Refereeing The Magic Round sin bin directive

[no name]

And, again, if legs tackles were actually rewarded.....old mate doesn't aim high, he goes the legs and knows he can get back to marker.

Not that the NRL will ever go for that.
ThE GamE Would bE ToO SLoW !!

Legs tackles being rewarded will also most likely result in more concussions.

 

[Perth Red]

Well he does need to, because he just got 5 weeks on the sidelines. If he doesn't, well then I wish him all the best in whatever trade he chooses. Since when is the ribs near the chin?

Dopey f**king tweets too like Gould's about how Radley was once the most celebrated in the game, now the NRL are saying 'we don't want you in the new NRL'. Um, no, they're saying don't hit guys in the f**king chin and higher. They're trying to actively avoid cases like Danny Frawley in the AFL, who purposely drove his car at a tree to end his own life because of CTE. It's not to appease soccer mums, it's to not f**k up people's brains.

It’s a high contact sport, over two thirds of hias have nothing to do with high tackles. IF concussion is going to lead to the end of the game then it’s fcked and no amount of clamp downs are going to help.
Or maybe we look at better ways of discouraging high tackles that don’t ruin the product on game day and accept that concussions are part of the game and if you play it you are aware of the risk and make an informed choice of to play or not?

 

[souths_reborn]

Interestingly the roosters V Broncos game was the 2nd highest rating game in Fox's history. Not bad considering everyone is supposedly switching off because of the crack down.

The rule changes to speed up the game were brought in after CH 9 wanted the game more exciting, declining ratings because games were being played at a snails pace had people turning off. Now the game is fast and open but games are becoming blow outs and that has people turning off. The NRL cant go back to having a slow game to make the scores closer, I think everyone agrees the game is far better now, so we need to hope the bottom teams get more competitive.

The NRL rates best when the teams with a big supporter base are on top of the ladder. A few years back when we beat the AFL in total season ratings it was when Brisbane, Nth QLD, South's and few others were doing well.

A bit off topic, but I guess I'm trying to point out the crack down doesn't seem to have people turning off, despite what dinosaur Gus Gould says.

No, what it is doing though is encouraging people to watch the game for the wrong reasons. Instead of watching to see a game being played, people are tuning in to see people get sent off, sin binned etc. Sooner or later the novelty will wear off.

With regard to the speed of the game and the notion fast game is a good game, that is an absolutely myth. We keep hearing this garbage every year but why? The game is fast enough as it is; there is obviously a limit as to how fast the game can be played. In any case, it is not as is we are watching test match cricket. I get rugby league is meant to appeal to lower classes and there are many bogans out there who have the attention span of a gold fish but if you get easily distracted watching an 80 minute game of footy then I think it is pretty obvious you have some sort of attention deficit disorder.

My personal opinion is that free-flowing games are more appealing. If you look at rugby league in the 70s and 80s, the skill level is not as good as it is today but the game as spectacle was very appealing because is flowed. This obviously came from the fact that the game was easier to referee back then. The advent of full-time professionalism has brought with it a whole heap of rule changes as coaches have sought to exploit the rules in order to gain a competitive edge. The best example of this is the way controlling the ruck has evolved over the years.

 

[souths_reborn]

It’s a high contact sport, over two thirds of hias have nothing to do with high tackles. IF concussion is going to lead to the end of the game then it’s fcked and no amount of clamp downs are going to help.
Or maybe we look at better ways of discouraging high tackles that don’t ruin the product on game day and accept that concussions are part of the game and if you play it you are aware of the risk and make an informed choice of to play or not?

You know what. I'm starting to think this whole reason for the sin bin/send off initiative is a cop out. In the space of a week, I've heard about 5-6 different explanations behind his sudden implementation of this new edict. First it started off as potential law suits being taken out against the NRL, then it became about him wanting to protect the players, then I heard it was because it was deterring parents from letting their kids plays the sport, now this week comes all this nonsense about government intervention and the potential banning of the sport! Please! Do me a favour! All this smacks of a guy not understanding the game, implementing something prematurely and refusing to admit he made a mistake. Ultimately, what is needed is the removal of Peter V'landys from his position as soon as possible. The man is a blight on the game!

