 45 of those were forwards.

At Friday night’s game, we were informed on Fox League that Moeroa passed his test during the halftime break, but when we enquired what specific incident had led to there being concern he was suffering another possible concussion, the response was, “no idea”.

If I’ve missed something, I will welcome Parramatta’s response this week and we will gladly show the video evidence on this web page.

However, for the record here’s the preceding plays involving Moeroa that led to him being sent off for a HIA. At no stage did a trainer attend to him until the 33rd minute.

26th min: Short hit up. Gets straight to his feet.

27th min: Poor miss in defence near halfway beaten by stepping of Matt Frawley.

28th min: Makes tackle and sprint backs to line.

30th min: Makes consecutive tackles. On both occasions, gets back to feet and rushes back into line.

31st min: Another tackle. Straight back to feet.

31st min: Short dummy half run from own goaline. Gets straight to his feet to play the ball.

32nd min: Charges down a Morris kick. I admit in commentary I thought it might have struck him in the head so quickly did play unfold. Having reviewed countless replays, Moeroa blocks kick with his arms, without flinching, and continues in play. Ball goes nowhere hear contacting his head.

33rd min: Trainer comes onto field providing drink bottle to Moeroa and within seconds turns to bench and taps his head signalling player must come off for a HIA. Free interchange.

Moeroa returns at halftime break to play entire second half and 73 minutes for game.

I think both media and fans are within their right to ask a question of the Eels over this incident in the context of reviewing the match.

As reporters we are not doing our job if we don’t cover injuries sustained by players. And we shouldn’t be hesitant in doing so in ‘fear’ of questioning medical integrity.

I don’t doubt individuals in that regard but this is rugby league, where it’s all about winning and losing.

Everything that happens in the 80 minutes is open for discussion. And because of this, the integrity of the sport should be all of our priority.

What is wrong with just a little transparency on this very important issue? Explain where the head knock occurred and the process that followed and we’ll all move on.

However the fact is there will be some fans reading this who already have the perception that all clubs exploit the rule from time to time.

It has been introduced to our sport in the best interests of the welfare of the players. But its existence is also important to the integrity of the game.

And I can find numerous other examples of this rule being flouted.

There needs to be a review at the end of season with guidelines when play should be stopped. And a modification of interchanges rules that at the very least if the HIA is passed, then to get back onto the field it requires an interchange that is counted.

 

[Frailty]

If a player needs to be removed for a HIA, they should not return to the game. It's as simple as that.

As Moylan showed the other week, even if they pass the HIA, there is a significant risk of delayed concussion symptoms. I cringe thinking about the additional damage his brain received in that game against Souths.

To cater for this, the 18th man should be available as a replacement.

In order to prevent injured players staying on the field, or the teams abusing the rule, determinations should be made by an independent body.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

And a modification of interchanges rules that at the very least if the HIA is passed, then to get back onto the field it requires an interchange that is counted.

This

 

[Frailty]

There needs to be a review at the end of season with guidelines when play should be stopped. And a modification of interchanges rules that at the very least if the HIA is passed, then to get back onto the field it requires an interchange that is counted.

What if the decision to remove a player from the field is from the independent NRL rep after review? Should the club still then have an interchange assessed if the player passes? If not, then we would be punishing teams that actually have concerns about a players welfare and remove them from the field earlier get punished.

If so, then you are effectively giving the NRL influence in the game by directly impacting in the play.

 

[T-Boon]

Is it naive that teams could actually just stop cheating and f**king the game up.. or are we past that

Give coaches something to do through the week.
They do virtually nothing so they fill in their time thinking this stuff up (I cringe when I hear coaches talk about their work ethic staying up to 3am in the morning - what are they plotting?).
Each coach should have to do 5 hours a day worth of community service. Promoting the game/club.

 

[nick87]

Is it naive that teams could actually just stop cheating and f**king the game up.. or are we past that

It is. It shouldnt be but it is.
Coaches coach, they will do whatever it takes to win the game. As they should imo.

