Season of the fake

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

Referees don’t seem as authoritative as they used to be.   Regarding fake injuries, I’m guessing referees have been told to take things carefully.   The RFL is probably very scared of any potential legal battles should a player suffer a loss of career due to play carrying on when it shouldn’t.

It’s always happened in the past - everyone remembers Shaun Edwards being the master at it, but it’s got to a point where it’s so commonplace that it’s ruining the flow of a game.   I don’t know what the answer is, as I can’t blame the RFL for being careful in this era of litigation.

With regards to all the diving, backchat etc we’ll that IS something the RFL can clamp down on.   Shame we can’t sort some assertiveness training for match officials.

 

Your first paragraph hits the nail squarely on the head, and is a very easy get out clause for coaches and players to abuse. 

I used to say the difference with football and rugby league was that in football the players spent most of the game pretending they were hurt to gain free kicks, in rugby league the players spent the game hiding their injuries so as not to show a weakness to their opponents, how times have changed.

Not wanting to labour the comparrison with the game down under, but I can only put this down to a premeditated cheating culture we have in the game over here, or our players are not as fit and dare I say it not as prepared to take the hard knocks as their contempories down under seem to do, which comes down to attitude.

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Not like the old days is it...

Is that a sarchastic way of defending what we are witnessing in todays game?

[MZH]

13 hours ago, AB Knight said:

League 1 as well, and I include York in that. Only team I've not seen fake injuries etc is West Wales Raiders.

TBF there aren't many opportunities to cheat when you are stood behind your own posts.

[Lowdesert]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Gladly it is not a pandemic,

I have watched all 4 of the games from Aus this weekend, and even though the game is faster, has far more big hits and played with a much greater intensity than the game over here there were if any none of the shenanigins highlighted in this thread, is it the players who are more respectful of the game or does the two refferee system by having the ruck area policed eliminate a lot of it?

I think the NRL mantra is mostly, ‘don’t do it as it’s a low percentage thing’.  At least that’s what Brian Smith reasoned. Two refs will certainly influence that too.

Unfortunately it’s fast becoming a high percentage win in SL.  

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Your first paragraph hits the nail squarely on the head, and is a very easy get out clause for coaches and players to abuse. 

I used to say the difference with football and rugby league was that in football the players spent most of the game pretending they were hurt to gain free kicks, in rugby league the players spent the game hiding their injuries so as not to show a weakness to their opponents, how times have changed.

Not wanting to labour the comparrison with the game down under, but I can only put this down to a premeditated cheating culture we have in the game over here, or our players are not as fit and dare I say it not as prepared to take the hard knocks as their contempories down under seem to do, which comes down to attitude.

Interestingly, the first time I noticed this was in the 2013 WC where they used the NRL method of reviewing an incident if a player stayed down injured.

This absolutely came from the NRL, and I welcome the recent RFL change to VR protocol.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Interestingly, the first time I noticed this was in the 2013 WC where they used the NRL method of reviewing an incident if a player stayed down injured.

This absolutely came from the NRL, and I welcome the recent RFL change to VR protocol.

Thought I was reading a Teresa May statement when I read the last line Dave!

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Thought I was reading a Teresa May statement when I read the last line Dave!

you should see me dance! 

[Lowdesert]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

you should see me dance! 

Should have seen me dance about 20 minutes ago.  Never put a tight glove on with a wasp in it!

[Tommygilf]

I'm of the younger generation and I can't stand the feigning. There's also several aspects to this.

1) In many respects this is why we need a players union, so particular offenders of feigning could be called out by their colleagues. 

2) IMO anyone with a suspected head injury (or at least those rolling on the floor about it) should leave the field immediately and not return for at least 10 mins. If its bad enough to stop the game for 4 plus minutes for, then the player should not remain on the field. That will remove a lot of it. 

3) You will always get some gobby players (usually half backs) continually in the refs ear moaning about this that and the other. In that respect the refs have to have the full backing of the RFL and indeed the coaches to tell these players to shut up when appropriate. 