 

[aqua_duck]

Legs tackles being rewarded will also most likely result in more concussions.

The people in charge of the game don't have a clue in terms of how their knee jerk rule changes impact the game. I mean the 3 most powerful men in the game are Vlandys, Abdo and Annesley, the 3 have 0 career 1st grade games between them, Abdo and Annesley have literally never played a single game before in their lives, Vlandys apparently played abit of school footy 45 years ago. It's all well and good to suggest players try tackle round the legs but if those 3 stooges tried to tackle guys like JT, Kikau, Fifita, NAS, TPJ around the legs/waist/hip they'd get flattened and in hospital. All this talk about concussions and they ignore the fact that statistically more players have been concussed in recent year from attempting a tackle than being tackled, in fact the common cause of concussion is when players drop their head for a low tackle and end up collecting a hit, stray elbow, knee, etc.
Timana Tahu who is doing some concussion research with the university of Newcastle at present spoke about his worst ever concussion which he suffered after making a 'textbook' low tackle.
Going back to the Radley tackle, Radley's original target zone would've been the ball and ball carrying arm which is vital close to the line against the best offloader in the comp, TPJ then switched the ball to the left arm and leads with his right elbow/shoulder, it's all well and good to say well Radley should aim 3 inches lower but they ignore how fast everything is happening, the players are under fatigue and if Radley aims 3 inches lower he's more the likely getting medicabbed off after eating TPJ's elbow/forearm. To me that's a penalty, 10 in the bin if they must but 4 weeks for that?

 

[Penrose Warrior]

And if they were serious about player welfare any player who fails an hia should be out for 2 weeks.

It's a medical fact that the brain needs time to heal and continual playing can cause further damage.

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/concussion/delayed-concussion-symptoms

Absolutely. These guys need to be saved from themselves to a point because there are f**king huge men causing collisions that are proven to be as impactful as car crashes. Cars have air bags. Ball carriers do not.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

It’s a high contact sport, over two thirds of hias have nothing to do with high tackles. IF concussion is going to lead to the end of the game then it’s fcked and no amount of clamp downs are going to help.
Or maybe we look at better ways of discouraging high tackles that don’t ruin the product on game day and accept that concussions are part of the game and if you play it you are aware of the risk and make an informed choice of to play or not?

So 1/3rd do have to do with high tackles? Seems like a significant enough percentage to me.

Concussions are part of the game. If someone makes accidental head contact with a teammate, they may get concussed. So be it. If they hit a hip with poor technique, same thing. Being collected high by a 110kg prop when they're running at 25km/ph? No, that does not need to be accepted.

Incidentally, what's a better way of discouraging high tackles than suspending players who do it?

 

[Danish]

Mums control the TV remotes and decide if the kids play footy.
There's no way in hell my wife is letting the kids play or watch league while we continue to see players laying unconscious on the ground.

what a f**king pussy you must be

 

[Danish]

Well he does need to, because he just got 5 weeks on the sidelines. If he doesn't, well then I wish him all the best in whatever trade he chooses. Since when is the ribs near the chin?

Dopey f**king tweets too like Gould's about how Radley was once the most celebrated in the game, now the NRL are saying 'we don't want you in the new NRL'. Um, no, they're saying don't hit guys in the f**king chin and higher. They're trying to actively avoid cases like Danny Frawley in the AFL, who purposely drove his car at a tree to end his own life because of CTE. It's not to appease soccer mums, it's to not f**k up people's brains.

Are rates of suicide higher in league players than other populations?

Are rates of dementia and other similar diseases higher in league players than other populations?

Are rates of depression and mental illness higher in league populations than other populations?

these are all easily gathered statistics that I assume the NRL and other purse clutchers like you must have researched to be making such hysterical claims?

