What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Refereeing The Magic Round sin bin directive

Willie Ray

Bench
Messages
2,519
Yep guys like Bunny Reilly, Ray Price, Johnny Raper. Ron Coote, Terry Randell, David Gillespie were players who had great tacking techniques who rarely went high. Tyhey hit you in the hips or lower and brought down the biggest and the smallest regardless.
All those guys you mentioned were so good....Rambo Ronnie Gibbs was another,
head on the correct side,hit with the shoulder and drove with the legs.
Cement Gillespie only made about six tackles a game
'cause everyone did their best to avoid him.
On another note....
Trent Robinson said tonight there will be a tribute from the Roosters
to Bunny and Jake Friend this weekend...
class act that guy.
 

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
Thompson raked his hand across Hodgo's eyes in the lead in, then Hodgo lost it & went for the chicken wing. No love lost there.

Wasn't Thompson saying in the lead up he was keen to get stuck into his fellow countrymen? For most thats harmless chat that might see a big hit attempted. For the Poms it's no holds barred: eye gouges, chicken wings, I bet there was a squirrel grip in there too. MRC just staying outta it lol.
 

souths_reborn

Juniors
Messages
471
You prevent offloads with a driving hips tackle and getting them to the ground quick

You might be astounded to watch how the game used to be played before wrassling
The problem with what you are saying is that there is too much risk associated with that technique. Not only does a tackler risk getting concussed if he gets it wrong but there is also an increased chance of pectoral tears and dislocated shoulders too.

Traditional legs tackles were previously a lot safer because a) the game was played in a semi-professional era when players were not as big and strong and b) the 5m rule meant that the impact of collisions was not as great.

Ultimately, I do agree with the initiative of eradicating head high tackles, I just think sin-bins and send offs are the wrong way to deal with the issue. The best thing the NRL could have done is to have all head contact incidents put on report and increase the length of time for suspensions. This policy has worked before in the 1980s when the game went through a massive clean-up to eradicate incidents of blatant foul play and take psychos like Les Boyd out of the game.

As I've said before V'landys likes to implement ideas without thinking things through thoroughly. Furthermore, he will always justify his actions through this hyperbolic and sentimental rhetoric. For instance, his spiel this afternoon about how there will not be a game in 15 years if we do not deal with the concussion issue is just nonsense. He is just resorting to scare tactics in order to cover up the NRL incompetence in ruining Magic Round.
 
Messages
8,480
the dark arts.

Perhaps in some aspects but no such thing as taking the piss / dark arts in high tackles..

If anything it’s the NRL who’ve dropped the ball on this, now a “crackdown” and comments such as “players have to learn”... It’s then who should be learning... not talking to the players like they are 5-year-olds..

But it’s not just the NRL, the selective media who have no accountability other than to their bosses to “get clicks”... Including the Telegraph...


Where was the “player welfare” discussion when Nathan Brown knocked out Jake Friend with a forearm to the chin in last years state of origin?? Nowhere is the answer... and even worse, commentators praised it...including the mob who pay Paul Kent’s wages. meanwhile the NRL did nothing... and now Jake Friend has been forced into retirement...



images



Where was Vlandys when this happened??

Or any number of the other knockouts were happening last year, or early this year. Probably still had his head up his own arse proud about his most recent comment bagging AFL.

Interesting that Wayne Bennett has come out in favour of Vlandys crackdown... when only 6 months ago he denied Friend had any issues necessitating a HIA at the very least...Im a Bennett fan but this was pretty average..

So perhaps some coaches have indeed taken the piss....

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/i-...cks-doctor-in-hia-stoush-20201117-p56f9o.html
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,480
Yep guys like Bunny Reilly, Ray Price, Johnny Raper. Ron Coote, Terry Randell, David Gillespie were players who had great tacking techniques who rarely went high. Tyhey hit you in the hips or lower and brought down the biggest and the smallest regardless.

