LeeF

In addition to three players and coaches complaining about the new laws/ interpretations and the subsequent bans, which the majority of posters on here understand the reasons for introducing and accept them being introduced, you now have the “tame” reporters supporting the whinging and trying to get the RFL to drop the changes. This is exactly what was mentioned as would happen on this forum when the changes were first announced. I agree that the RFL should dig in and it is has been good to see the likes of Robert Hicks being made available for interviews etc to explain the reasons for the changes etc. That is a welcome change from the normal RFL behaviour which under previous regimes used to just go silent and then give in. All the arm waiving and the deliberate inflaming of “incidents” by running in needs to stop with that either done by the players and coaches ceasing to behave like that or a clampdown for a week or so with the dugout benches or chairs being warmed up for 10 minutes on a regular basis.

I would differ about the force being equal. A hard off has less force and is less dangerous

It’s not a stiff arm. A hand off is the palm of the hand

A hand off by the ball carrier is allowed as per the laws of the game and is clearly defined. Attack to the head by a defender isn’t.

Not all penalties for high tackles are card worthy. As a rule, even at a lower level, I would have always spoken to the offending player for a high tackle mainly to take the “sting” out of the issue. It was considered good game management. Even in SL and with the benefit of a VR not all high tackles are carded.

Here you go https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 29 Feb.pdf mainly York players this week

Yes that was the case with the Amone incident. It was textbook as per the descriptions issued pre season with no mitigation

Yes there was pre season. Robert Hicks mentioned it on a podcast with Tanya Arnold where he did state that one Championship coach had been complaining but the same coach was the only one who hadn’t turned up to the meeeting!

Some are trying though.

Bradford picked up 3 bans from the 1895 game the weekend before last is what I was referring to. It does seem in the Championship/ 1895 and without the benefit of a VR that there is more referee judgement allowed with incidents reviewed in the week afterwards. It’s the old one view of the incident at one angle at full speed issue which is fair as all games are the same. Presumably Thaler, who is a very experienced referee, thought they were lower end incidents if they were just penalties although I haven’t seen them. Mind you he is on the same learning cave as all the others at the moment.

I don’t think it is a case of being too afraid of using common sense. What I understand is that they have basically been given a process map and told not to deviate from it.

It was always going to be a challenge to get something that big fully correct at one go and ensure that it covered every single possibility. If this is the only genuinely major issue seen then that’s great Your comment about work is spot on. Life is not always black and white.

Bradford had a couple from last week didn’t they?

No it’s usually Thursday.

The minutes from those who went to hearing or appeal etc have now been published https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-cases just click on the individual case for details

If it’s not on the list then presumably nothing. For some reason they have stopped publishing the non fines/ bans decisions this season

At least it generated some IMG points for social media interactions

Here’s the bit “Once the mechanics of the tackle become more fluid, officials are able to use their knowledge and game-understanding to mitigate the sanction, to reflect the level of culpability of the tackler.” A deliberate action in the second or subsequent phase will result in red or yellow

So the protocols were incorrect and needed tweaking. The correct action taken by the RFL imo

No it’s dead

And here are the other minutes. https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MATCH REVIEW PANEL MINUTES 26 FEB 2024 .pdf

Correct. Also

They aren’t having a good week are they? Trying to defend Watts’ attempted “tackle”; sharing a justgiving page for the disciplinary fine and now completing the team sheet incorrectly

I said that they can’t say it was wrong in this instance but only because the MOs followed the guidelines that they have to follow. I know we disagree on whether the decision was correct but that’s the rationale to my post. I would hope/ expect that they will say that the guidelines/ protocols were followed but have been revised for future. If the MOs misinterpreted the guidelines then they aren’t the only ones and the RFL can say that it was an incorrect decision but they need to explain exactly why and not hang the MOs out to dry. It’s still very early days and sometimes things need tweaking as you go along. This should not be a reason to abandon the progress being made nor should the RFL dig in and ignore what happened last night.

As the laws are written they can’t say it is wrong. They can give him SOS or NFA and change the protocols or interpretations which doesn’t help tonight but the underlying intentions of the new interpretations are correct but this has showed that there is a problem