I dont blame Manly or Hasler, or the trainer or even Boyle for this. It's a rule, they're exploiting it. No drama

But the rule absolutely needs to be looked at and revised.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

But the rule absolutely needs to be looked at and revised.

What would be nice too, is if they'd actually consider how a rule might be exploited before implementing it. Wishful thinking considering the muppets running the show at the moment.

 

[Dogs Of War]

What if the decision to remove a player from the field is from the independent NRL rep after review? Should the club still then have an interchange assessed if the player passes? If not, then we would be punishing teams that actually have concerns about a players welfare and remove them from the field earlier get punished.

If so, then you are effectively giving the NRL influence in the game by directly impacting in the play.

The fact is that someone has had to assess that from initial views, that a HIA assessment is required. The NRL would be placing themselves in a much more awkward legal position if they didn't earn on the side of caution.

And given teams have been abusing this since it's introduction in 2014-15. These little grey areas needs to be reviewed. Teams will still try and abuse it with getting someone off for a HIA just to get that one free interchange. So there is still value in that area. Just means that it potentially won't be abused as much.

I do think that the game doesn't need to be stopped if a player is out of the ball playing area. Unless a stretcher/cart is required to get them off the field. In which case it should happen at the earliest convenience (ie stop in play etc).

 

[Frailty]

The fact is that someone has had to assess that from initial views, that a HIA assessment is required. The NRL would be placing themselves in a much more awkward legal position if they didn't earn on the side of caution.

And given teams have been abusing this since it's introduction in 2014-15. These little grey areas needs to be reviewed. Teams will still try and abuse it with getting someone off for a HIA just to get that one free interchange. So there is still value in that area. Just means that it potentially won't be abused as much.

I do think that the game doesn't need to be stopped if a player is out of the ball playing area. Unless a stretcher/cart is required to get them off the field. In which case it should happen at the earliest convenience (ie stop in play etc).

I absolutely agree that it needs to be reviewed, but I'm just pointing out potential issues that would be faced with the changes. The whole point of the free, short term interchange is to encourage teams to take head injuries seriously, as in the past they were resistant to removing a player from the field if it cost them an interchange. If the interchange is brought back in if a player has passed the HIA, teams will be reluctant to remove a player unless they are out cold. The NRL are then placed in a precarious position when they will be effectively changing how a team uses their interchanges when they become involved - that's the issue.

As for the game stoppage, I think we'd all agree that play should only stop when an injured player is at risk of further damage because of nearby play. However, we need to acknowledge that this changed because of outrage from referees not stopping the game when the Cowboys suffered injuries that were behind the play.

This definitely needs to be teased out, as you don't want to effect play, but you don't want to leave a clearly injured player unattended (by a doctor - not a trainer) to because of 'momentum'.

 

[Dogs Of War]

The clubs get fined if they don't pull a player. So they can't have it both ways.

 

[Frailty]

The clubs get fined if they don't pull a player. So they can't have it both ways.

They currently don't. If after assessed on field, an independent rep reviews footage and will instruct the team to remove the player. This is what happened with Matt Moylan against Souths. Somehow, the training staff believed he was ok to continue and it was the independent who instructed for him to be removed from the field.

On top of that - he passed the HIA, only to then have delayed concussion symptoms.

 

[Spot On]

So why isnt the game stopped then? Why is it only when that player makes a high tackle, we tap and race off down the field and have Manly in all kinds of trouble is the trainer sprinting to get the game stopped?

Please. Again lets move past this incident because it's clear what went on here, nothing can be done about that. The problem is the rules allow this, and the question is should it allow for this?

Watch the tackle Boyle went into a little before the one he made around the head. It's not long before it but you can see him come out of it and stumble as if he was about to fall from a knock to the head. It was a quick play the ball too so the play had moved on and the commentary missed it as well. I noticed it and thought he may be taken off for a HIA - it took a little longer to happen though.

I think most people missed it tbh.

Have a look at it if you taped the game.

