Trainers on the field

[skeepe]

Yeah that's been in the rulebook for however long eg if the ball hits the ref, its a scrum with loose head and feed to the ATTACKING team ie the one attacking in that half of the field.

Trainers apparenlty aren't mentioned.

Section 16 rule 8.1(f) does deal with it sort of.

when any irregularity, not provided for in these Laws, occurs and one team unjustifiably gains an
advantage

Under these circumstances a referee can rule a mutual infringement and award a scrum to the attacking (territorially) team.

That said, the notes also make the following clear:

Referee shall re-start play with a scrum with the attacking team (i.e. with territorial advantage) to receive the loose head and feed. The Referee is the sole judge of what constitutes a mutual infringement, and whether or not play has been irregularly affected. Contact between a defender and Referee may not constitute a mutual infringement.

Given that the ball ended up with Soliola, it would have been quite open to the referee to call play on I believe.

One of those grey areas, but I believe that not only did the Roosters unjustifiably gain an advantage from the presence of their trainer, but the way the referees chose to enforce this rule amplified this advantage rather than negated it as per the rule’s intention.

 

[bileduct]

So here's an interesting article concerning the role of trainers on the field. It's about 8 years old, so I'm not sure how much has changed since then, but there are restrictions on what trainers can do based on what colour they are wearing.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2011/04/13/nrl-mailbox-trainers-on-the-field/

 

[Mr Spock!]

Section 16 rule 8.1(f) does deal with it sort of.



Under these circumstances a referee can rule a mutual infringement and award a scrum to the attacking (territorially) team.

That said, the notes also make the following clear:



Given that the ball ended up with Soliola, it would have been quite open to the referee to call play on I believe.

One of those grey areas, but I believe that not only did the Roosters unjustifiably gain an advantage from the presence of their trainer, but the way the referees chose to enforce this rule amplified this advantage rather than negated it as per the rule’s intention.

Lol so the team which gained an advantage here (the Roosters because Raiders were away) received the ball because they were the attacking team....

 

[greenBV4]

We all know if something isn't changed in the off season this rule (or lack of a rule) is going to be exploited.

On your last tackle and need another set of six? get Bob to run out with a water bottle and boot the ball at him

 

[LineBall]

We all know if something isn't changed in the off season this rule (or lack of a rule) is going to be exploited.

On your last tackle and need another set of six? get Bob to run out with a water bottle and boot the ball at him

Pretty much. It’s like when players at dummy half started deliberately passing the ball into players on the ground near the ruck to receive a penalty.

 

[Vee]

Yup has been that way as long as I remember.

Except the rule doesn't mention trainers.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

It was always going to happen in a big game ....sadly the Raiders were the ones who suffered
Wouldn't it be good for once to have the high paid twits running our game ..actually sit down & address these issues before they become a major problem .
No chance with the reactionary NRL .
I would bet you could get 5 ordinary everyday RL fans to sit down for 20 mins & hwork out clear guidelines on the trainers on field problem & the what is fair when the ball hits the ref .
This new ARLC chairman better liven up the dickheads at HQ

 

[Mr Spock!]

Nothing will happen because coaches like having their 14th man on the field.

Just like nothing will happen about the f***ed up 2 ref system.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Just get them the f**k off the field. In a stop in play, no issue. All 16 teams will be operating by the same rules, and therefore no one will be unduly affected. Not one fan will complain they're gone. It's a stupid look even when the dumb f**kers don't get in the way.

Let the players use their own minds on whether they should kick for touch etc.

Isn't it just f**king stupid that after a GF we're talking about the involvement in the play of a guy on field who's never played a minute of the game in his life.

 

[seanoff]

Only allowed on during breaks in play. Ie. after a score and off before the restart.

Some of these blokes are on close to $1M per season. If they cant get their team around the park. Don’t pay them.

Nathan Buckley said he only missed having a runner in the last 5 minutes of the AFL grand final because he wanted to get a message out to change ruck tactics. But he also conceded the players and enough experience to know what to do anyway.

 

[BranVan3000]

Get rid of them they have no business on the field

It’s not much harder for them to be on the sidelines if a player requires assistance

 

[T-Boon]

Even the fact they take a drink out for the players. That goes against the endurance, fatigue we want in the game. If the player needs a drink come off the field.

 

[t-ba]

Annesley just said the attacking is the team with the greatest territory advantage.

But the Trainer got hit in the Roosters half?

 

[nick87]

If there is one good thing to come out of that grand final it’ll hopefully be an overhaul on trainers being on the field

unless a player is hurt or there is a stop in play, they shouldn’t be there

and at the very least we should have a common sense rule change that says if the ball hits a trainer, it’s a scrum with the feed against the offending trainers team

can’t fault the officials for it last night, they ruled it correctly based on the rules we have now, those rules need to change

 

[moffla]

The roosters are the last team to need a trainer on barking instructions.

You have a coach in waiting as your halfback, a fullback who is the best match winner on the comp, a number six with a smart footy brain and an origin + Australian captain. I’m sure between them they can work it out.

 

[Spot On]

What happened was just one of those things and this isn’t Roosters bashing because every club does it. But why did a trainer have a need to be on the field after 3 minutes? No one was injured, none of these guys needed assistance or water?

Surely this highlights what a joke this has become and is a catalyst for the NRL to change the rules in the off season.

That would require LEADERSHIP.

 

[ReddFelon]

It definitely needs to be addressed, this is one thing I would like the media to bitch about endlessly so that there's actual pressure to change it. It became an obvious farce in 2018 when Peter Wallace "retired" and the next week was the on field trainer directing the Panthers players.

 

[Mr Spock!]

Actually as mentioned the whole interference by neutrals (refs and spectators) rules needs to be looked at.

It was designed in the days when scrums were 50:50.

 

[thorson1987]

But the Trainer got hit in the Roosters half?

Yeah, hit in the Roosters attacking half.

if he was 6m further back and got hit it would have been Raiders ball.

 

[bileduct]

It's still such a f**king dumb rule.

Replaying the previous play the ball should be only solution to something like this. Why should the team that just had an entire set of six and had their kick charged down get rewarded with another set of six just because their own trainer f**ks up?