Solving the Diving issue

[Leber]

Its easy to solve. I commented in the other thread.

Refs should only be allowed a few seconds in which to decide a tackle is a penalty or not. If they dont blow the whistle, no penalty.

If a player rolls around on the floor putting on an oscar winning performance for a tiny touch, it will be play on.

If a player is knocked out and upon review it seems as though it is the most blatant high tackle in the world and the player is unconscious, too bad. Ref didnt blow penalty, so play on. Maybe put the player on report and sack the ref next week, but no penalty should be allowed.

This will do two things...
1) When its a 50/50 chance of being a penalty, it will stop merkins lying down faking injury as they know there is no injury
2) It will make the refs more accountable to high tackles they miss.

Simple.

 

[Leber]

You find it completely acceptable that you don't even get a penalty in that game for an illegal hit that knocked out your best player?

Not a Raiders fan but I'll comment. Nope. I'd feel shit and pissed off at the ref for missing it when it is their job to pick up infringements like that under pressure.

I would take at least 'some' joy in the face that Blair would be suspended by the mrc for a while and would hopefully think twice about tackling high in the future.

Refs miss it as they aren't sure where contact was made.

It's their job to know. There are four of them on the field. If it was a close call, I could cop it. But if it was an obvious penalty then that ref was not doing their job and should be dropped next week as punishment.

 

[_Johnsy]

Simpler still, just do what had been done in the past, someone else plays the ball 5 metres away from the injured player and let the trainer deal with them.

No need to stop play and again, if it's a dive, the player staying down is reducing his side to 12 men by choosing to stay down as play continues.

Having a stoppage just allows bunker etc to have a look and try and find a penalty

100% correct mate, if something is missed the MRC will pick it up & action will be taken (if the refs miss it). Easy solution.

 

[Hutty1986]

how typically Australian ...
hang out the bloke to dry who highlighted an illegal act as opposed to the cat who perpetrated the illegality.

Typically deadshit bogan behaviour rather than typically Australian behaviour. Logic has had very little say in some of this post-match 'diving' bleating.

 

[THE CHAMP]

You forgot the McCullough lie down.

Yes I forgot about that one.
Where he left the field and took no further part in,the game.
What a pussy.

 

[_Johnsy]

You forgot about the mcrone and nightingale lie downs.

Thaiday & Lockyer's efforts ? Worthy of a Oscar.

Every single team is guilty of it.

 

[THE CHAMP]

Thaiday & Lockyer's efforts ? Worthy of a Oscar.

Every single team is guilty of it.

Lockyer?????
There goes the credibility you never had.
I've never seen it as bad as the dragons last round.
They were pathetic.
Nightingale has been a superb player but what he did was f**ked

 

[Pete Cash]

Honestly, so be it.

There was a time when there wasn't a video ref. High tackles weren't anymore prevalent.

*edit* Otherside of that scenario. Blair decides he?ll intentionally hit high and gets binned, costs Brisbane the game or gets suspended for the Grand Final. As if anyone is going to say ?no video ref? time to claim me some heads!?

To add

Im also a raiders supporter and i would be pissed off but whats the difference between that and say a massive forward pass that leads to a try.

Its the randomness of the reviews that bother me. More than diving. The nrl needs to be clear on what is allowed

 

[_Johnsy]

Lockyer?????
There goes the credibility you never had.
I've never seen it as bad as the dragons last round.
They were pathetic.
Nightingale has been a superb player but what he did was f**ked

Sep 2009 V GC Titans.

Selective memory :sarcasm:

 

[Nightward]

On the one hand, the NRL does have a serious issue with allowing things to slide and then having a massive over-reaction when things inevitably go wrong rather than taking appropriate action at the time. Consider shoulder charges, which were hitting the head or were otherwise reckless, but never penalised. Rather, they finally banned the shoulder charge entirely, but are very selective about enforcing that rule so the same thing is happening again. Or fighting, where the referees wouldn't penalise or sin-bin anyone until the zero-tolerance policy came in and now we have other forms of niggling. Or spear/dangerous tackles, which were constantly ignored as long as no injury occurred and then it was panic stations because the law of averages finally caught up.

If the referees were doing their jobs properly instead of being afraid of getting crucified in post-game interviews and by the media more generally, players wouldn't have an incentive to dive. The blatantly illegal tackles and other infringements that should be getting picked up would be getting the appropriate remediation.

On the other hand, diving does look bad.

While I would vastly prefer that the referees just did their jobs properly, that doesn't seem to be a practical solution. If anything does have to be done about diving, I would suggest that any tackle from which a player cannot rise and play the ball in a timely fashion result in the incident automatically be referred to the MRC and have them removed for a head injury assessment test (or other test/treatment, in the case of a chicken wing or hitting from the legs) in addition to the way the incident is usually reviewed to determine if a penalty should be awarded.