Yet Ray Price got knocked out more than most players of his era. Primarily from tackling gone wrong (not being tackled), going in low and reeling out in a daze...

now the poor bastards brain is going to mush...

Same with Brett Horsnell and Turvey Mortimer..

All were on an ABC panel program called Insight last year on the concussion debate. They showed replays of all these guys playing days when they got concussion. Almost all were from them making low tackles... not copping head highs..it was an awful highlight reel.

Even today, the most serious concussions are primarily from a tackler getting his head in the wrong spot. I fear the crackdown will have a knock on effect of more guys going low and getting it wrong.
 

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
Abdo basically reckons ya dunno shit unless you've been to Magic Round.

Annesley is rejoicing "the game is a better game now. It's more family friendly," and "Parents, hopefully, don't have to think too hard about letting their kids play the game.


"Their sons and daughters can play and [parents can] say, OK, we know that the administrators have got our backs to look after our kids, to give them every opportunity to go as far as they can, if they've got talent, to play this game, but do it in a safe way.

Kids aren't playing NRL you f**king idiots.
 
Messages
8,480
Robinson made a lot of sense on nrl360. Maybe vlandys should ring him for advice before he has any more brain farts!

agree, he was the complete voice of reason. Not like Kent the spoilt child or those other goon journos. Interestingly Kent completely shut up when Robbo spoke, effectively disagreeing with his earlier rant.

Geez it’s hard knowing I’m starting to warm to the Roosters. Robbo you’re sticking the knife in n twisting it mate..
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,960
My question is what are we going to do when the fact that tackling alone (i.e. even tackles that don't make contact with the head) is enough to regularly cause minor concussions becomes widely known, and that those minor concussions overtime are enough to cause serious damage to the brain.

What studies we have suggest that overtime those concussions can be just as hard on the brain as a bunch of big concussions, and in a contact sport like RL they are totally unavoidable and are often undetectable in the moment unless a doctor examines the person specifically looking for them.

What are we going to do then, ban tackling and become a touch competition? Because that is the only logical conclusion if we keep following the path we are currently on.

I'm deadly serious when I say that this sport (and every other contact sport) needs to decide what it's going to do about this now-

Either A. accept the risk of CTE as part of participating in the sport and try to mitigate the effects of concussions after they happen.

Or B. try to do everything possible to prevent concussions that in reality are inevitable, and eventually come to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to make a safe sport out of a sport that is inherently unsafe is to fundamentally change it by effectively reforming it into a non-contact sport, thus effectively killing the sport and replacing it with a new one.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think there really is a right or wrong answer in this case, but I will say this; I accepted the risk of life changing injury, or even death, every time I stepped on the field to play a contact sport, so I can't see why I wouldn't have accepted the risk of CTE as well had we truly understood the risk back when I was still playing (in fact I'd argue we've had an understanding of the risk my whole life, but that is an aside).
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,765
With the advent of the 6 again rule which has transformed the game into unlimited tackle football for better teams

Increases in collisions and sin bins etc

I think its time for the to return to the 5m rule in defence.

Like we gave done junior football with great success
 

Chimp

Bench
Messages
2,872
My question is what are we going to do when the fact that tackling alone (i.e. even tackles that don't make contact with the head) is enough to regularly cause minor concussions becomes widely known, and that those minor concussions overtime are enough to cause serious damage to the brain.

What studies we have suggest that overtime those concussions can be just as hard on the brain as a bunch of big concussions, and in a contact sport like RL they are totally unavoidable and are often undetectable in the moment unless a doctor examines the person specifically looking for them.

What are we going to do then, ban tackling and become a touch competition? Because that is the only logical conclusion if we keep following the path we are currently on.

I'm deadly serious when I say that this sport (and every other contact sport) needs to decide what it's going to do about this now-

Either A. accept the risk of CTE as part of participating in the sport and try to mitigate the effects of concussions after they happen.

