Jump to content

Roy Haggerty

Coach
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Roy Haggerty last won the day on June 30 2018

Roy Haggerty had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

3,425 profile views

Roy Haggerty's Achievements

768

Reputation

  1. You know, I genuinely thought this as the decision was given not to allow the Penrith try at the end. That disallowed Hall try was the only time I’ve ever been convinced that a referee made a consciously wrong decision for reasons of bias.
  2. That's a reasonable system, tbh. Also, IIRC the rule without video refs which I was told to employ when I was reffing was always benefit of the doubt to attacking side. If there's doubt, and you can't be sure either way, award the try. I'm fairly sure that in the very early years of video reffing, this was also the case, because I remember screaming at the TV when it became apparent that the video refs seemed in fact to be looking for reasons to disallow tries when it wasn't entirely clear (and sometimes when it was), rather than allowing benefit of the doubt as they should. If we're not willing to go that way, then we can go "balance of probability", but I do think there's no point making the ref indicate whether he's for or against a try before it goes to the screen, because that by itself puts quite a lot of pressure on the video ref to look for ways of backing up his colleague, rather than contradicting him publicly in front of 10,000 people!
  3. Look, I think that there were some hard decisions which went against Penrith consistently tonight: the Wardle try, the last minute try, the forward pass try, the ball steal, a couple of ‘knock ons’ at the ptb etc. But that’s why home advantage matters: crowds don’t shout for their own team’s forward passes. If Penrith are honest though, they’ll need to look to themselves. They dominated territory, and looked stronger throughout, but they couldn’t do anything with it. Butchered two certain tries with an easy drop and then trying to outrun Field instead of passing to support. And the kicking game to get repeat sets was non-existent. They could and should have won even with the unfavourable decisions. The fact they didn’t is on them, really
  4. Really good example of why home advantage and home officials matter! Very funny officiating, but I imagine the Aussies will be very reluctant to come back over again anytime soon!
  5. It wasn’t. It was a decision by 2 refs who made that decision at leisure, without time pressure, using a record of the incident. They didn’t make a mistake, they implemented the new interpretations. This isn’t about human error, it’s about decisions which have been made by the RFL which are already having a very significant impact on our game, and we haven’t even got to the major change yet.
  6. This sums it up for me. I feel exactly the same. I was genuinely excited about the increased coverage. I planned to record and watch every game each week. Now, I reckon I’ll watch the saints game and not bother with the rest. I had thought that in the KR v Leeds game there were signs the officials were starting to apply sensible judgments, even if I still thought at least one yellow card was harsh. But last night was mad. That decision wrecked the game for the players, fans and viewers. Worse- these aren’t even the most significant changes. The below-the-armpit change they’re planning for next year is far more significant and drastic than these. Yet these minor changes are already having a huge impact on the game’s entertainment value. We *cannot* carry on like this.
  7. I came back from a good night out and started watching the game on recording. Was enjoying it until the Brown sending off. That was ###### ridiculous. I don’t know what sport this is, but it’s not the rugby league I’ve played, reffed, coached and loved for 40 years. If this is what you like, good for you, but it’s not for me. I switched off after that ridiculous decision. Still don’t know the outcome if the game and tbh don’t much care. This is, and I say this as a rugby league fanatic stalwart for decades, . Absolute . I do not want to see red cards in every game. I do not want to see accidental head clashes in normal tackles result in game-changing dismissals. It’s , and it’s killing my lifelong love for the game.
  8. I'm certain the changes did originate with experts. That's my concern, tbh. Basically, organisations tend to be really bad at dealing with risk. Managers are fearful that they'll be blamed for anything which goes wrong, and so they tend to take an extreme risk-averse stance, and that means that they can throw their own judgement out of the window when it comes to expert advice. So, for example, this group will have reported that lowering tackle height would probably (no expert worth their salt would ever say "definitely" in a case like this), reduce head impacts by X variable. A management team using their judgment would say "the experts say this is the probably specific risk outcome of the different policy, so we should consider that alongside the risks to participation/spectator numbers, and evaluate the whole against costs