4) By extension of the above the Refs should be given more authority to call out players who are pushing the rules by for example laying on in the tackle or deliberately holding a defender down to try get a penalty. 

[bobbruce]

9 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

I think, if they haven't done it already, the RFL need to give advice and a mandate to all referees, to cut down on the penalty awarding when players dive about, trap defenders arms trying to make it look like they're holding on, etc.

I think we can stop the neck rubbing overnight if we bring in a rule that any player looking to have sustained a neck injury has to leave the field for assessment.

The other play acting stuff will have to be left to the ref's discretion and I worry about how gullible some of them are.

Sadly, cheating now appears to be an epidemic.

 

I agree this is frustrating but if we bring a rule were players sustaining a neck injury have to leave the field. Are we not in danger of encouraging crusher tackles. 

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I'm of the younger generation and I can't stand the feigning. There's also several aspects to this.

1) In many respects this is why we need a players union, so particular offenders of feigning could be called out by their colleagues. 

2) IMO anyone with a suspected head injury (or at least those rolling on the floor about it) should leave the field immediately and not return for at least 10 mins. If its bad enough to stop the game for 4 plus minutes for, then the player should not remain on the field. That will remove a lot of it. 

3) You will always get some gobby players (usually half backs) continually in the refs ear moaning about this that and the other. In that respect the refs have to have the full backing of the RFL and indeed the coaches to tell these players to shut up when appropriate. 

4) By extension of the above the Refs should be given more authority to call out players who are pushing the rules by for example laying on in the tackle or deliberately holding a defender down to try get a penalty. 

Won't disagree with any of that Tommy, but on your N°2 suggestion if as the rules are at present a player leaving the field for a HIA can be replaced with another player at no cost to the interchange numbers, would you keep that rule, if so do you think that would also be abused?

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I agree this is frustrating but if we bring a rule were players sustaining a neck injury have to leave the field. Are we not in danger of encouraging crusher tackles. 

No pun intended but stamp down hard on the perpetrators, and any subsequent offences they commit double the sentance, any more then double it again.

[graveyard johnny]

14 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

If that's a play on words of a 'sweet' song then take a bow

my mate at school used to lambast anyone that called his favourite glam heroes "sweet" instead of "the sweet"

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Won't disagree with any of that Tommy, but on your N°2 suggestion if as the rules are at present a player leaving the field for a AIH can be replaced with another player at no cost to the interchange numbers, would you keep that rule, if so do you think that would also be abused?

To be fair I think if the rule was implemented that an injury that forces a stoppage in play results in a player not being allowed back on for a considerable period I think we'd see less of it from Half Backs and the rest of the Backs. As for forwards, I don't think we've seen too much if any exploitation of the free interchange rule for HIA thus far so I don't see why that would change. 

HIA I understand having a 'free interchange' to assess, but any other injury wouldn't require this (unless its as a result of violent play).

[alba]

I think the most common piece of cheating, is losing the ball on the 5th tackle, if you look at it from both sides, the attacking team losing the ball, the worst that can happen is a scrum to the other team, the best that can happen is a penalty to you, and six more tackles, for the defending team stealing the ball, the best is a scrum, the worst is a penalty, and six more tackles or a shot at goal for the other team. I think the odds favour the player losing the ball.

 

[Old Frightful]

41 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I agree this is frustrating but if we bring a rule were players sustaining a neck injury have to leave the field. Are we not in danger of encouraging crusher tackles. 

HS has beat me to it.

[Lowdesert]

37 minutes ago, alba said:

I think the most common piece of cheating, is losing the ball on the 5th tackle, if you look at it from both sides, the attacking team losing the ball, the worst that can happen is a scrum to the other team, the best that can happen is a penalty to you, and six more tackles, for the defending team stealing the ball, the best is a scrum, the worst is a penalty, and six more tackles or a shot at goal for the other team. I think the odds favour the player losing the ball.

 

Are you basing that on gut feel or actual odds?  