 

[mave]

There are long term health issues associated with most professions, especially physically demanding professions.

And any self employed tradie, or anyone self employed for that matter, could give a day long lecture on the effect of work on mental health, stress, pressure, family relations, etc, etc.

These blokes choose to making their big $ playing footy, fully aware of the risks involved.

 

[Valheru]

Well he does need to, because he just got 5 weeks on the sidelines. If he doesn't, well then I wish him all the best in whatever trade he chooses. Since when is the ribs near the chin?

Dopey f**king tweets too like Gould's about how Radley was once the most celebrated in the game, now the NRL are saying 'we don't want you in the new NRL'. Um, no, they're saying don't hit guys in the f**king chin and higher. They're trying to actively avoid cases like Danny Frawley in the AFL, who purposely drove his car at a tree to end his own life because of CTE. It's not to appease soccer mums, it's to not f**k up people's brains.

No, they are trying to actively avoid litigation against them for such a case. They don't give a shit if a defender gets concussed by a ball runners elbow/hip/shoulder or if players get concussed in head clashes etc. They only care about not being able to be blamed for the end result.

 

[Quicksilver]

Are rates of suicide higher in league players than other populations?

Are rates of dementia and other similar diseases higher in league players than other populations?

Are rates of depression and mental illness higher in league populations than other populations?

these are all easily gathered statistics that I assume the NRL and other purse clutchers like you must have researched to be making such hysterical claims?

I don’t know the answer to that, but causation/ correlation would have to be considered too.

This sport attracts a certain type of person.

 

[Danish]

I don’t know the answer to that, but causation/ correlation would have to be considered too.

This sport attracts a certain type of person.

Yep you would have to account for drinking/drug taking habits amongst other things when comparing the 2 populations.

Professional sportsmen are most compared IMO to blue collar tradies. You could even argue they are similar to FIFO workers like miners given the time away from home etc that they regularly spend as well as the odd work hours they keep.

mid love to see some actual data analytics on the situation. The league has been around for over a century so there should be a huge data set to work with

 

[seanoff]

CTE is a problem for heavy contact sports. As. Far as i can see only 2 have been confirmed from league. But lets face it there are others. Peter Jackson anyone, a number of blokes with very early onset dementia. More than we know of probably.

The real problems maybe below the NRL level on the way up. There arent the resources to check HIAs. Not every junior team can have a doctor at every game (or any game for that matter).

Tackling low is a different beast now. Blokes up until the 80s didnt have legs like tree trunks and the sustained and burst power of the current players. Going low on blokes now is a very dangerous, even if you get it right. If you get it slightly wrong, gone. You will be concussed, nothing surer.

I have no idea how they solve it. Force blokes to go low. Concussions will go up, nothing surer. But even accidental contact high now is weeks. So what do you do as a player or coach.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

With the whole litigation fears thingy and the NFL often being tossed up as an example. Wasn’t the issue there that the NFL hid or sat on the findings of a concussion report and that clubs were lax in their duty of care by rushing concussed players back? Have I got that right? If this is what’s scaring PVL then surely proper recovery procedures will protect the game, otherwise what’s he do about low tackling defenders getting concussed? Can’t see why they can’t sue if they have a legit tackle history of concussion. The NRL would be just as liable, wouldn’t they?

I don’t mind the new edict but mitigating circumstances such as falling ball runners or anything accidental should be considered.

Also, I’m not sure about the mum fear either. Their kids are already playing soccer but by the time they turn 12/13, they decide what they’re gonna play. Mums have less influence on their sons by about that age. By all means go all nazi on high tackles at junior level, though.

 

[Perth Red]

So 1/3rd do have to do with high tackles? Seems like a significant enough percentage to me.

Concussions are part of the game. If someone makes accidental head contact with a teammate, they may get concussed. So be it. If they hit a hip with poor technique, same thing. Being collected high by a 110kg prop when they're running at 25km/ph? No, that does not need to be accepted.