of pursuing the new option." A risk-averse/panicking management team will respond "the experts say this is better, so we have to do it". It seems clear to me from the statements emerging from the RFL (and people who have clearly been briefed by the RFL) that they're doing the latter. In my experience, this is the more common response in most organisations. Especially if someone uses the word "safety". The problem with that is that once you go that way, then you are in a lot of trouble, because you've made it *even harder* to exercise judgment in the future by setting a precedent that you will/must always unquestioningly accept expert advice on risk, without considering impact on other factors. Because an expert group will do what it's been told to do, and simply tell you about risks. The expert group here won't have been asked to consider the impact of these changes on participation/spectators, just on risks of head contacts. And I don't think you actually have to be a neuroscientist to understand that in every single instance, fewer collisions and slower collisions are better than more and faster, when it comes to limiting head contact. So every time they're asked to look at something, they are undoubtedly going to report that. And if the RFL is going to react as it has here, by saying "the experts say this is better, so we must do it", then we really will be issuing velcro tags in due course! There's nothing wrong with having an expert group offering advice on what the likely outcomes of different methods are. But that's not the same thing as having to immediately accept one of those outcomes with no reference to its impact on the wider sport. But if the reports of the impact of this measure on the trial games last year are even remotely accurate, then it's very difficult to argue that the RFL have taken any other factor into account other than the findings of the group.
  9. Possibly talking cross-purposes here. I don't think anyone doubts that the purpose of the changes is to reduce head contact, and nobody is questioning the expertise of those who said if we do this, it will reduce head contacts (on the ball carrier, at least). That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the degree to which we accept mitigations which will reduce head contacts but also change the game significantly. It's clearly a sliding scale. If we want to reduce all head contact, we issue players with velcro tags and ban contact of any sort. If we don't care about head contact, we make clothes-line tackles legal. What we're doing is deciding where the line is - where to find the balance between what risks we deem unacceptable, and what spectacle we deem unacceptable. An expert in measuring chances of and severity of head contact will absolutely be able to give us chapter and verse on how to minimise those risks. But that is not the same decision as what will make the game functional as a mass participation/spectator sport. The reason many people are troubled by the tackle height decision is that it will clearly have a significant impact on the game for both participants and spectators, as we know from the trials last year. The other mitigations such as game time limits and concussion spotters are much less problematic because they reduce a player's exposure to risk by reducing exposure to the risks inherent in the game. The tackle height issue reduces exposure to risk by reducing the risks inherent in the game. The other factors don't change the game. The tackle height issue does. And that's not a decision which should be offloaded to any experts whose sole concern is minimising risk, but a decision which must take that expertise into account while balancing the need to maintain a ruleset which will encourage sufficient participation and viewing. It's important not to dig trenches here, and I've seen some daft statements like "if we don't make this change, the game won't exist". That's just patently untrue. There are far more risky activities out there underway from motorsport to hang-gliding and horse-riding, all of which have significantly worse life-changing/ending injury potential than RL. As well as the obvious issues like boxing and other combat sports. For sure, insurance companies may well be bumping up premiums for any policy which covers possible consequences of head injuries - I have no difficulty at all believing that. But insurance for even risky activities can almost always be found if those inflated premiums are paid - that's a choice, not a requirement. And in cases where people cannot get insurance for a particularly risk, they insure for those which they *can* control, and decide - as adults - whether to go ahead with the activity they can't get insurance for. Get skiing insurance and you'll find a whole range of activities and injuries which are covered, as well as some which aren't. You decide whether to sign away your cash based on whether you're willing to risk the possible outcomes which aren't covered. As for litigation, then for sure one can argue that if a governing body knows of a risk, but deliberately withholds that risk from people exposed to it, then they're