Tbh, there seem to be more defenders trying to get the ball free than actually bringing the ball carrier to ground.

[alba]

49 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Are you basing that on gut feel or actual odds?  

Tbh, there seem to be more defenders trying to get the ball free than actually bringing the ball carrier to ground.

You do the maths, you might be right about defenders having a arm wrestle with the ball carrier, but this gives his team time to reform their defensive line.

[Adelaide Tiger]

8 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

my mate at school used to lambast anyone that called his favourite glam heroes "sweet" instead of "the sweet"

Me and the wife had the same argument at our weekly pub quiz a few weeks ago.

As an aside, a few months ago one of the music questions was name the group that had this hit in the late 70's.  The song played was 'Cool for Cats' so with a big smile I wrote down 'Squeeze' as they were one of my favourite bands.  

But we did not get a point as in Australia they were known as UK Squeeze due to an Aussie band already called Squeeze.  My wife went ballistic!!!!!!!!!!! 

[Lowdesert]

17 hours ago, alba said:

You do the maths, you might be right about defenders having a arm wrestle with the ball carrier, but this gives his team time to reform their defensive line.

No, it was your comment regarding your thinking the odds favouring the player losing the ball.  Genuine question.

[bobbruce]

19 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

No pun intended but stamp down hard on the perpetrators, and any subsequent offences they commit double the sentance, any more then double it again.

Then I’d accept that as working the second issue that comes to mind. If you’re going to make players who stay down leave the field you’re also in danger of encouraging them not to stay down even when seriously injured. When we are talking about neck injuries I’m not comfortable with that. 

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

3 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Then I’d accept that as working the second issue that comes to mind. If you’re going to make players who stay down leave the field you’re also in danger of encouraging them not to stay down even when seriously injured. When we are talking about neck injuries I’m not comfortable with that. 

 

Fair comment but I'd expect that most serious injuries the player needs to leave the field temporarily/permanently anyway. It certainly helped reduce the ridiculous amount of feigning injury to get the game stopped/slowed down in football, so no reason it can't work in RL. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, bobbruce said:

Then I’d accept that as working the second issue that comes to mind. If you’re going to make players who stay down leave the field you’re also in danger of encouraging them not to stay down even when seriously injured. When we are talking about neck injuries I’m not comfortable with that. 

 

True Bob, but the overriding factor and the reason why we are discussing this topic, is the abuse of the rule by some, if as it always has been injuries of this nature of been very few and far between and treated with the respect they so deservedly warrented. BUT, the evidence is there for all to see it is clearly being mistreated in the hope of gaining an advantage for their team, the only answer to it is either as I said sentence heavily those deemed guilty so they won't get involved in the action, even if they are unfortunately innocent, or hope that  honesty and integrity returns to the game.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Then I’d accept that as working the second issue that comes to mind. If you’re going to make players who stay down leave the field you’re also in danger of encouraging them not to stay down even when seriously injured. When we are talking about neck injuries I’m not comfortable with that. 

 

I’m a bit on the fence as to whether injured players are taken off the field or not.  Serious lower limbs, usually pretty clear, as the player knows they could be put for a good while.  Upper limbs, not so and many have carried on with those for some time.

Extremely difficult to tell with a head/neck injury, but when players then jump up, once the penalty is given, grab the ball, kick down field, chase to take the 1st receiver position, I draw a line.  To me, that’s the same as conduct not in keeping with the game.

 

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

I’m a bit on the fence as to whether injured players are taken off the field or not.  Serious lower limbs, usually pretty clear, as the player knows they could be put for a good while.  Upper limbs, not so and many have carried on with those for some time.

Extremely difficult to tell with a head/neck injury, but when players then jump up, once the penalty is given, grab the ball, kick down field, chase to take the 1st receiver position, I draw a line.  To me, that’s the same as conduct not in keeping with the game.

 

I wouldn’t disagree with that I just don’t like the punishing of genuine injured players. I think it’s a dangerous road to go down.