Incidentally, what's a better way of discouraging high tackles than suspending players who do it?

not necessarily, the stats just say one third are people tackled with the ball, not how many of those are due to high tackles.

Higher suspensions and fines, not sinbins and red cards should have been first port of call to change behaviour without ruining the product on game day

 

[Danish]

With the whole litigation fears thingy and the NFL often being tossed up as an example. Wasn’t the issue there that the NFL hid or sat on the findings of a concussion report and that clubs were lax in their duty of care by rushing concussed players back? Have I got that right? If this is what’s scaring PVL then surely proper recovery procedures will protect the game, otherwise what’s he do about low tackling defenders getting concussed? Can’t see why they can’t sue if they have a legit tackle history of concussion. The NRL would be just as liable, wouldn’t they?

I don’t mind the new edict but mitigating circumstances such as falling ball runners or anything accidental should be considered.

Also, I’m not sure about the mum fear either. Their kids are already playing soccer but by the time they turn 12/13, they decide what they’re gonna play. Mums have less influence on their sons by about that age. By all means go all nazi on high tackles at junior level, though.

the mums angle is bullshit.

league is a game that only the very few are even physically capable of playing. Those that are lucky enough to be built for it will be drawn to it. We aren’t robbing the NRL of a future star when the overprotective mum pulls little Johnny with the gluten intolerance out of the sport.

we already have the stupid game that Mums love. It’s called soccer. Played by millions in this country but gets outrated by our schoolboy competition.

 

[Valheru]

With the whole litigation fears thingy and the NFL often being tossed up as an example. Wasn’t the issue there that the NFL hid or sat on the findings of a concussion report and that clubs were lax in their duty of care by rushing concussed players back? Have I got that right? If this is what’s scaring PVL then surely proper recovery procedures will protect the game, otherwise what’s he do about low tackling defenders getting concussed? Can’t see why they can’t sue if they have a legit tackle history of concussion. The NRL would be just as liable, wouldn’t they?

I don’t mind the new edict but mitigating circumstances such as falling ball runners or anything accidental should be considered.

Also, I’m not sure about the mum fear either. Their kids are already playing soccer but by the time they turn 12/13, they decide what they’re gonna play. Mums have less influence on their sons by about that age. By all means go all nazi on high tackles at junior level, though.

Well said

The mum thing is rubbish. If anyone has ever watched a bunch of 6-10 year olds play you would realise the only danger of a concussion is the kids swarming for oranges at half time

 

[franklin2323]

CTE is a problem for heavy contact sports. As. Far as i can see only 2 have been confirmed from league. But lets face it there are others. Peter Jackson anyone, a number of blokes with very early onset dementia. More than we know of probably.

The real problems maybe below the NRL level on the way up. There arent the resources to check HIAs. Not every junior team can have a doctor at every game (or any game for that matter).

Tackling low is a different beast now. Blokes up until the 80s didnt have legs like tree trunks and the sustained and burst power of the current players. Going low on blokes now is a very dangerous, even if you get it right. If you get it slightly wrong, gone. You will be concussed, nothing surer.

I have no idea how they solve it. Force blokes to go low. Concussions will go up, nothing surer. But even accidental contact high now is weeks. So what do you do as a player or coach.

The issue with Radley seems to be he jumped. You jump and hit the head you go.

Early on especially TPJ was owning Walker. He was going flying trying to tackle him. So Radley helped him out.

1 on 1 will a guy twice your size. Only chance is to stop the offload when you are shorter you need to jump.

Most of Jake Friends KO's were falling after trying such tackles. So is it a poor technique to blame?

On the flip side as an you can basically do anything you want. Can run as hard as you want, can palm, shoulder charge, step... meanwhile expect defenders to aim for a tiny section of the body.

Unless it is changed this 20 players charged a week will continue

 

[siv]

Absolutely. These guys need to be saved from themselves to a point because there are f**king huge men causing collisions that are proven to be as impactful as car crashes. Cars have air bags. Ball carriers do not.

So slow down the speed of the collision

Going back to 5m rule will have the desired effect