 

[nick87]

Watch the tackle Boyle went into a little before the one he made around the head. It's not long before it but you can see him come out of it and stumble as if he was about to fall from a knock to the head. It was a quick play the ball too so the play had moved on and the commentary missed it as well. I noticed it and thought he may be taken off for a HIA - it took a little longer to happen though.

I think most people missed it tbh.

Have a look at it if you taped the game.

Ok.
So why did he not get taken off when he stumbled? Why was he allowed to continue to play, and only when a big break was made did the trainer have the game stopped?

You’re not honestly trying to tell me it was just a coincidence are you?

 

[nick87]

I absolutely agree that it needs to be reviewed, but I'm just pointing out potential issues that would be faced with the changes. The whole point of the free, short term interchange is to encourage teams to take head injuries seriously, as in the past they were resistant to removing a player from the field if it cost them an interchange. If the interchange is brought back in if a player has passed the HIA, teams will be reluctant to remove a player unless they are out cold. The NRL are then placed in a precarious position when they will be effectively changing how a team uses their interchanges when they become involved - that's the issue.

As for the game stoppage, I think we'd all agree that play should only stop when an injured player is at risk of further damage because of nearby play. However, we need to acknowledge that this changed because of outrage from referees not stopping the game when the Cowboys suffered injuries that were behind the play.

This definitely needs to be teased out, as you don't want to effect play, but you don't want to leave a clearly injured player unattended (by a doctor - not a trainer) to because of 'momentum'.

Yeah it’s a good post
That what makes this so hard and maybe the answer is this is what it is and we just have to deal with it as part of the game now, and that’s the price you pay for player welfare

I think they need to move back towards what it used to be
If the medicab is required, by all means stop the game, but if the player needs an escort off the field and he’s 30 metres out of play, the game shouldn’t stop until there is a natural stoppage (scrum, error, penalty etc), the play moves back into position where the injured player is in the area of play or the injured players team has possession.

 

[gerg]

I'd love to see some in depth stats on how many HIAs by team, how many pass the HIA, and at what point they are occurring in the game. Surely a professional sporting organisation would use some cold hard facts and come up with a strategy to stamp out blatant misuse of the system.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ok.
So why did he not get taken off when he stumbled? Why was he allowed to continue to play, and only when a big break was made did the trainer have the game stopped?

You’re not honestly trying to tell me it was just a coincidence are you?

Defending teams trainers aren't allowed on unless there's an injury/knock etc. Would have started coming on when they saw the stumble, Raiders advanced pretty quickly up the field. Trainer would have only been able to get to Manly player/refs attention at the penalty.

 

[Front-Rower]

In the words of our former captain, it is what it is. Canberra just need to get better at adapting to it, just the same way their fans talk about the stripping rule.

 

[nick87]

Cool, just a weird coincidence then.
Great. Wonderful, ive got some swamp land to sell you blokes, but lets leave that for another time.

Again this incident is not the first abuse of this system, and it wont be the last. As highlighted above, it's been routinely abused to get free interchanges for tired forwards...

Should a team be able to stop the game because a player of their's needs a HIA when said player is 30 metres off the football? How does that help the player? How does that help the game?

In the words of our former captain, it is what it is. Canberra just need to get better at adapting to it, just the same way their fans talk about the stripping rule.

And maybe that's the way it is, maybe teams using the HIA to stop the game after line breaks is just how the game is going to go. But just as the stripping rule is going to be looked at this off season to determine if that's really where we want this code going, so too should this.

 

[Spot On]

Ok.
So why did he not get taken off when he stumbled? Why was he allowed to continue to play, and only when a big break was made did the trainer have the game stopped?

You’re not honestly trying to tell me it was just a coincidence are you?

I told it as I saw it. Most people watching seemed to miss it judging by this thread as too did the officials at the ground it would seem.

Have a look at it before you question it. It was a small stumble and one he corrected quickly - like he lost a bit of balance then held it together.

Have you watched the vision yet or are you too busy pushing your agenda?