Or B. try to do everything possible to prevent concussions that in reality are inevitable, and eventually come to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to make a safe sport out of a sport that is inherently unsafe is to fundamentally change it by effectively reforming it into a non-contact sport, thus effectively killing the sport and replacing it with a new one.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think there really is a right or wrong answer in this case, but I will say this; I accepted the risk of life changing injury, or even death, every time I stepped on the field to play a contact sport, so I can't see why I wouldn't have accepted the risk of CTE as well had we truly understood the risk back when I was still playing (in fact I'd argue we've had an understanding of the risk my whole life, but that is an aside).


I’m with ya - people might say I’m a dinosaur, and that my thoughts/ideas are too simplistic, but below is something I put on the Sharks forum on a similar conversation;

‘I’ve always been a bit of a tragic, and watch every minute of every game, however this last couple of years, I find myself watching just a couple of other games and then catching the highlights of the rest. People will think I’m a bit of a dinosaur, but the stuff that used to keep me interested when watching as a neutral were the battles, the prospect of a massive hit or fight at any time, the chance that any game could erupt into a blood thirsty battle with some real spice and angst between the 2 teams. Banning the shoulder charge and punching, whilst understandable, has massively reduced the fun of things in my opinion, and I have absolutely no doubt this is why Origin viewing is down recently - people love the battle, love the atmosphere that real hatred and thesubsequent possibility of violence creates.

There’s too much pandering to the doctors and lawyers, and trying to appeal to Mums of kids who’re never going to take up rugby league.
UFC/MMA is the fastest growing sport on the planet - their audience is getting bigger and bigger - like it or not, there’s a thirst for brutality, yet we’re moving further and further away from it - yet every highlight reel shown on either 9 or fox inevitably has footage of the biggest hits, shoulder charges and biff... when people reminisce about great games of old, they don’t talk about the amazing handling and rarely even talk about the superb tries, they talk about the battles on the pitch, the rivalries and even god forbid the fights.
When people look back on old duals they loved, rarely is it halfback vs halfback in a battle of skill they talk about, it’s the big boys going at it, or it’s Tommy walloping every more skilful half in the game.

Our game has a much better chance of not only surviving, but growing if we embrace the beautiful brutality of our sport. Tighten up our contracts and playing agreements to nullify the doctors and lawyers (player disclaimers etc), let those who are tough enough to play the sport crack on with it, and market the sport as we did with Origin in the 90’s on the rivalries, the hatred, the bad blood - build stories that people buy into and can’t wait to see what happens. Going the way we are, we’re trying to attract an audience that is never going to convert - UFC/MMA has shown the audience is there for combat, let’s embrace it!’

Ultimately, we’re a contact sport, that people CHOOSE to play, and CHOOSE to make a living from. We now know there are very real risks and consequences of playing our sport, but to eliminate that risk fundamentally changes the sport, so instead of doing that, draw a line in the sand, accept there might be some historical claims coming our way, but draft up new playing agreements that the players have to sign with a disclaimer that they understand there are known risks, some potentially lethal, and that there may be risks we do not yet know about that come with playing our game, and by choosing to participate, they accept that risk and cannot hold the sport liable for any consequences down the line. That way, we can just get on with enjoying the game we all fell in love with.
 

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
My question is what are we going to do when the fact that tackling alone (i.e. even tackles that don't make contact with the head) is enough to regularly cause minor concussions becomes widely known, and that those minor concussions overtime are enough to cause serious damage to the brain.

What studies we have suggest that overtime those concussions can be just as hard on the brain as a bunch of big concussions, and in a contact sport like RL they are totally unavoidable and are often undetectable in the moment unless a doctor examines the person specifically looking for them.

What are we going to do then, ban tackling and become a touch competition? Because that is the only logical conclusion if we keep following the path we are currently on.

I'm deadly serious when I say that this sport (and every other contact sport) needs to decide what it's going to do about this now-

Either A. accept the risk of CTE as part of participating in the sport and try to mitigate the effects of concussions after they happen.

Or B. try to do everything possible to prevent concussions that in reality are inevitable, and eventually come to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to make a safe sport out of a sport that is inherently unsafe is to fundamentally change it by effectively reforming it into a non-contact sport, thus effectively killing the sport and replacing it with a new one.

