Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Bedford Roughyed

Does amateur RL have an image problem?  

Recommended Posts

I am glad he has been banned for life but I don't think it is a case for the courts.

The problem with sports like Rugby League is that a lot of what is legal on the pitch is illegal on the street... three sixteen stone blokes running after you, hitting you hard and throwing you to the ground is illegal on the street. 

There would be some really clear cut cases, like this one, and loads and loads of grey areas with no end of problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am glad he has been banned for life but I don't think it is a case for the courts.

The problem with sports like Rugby League is that a lot of what is legal on the pitch is illegal on the street... three sixteen stone blokes running after you, hitting you hard and throwing you to the ground is illegal on the street. 

There would be some really clear cut cases, like this one, and loads and loads of grey areas with no end of problems.

Playing hard and tackling hard are one thing.

Walking up to a player and king hitting him when he is unaware he is about to be assaulted is something else.

That is assault whether its on the pitch or in the Town center after a night on the lash.

Plenty of people have died or had their life changed permanently from attacks like this.

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am glad he has been banned for life but I don't think it is a case for the courts.

The problem with sports like Rugby League is that a lot of what is legal on the pitch is illegal on the street... three sixteen stone blokes running after you, hitting you hard and throwing you to the ground is illegal on the street. 

There would be some really clear cut cases, like this one, and loads and loads of grey areas with no end of problems.

I agree, as an overall principal that whatever happens in the game (including fights, abuse etc) should be dealt as seen fit by the game's authorities/governing bodies. That said, I should imagine the only reason this hasn't become a police matter is because the victim didn't pursue it in that respect - there are plenty of cases I know of where players have been prosecuted. With the video evidence in this case it would be pretty easy to get a conviction. I think that's the right approach to take FWIW. 

Edited by hunsletgreenandgold
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I agree that this player would have deserved everything coming to him. If that were a prosecution I would not be demanded he were found innocent. 

But what about the Alex McKinnon incident in Australia? He was seriously injured (and now wheelchair bound) in an illegal tackle which had it occured on the street could have been described as assault.

Should the Storm players have been prosecuted?

As I say there are some really clear cut cases and a whole load more that are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The problem with sports like Rugby League is that a lot of what is legal on the pitch is illegal on the street... three sixteen stone blokes running after you, hitting you hard and throwing you to the ground is illegal on the street. 

Is that why rugby league has a tough time getting people to play it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Look, I agree that this player would have deserved everything coming to him. If that were a prosecution I would not be demanded he were found innocent. 

But what about the Alex McKinnon incident in Australia? He was seriously injured (and now wheelchair bound) in an illegal tackle which had it occurred on the street could have been described as assault.

Should the Storm players have been prosecuted?

As I say there are some really clear cut cases and a whole load more that are not.

I agree with your sentiments but the Mckinnon case was due to bad luck, poor technique in the tackle with multiple players involved that did not know what each others actions were going to result in an injury to Alex

Its very different than a lone player walking up and king hitting a player from the blindside.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I am glad he has been banned for life but I don't think it is a case for the courts.

The problem with sports like Rugby League is that a lot of what is legal on the pitch is illegal on the street... three sixteen stone blokes running after you, hitting you hard and throwing you to the ground is illegal on the street. 

There would be some really clear cut cases, like this one, and loads and loads of grey areas with no end of problems.

Tackling is part of Rugby League. Cracking an unsuspecting bloke on the chin, isn’t. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hopping Mad said:

Is that why rugby league has a tough time getting people to play it?

Not sure what you mean by this.  Are you saying that we are struggling to get people to play because we have a tough sport or because we tolerate violent acts?

If the former.  Well, our sport is tough and physical so not a lot we can do without fundamentally changing the game.

If it is the latter.  As someone has pointed out before, the game at professional level and amateur in the UK is less violent and 'dirty' than it has ever been and so I don't think we tolerate violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Tackling is part of Rugby League. Cracking an unsuspecting bloke on the chin, isn’t. 

I know, that is my point.  Some parts of Rugby League (legal play) would be illegal if done on the street.

You cannot 'police' a game of Rugby League as if it were on the street.

The question is should an incident like this be subject to prosecution through the laws of our land.  Well as an incident it was disgusting.  But what about a high shot in play that causes physical damage (concussion/broken jaw etc.), it's against the laws of the game and the land so should we prosecute a high shot.

The difference here I do understand is that the game had stopped and wasn't in play and so that could be the cut off as if the game is not in play then it could not be a violation of the games laws.

If that is the case then yes, I would say he is lucky to escape a charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Not sure what you mean by this.  Are you saying that we are struggling to get people to play because we have a tough sport or because we tolerate violent acts?

If the former.  Well, our sport is tough and physical so not a lot we can do without fundamentally changing the game.

If it is the latter.  As someone has pointed out before, the game at professional level and amateur in the UK is less violent and 'dirty' than it has ever been and so I don't think we tolerate violence.

In terms of the sport being so physical (even within its laws), it must - surely - reduce the pool of potential players.