Players would be a lot more reluctant to act injured if it could result in them being carted off for the rest of the match, but at the same time you get a greater likelihood of punishing illegal plays.

Well, as long as the MRC does its job. Which is a whole other can of worms.

 

[Danish]

I don't see what is so hard about the very obvious solution of having a player who is seemingly unable to get to his feet due to a claimed head/neck injury going off for a mandatory concussion test. If he is actually stung from head contact, then it is in his interest to be checked out. If he is not, well tough shit for lying down.

Someone who literally cannot ft to their feet for after several seconds is considered knocked out in any combat sport, no reason we can't apply the same thinking to NRL.

Hell if they want to add some theatre to it there could even be a shot clock of sorts applied. If a player is down, the ref blows time off. This is the start of, say, a 10 count. If the player is back on his feet ready to play it within 10 seconds, time is back on and we keep going. If he can't regain that position in time, he's off. This will also give the ref a little time to check in with the pocket ref and touchies to see if any of them saw anything illegal to cause the injury. If they did, he can then award a penalty immediately but the shot clock continues to run to determine if the player needs to go off.

 

[Notam]

Ok let's take the thinking to the next logical step. When getting the concussion test after staying down, do you get a free interchange? If so, how do you stop abuse? If not, how do you stop abuse?

By the way, why would you get the pocket ref to check and not just use the video evidence. There will be many more wrong decisions if we are relying on what a ref saw in real time 10 seconds ago.

 

[Lambretta]

How to solve the diving issue: don't hit players in the head.

Oh shut up with the stupid slogan chanting. What a moronic thing to say

For 100 years there has been incidental contact with necks and heads in the act of tackling. Unless smashed flush in the mush, most players have ignored cheek brushes as a quick play the ball was seen as giving the biggest advantage to the team with the ball.

This meant they got up as quickly as they could and played on

Now, they understand that a quick play the ball might not be the biggest advantage to their team. They have to balance that with the chance of gaining a penalty so if there is any contact they lie down and wait for the bunker to review the contact.

YES there is almost ALWAYS contact. But there always has been a certain level of incidental high contact in Rugby League. It's unavoidable.

Saying "don't hit them high then" is almost as stupid as trying to solve gun crimes by saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

If you're not going to add anything sensible to the conversation please try not saying anything at all.

The original post that started this thread is spot on. If you're that concussed you have to lie down after being hit high and wait for the play to be reviewed, then off you go for the rest of the game and the week after. No concussion test - no second chance.

Also, ban the video referees from adjudicating on anything other than tries being scored.
Sure refer footage to the match review committee but that is all. They need to leave the on field decisions to the on field referees.

 

[Lambretta]

Ok let's take the thinking to the next logical step. When getting the concussion test after staying down, do you get a free interchange? If so, how do you stop abuse? If not, how do you stop abuse?

The only way to stop it is to ensure that any player injured enough to require a concussion test can't come back on for the rest of the game

This means you'll stop teams from doing this during the first half

It will be hard to prevent them from doing it in the second half. Possibly allow 1 single second half concussion interchange. Any others count towards your eight interchanges.

 

[Danish]

Ok let's take the thinking to the next logical step. When getting the concussion test after staying down, do you get a free interchange? If so, how do you stop abuse? If not, how do you stop abuse?

By the way, why would you get the pocket ref to check and not just use the video evidence. There will be many more wrong decisions if we are relying on what a ref saw in real time 10 seconds ago.

The same way it works now. If you pass the test, then you lose an interchange. If you don't, it's free but you are out of the game.

Of course hat assumes an illegal tackle was involved. If no illegal contact was found, then you are docked regardless

 

[Vic Mackey]

Has anybody thought of just kicking the dragons out of the comp?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

how typically Australian ...
hang out the bloke to dry who highlighted an illegal act as opposed to the cat who perpetrated the illegality.

I'd much rather that than reward a bloke pretending to be hurt when he's not.

 

[RufusRex]

Has anybody thought of just kicking the dragons out of the comp?

I like your idea .. but why stop there

Kick out the sharks and there will be no more drugs in sport
Kick out the eels and there will be no more salary cap cheating
Kick out the rabbits and women across the nation can be safe

 

[adamkungl]

Video ref should not be allowed to intervene in general play. Simple.

 

[taxidriver]

Video ref should not be allowed to intervene in general play. Simple.

I'm not convinced

dog shots that are missed shouldn't go unpunished

Being cited by the MRC does nothing for the side that had the act performed against them.

Imagine Lamb's dog shot on Hanley (88 Grand Final) happening this year and also being missed on the field.

with the technology available, there would be an absolute outcry if it was allowed to happen.