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think there really is a right or wrong answer in this case, but I will say this; I accepted the risk of life changing injury, or even death, every time I stepped on the field to play a contact sport, so I can't see why I wouldn't have accepted the risk of CTE as well had we truly understood the risk back when I was still playing (in fact I'd argue we've had an understanding of the risk my whole life, but that is an aside).

I’m with ya - people might say I’m a dinosaur, and that my thoughts/ideas are too simplistic, but below is something I put on the Sharks forum on a similar conversation;

‘I’ve always been a bit of a tragic, and watch every minute of every game, however this last couple of years, I find myself watching just a couple of other games and then catching the highlights of the rest. People will think I’m a bit of a dinosaur, but the stuff that used to keep me interested when watching as a neutral were the battles, the prospect of a massive hit or fight at any time, the chance that any game could erupt into a blood thirsty battle with some real spice and angst between the 2 teams. Banning the shoulder charge and punching, whilst understandable, has massively reduced the fun of things in my opinion, and I have absolutely no doubt this is why Origin viewing is down recently - people love the battle, love the atmosphere that real hatred and thesubsequent possibility of violence creates.

There’s too much pandering to the doctors and lawyers, and trying to appeal to Mums of kids who’re never going to take up rugby league.
UFC/MMA is the fastest growing sport on the planet - their audience is getting bigger and bigger - like it or not, there’s a thirst for brutality, yet we’re moving further and further away from it - yet every highlight reel shown on either 9 or fox inevitably has footage of the biggest hits, shoulder charges and biff... when people reminisce about great games of old, they don’t talk about the amazing handling and rarely even talk about the superb tries, they talk about the battles on the pitch, the rivalries and even god forbid the fights.
When people look back on old duals they loved, rarely is it halfback vs halfback in a battle of skill they talk about, it’s the big boys going at it, or it’s Tommy walloping every more skilful half in the game.

Our game has a much better chance of not only surviving, but growing if we embrace the beautiful brutality of our sport. Tighten up our contracts and playing agreements to nullify the doctors and lawyers (player disclaimers etc), let those who are tough enough to play the sport crack on with it, and market the sport as we did with Origin in the 90’s on the rivalries, the hatred, the bad blood - build stories that people buy into and can’t wait to see what happens. Going the way we are, we’re trying to attract an audience that is never going to convert - UFC/MMA has shown the audience is there for combat, let’s embrace it!’

Ultimately, we’re a contact sport, that people CHOOSE to play, and CHOOSE to make a living from. We now know there are very real risks and consequences of playing our sport, but to eliminate that risk fundamentally changes the sport, so instead of doing that, draw a line in the sand, accept there might be some historical claims coming our way, but draft up new playing agreements that the players have to sign with a disclaimer that they understand there are known risks, some potentially lethal, and that there may be risks we do not yet know about that come with playing our game, and by choosing to participate, they accept that risk and cannot hold the sport liable for any consequences down the line. That way, we can just get on with enjoying the game we all fell in love with.

I guess neither of you blokes have been to a game at Magic Round.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,765
Watching the Papenhousen incident

It was a high tackle and only warranted a sin bin

The reason Papenhousen stayed down was because he has had 2 or 3 prior concussions this season, not the force of tackle

It looked more like he wasnt medically ready to play on the weekend
 

Chimp

Bench
Messages
2,872
Watching the Papenhousen incident

It was a high tackle and only warranted a sin bin

The reason Papenhousen stayed down was because he has had 2 or 3 prior concussions this season, not the force of tackle

It looked more like he wasnt medically ready to play on the weekend

Swinging arm straight to the chops, had to be a send off...

I’ve no problem with the reckless, forceful contact to head being a red, but what we shouldn’t be doing is making all sorts of other changes to the game (shoulder charge) or binning players for incidental or accidental contact with the head to avoid concussion claims.
 

Latest posts

Top