As others have said, the game at all levels isn't particularly dirty any more. Which is why the Chorley-Langworthy incident has received so much attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hopping Mad said:

In terms of the sport being so physical (even within its laws), it must - surely - reduce the pool of potential players.

As others have said, the game at all levels isn't particularly dirty any more. Which is why the Chorley-Langworthy incident has received so much attention.

I think it does reduce the pool.  I am sure that there are parents looking at rugby and comparing it to other sports and activities and thinking that the physical nature of the sport is a worry.  I get that as a parent.

We cannot change the game too much but the main thing is that we show at all times that player welfare is at the heart of everything we do which includes a zero tolerance approach to foul play and the appropriate protocols and care of head injury/concussion etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I know, that is my point.  Some parts of Rugby League (legal play) would be illegal if done on the street.

You cannot 'police' a game of Rugby League as if it were on the street.

The question is should an incident like this be subject to prosecution through the laws of our land.  Well as an incident it was disgusting.  But what about a high shot in play that causes physical damage (concussion/broken jaw etc.), it's against the laws of the game and the land so should we prosecute a high shot.

The difference here I do understand is that the game had stopped and wasn't in play and so that could be the cut off as if the game is not in play then it could not be a violation of the games laws.

If that is the case then yes, I would say he is lucky to escape a charge.

There is stuff that can be reasonably expected to occur during the game. That is not a matter for the police, even if it is against the rules of the game, i.e. a high tackle. Punching a bloke unprovoked with a king hit is not one of those things and should be a matter for the police. It's nothing to do with whether the game had stopped or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/10/2019 at 13:59, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

quite, typical copy cat nonsense, I thought it originated in USA as I've heard it used there a lot, 'dog shot' is another I've heard from Aus, either way it's the type of assault that should get you a couple of months at her majesty's pleasure.

No copy cat nonsense.

A king hit is definitely an Aussie and New Zealand slang term for a coward punch or sucker punch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hopping Mad said:

Is that why rugby league has a tough time getting people to play it?

Tony Collins podcast a couple of weeks back addresses this issue

#80 ‘Unholy Union’

He talks with a RU person about the issue both codes face (collisions/concussions etc.)..after 6 minutes in; “the better rugby players become the more dangerous they become to each other”, while Collins responds it’s an issue for all oval ball sports, with rugby invented for school boys, now played by “supreme, muscular athletes”. 

If you look at the last decade and a half especially, players have got much bigger and faster, making them more dangerous to each other. RU especially it’s a huge issue (players concussed/missing games on a regular basis). Serious injuries are a regular occurrence. For a kid (or adult) to be enticed to a sport the last thing they should be told to focus on is building up their physique. Reading about one pro player last week (his name escapes me), he gained over two stone over one post season to avoid getting as badly hurt in collisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saint 1 said:

 

There is stuff that can be reasonably expected to occur during the game. That is not a matter for the police, even if it is against the rules of the game, i.e. a high tackle. Punching a bloke unprovoked with a king hit is not one of those things and should be a matter for the police. It's nothing to do with whether the game had stopped or not.

So Ben Flower should have been charged after the 2014 Grand Final?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mister Ting said:

No copy cat nonsense.

A king hit is definitely an Aussie and New Zealand slang term for a coward punch or sucker punch.

Er, the author of the comic IS copying what other countries call punching someone without warning, ergo it's copycat and it is a nonsense, there's no need for the author to use it, it makes them sound a bit pathetic/immature calling it that, as if they have to be down with the kids using such vernacular. Not only that but the very word itself underplays what the action actually represents, an ABH assault which is a criminal offence that should ordinarily get you a stint in gaol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dunbar said:

So Ben Flower should have been charged after the 2014 Grand Final?

Yes. If you punch an unconscious player, you should have more to worry about than a 10 match ban. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Impartial Observer said:

Where has it been said that there will not be any Police involvement in this

It doesn't and you're quite right to point out that could be happening away from what has been publicised so far. Would be interesting to understand how any events leading up to this incident may lead the defendant to plead not guilty, of whatever charge was placed against him, and what could be considered in mitigation? Might not be as clear cut in court as it is on the face of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2019 at 15:55, Dunbar said:

I think it does reduce the pool.  I am sure that there are parents looking at rugby and comparing it to other sports and activities and thinking that the physical nature of the sport is a worry.  I get that as a parent.

We cannot change the game too much but the main thing is that we show at all times that player welfare is at the heart of everything we do which includes a zero tolerance approach to foul play and the appropriate protocols and care of head injury/concussion etc.

One thing we could change is the tolerance for high tackles. RU now penalises any contact with the head. RL could do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

One thing we could change is the tolerance for high tackles. RU now penalises any contact with the head. RL could do the same.

In the early-mid 1990s the RL introduced a ruling that any contact with the head was a sending off and which then lasted until; clubs complained that, even though those dismissed had indeed made contact with the head, too many players had been sent off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2019 at 18:19, Dunbar said:

So Ben Flower should have been charged after the 2014 Grand Final?

Yes in my opinion, it only happened once but in my reffing career someone was taken out late and high as play had moved on, it was behind my back, it ended up in Leeds Crown Court

  • Like 1

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...