liable. Likewise, even if they don't necessarily consciously know of a risk, but haven't taken reasonable action to prevent catastrophe, then they're also arguably liable. But this isn't a black and white at all. If participants in any activity are provided with the full knowledge of any organisation regarding risks and mitigations, and their undertaking of those risks is entirely voluntary - which is obviously the case in any sport - then it's simply not the case that anyone could successfully sue if a potential consequence of which they were aware came to pass. The law does recognise individual agency! At some level, this is recognised even with these changes - after all, there are still risks of head contact no matter where the tackle starts, particularly to the tackler. The RFL hasn't issues velcro straps to everyone. Which means that we are already acknowledging that there are risks inherent in the game which we are willing to bear. Which means we already accept the principle that risk exists and that players are choosing to accept those risks. To hear some people talk on this, they make it sound like any risk at all is now impossible due to insurance or litigation - it's clearly not. So given that principle is established, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable for people to question whether this particular change is necessary, and whether this attempted mitigation will change the game to such an extent that it will affect the game unduly negatively as a spectacle and an activity.
  10. Good post. Obviously we’ve still got next season in the pro game before these changes. That gives a whole year to see what the impact is on amateur games. If this results in a significant collapse of player or spectator involvement at amateur clubs, or makes every game a 50-penalty disaster ending at ten a side, then you’d hope that even the RFL would be forced to reconsider. If it doesn’t, and the game still resembles a watchable RL, then the grumbles will subside. My concern is that I don’t think the RFL are capable of differentiating between reasonably mitigating risk, and unreasonably seeking to eliminate risk. In their panic over potential and existing lawsuits, they appear to be going for every mitigation suggestion, no matter how serious or trivial its impact, rather than making a reasonable judgement based on balancing risks and mitigation and then allowing players to consent to any remaining risks. RL only exists as a sport because people want to watch it and want to play it. Its all very well saying ‘we need to make changes to save the game’, but if those changes significantly reduce the number of people who want to watch or play, then all you’ve done is kill the game in a different, quicker way.
  11. I think you didn’t need the latest info on CTE to know it was a dangerous sport. One lad I played with broke his neck. After one of my concussions I remember a doctor being very concerned and basically suggesting I take up something less physical. So I might not have known exactly what the risks were, but I certainly knew that in every game there was a risk of all sorts of injuries up to and including paralysis, and I still played because I loved it and was willing to take that risk. Tbh, if I was a younger man, even knowing the cte issue, I’d still play it. Its not the risk which stops me now, it’s being 53 and knackered.
  12. This is so grim. Reminds me of having to deal with panicky incompetent HR staff over health and safety precautions at work 20 years ago. The key is making reasonable adjustments to reduce risk, not to try and eliminate all possible risk, however unlikely. Clearly, the RFL are in an absolute panic about the court case and potential future court cases. Consent also matters. You could make a case for maximum mitigation in the junior game. But for adults, explaining the risk, the attempted mitigations and allowing them to make an informed choice is vital. I only ever played amateur level. Even back in the 1990s I was, as an amateur, well aware of the risks of a collision sport. I received two concussions (both as tackler, which is far more dangerous than carrying the ball tbh). The idea that I’d sue the sport for not ‘protecting’ me from a sport I chose to play is just barmy to me. I’ve every sympathy for ex players who’ve suffered injury, but I’ve no sympathy at all for their attempting to sue the sport for those injuries. We’re all adults, we all know what the sport is. Nobody forced us to play it. RL has always been a fantastic sport cursed with dreadful administrators. In this case, they’re fearfully adopting a panicky, unreasonable risk-averse approach to a sport in which risk *can not be eliminated*. It infantilises players, and I fear that their inability to raise their eyes from the lawsuit is preventing them from considering the future of the game as a whole.
  13. Mellor, what a plank. That sort of gamesmanship used to ###### me off when I was reffing amateur games. No place for it in SL.
  14. Ridiculous decision. Fundamentally, obstruction penalties should actually involve, you know, obstruction.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.