Unnecessary roughness

[Southerner]

I’ve been watching NFL and noticed they give players extra protection with the rule “unnecessary roughness”.

Considering the Burrow situation and the fanfare around concussions/mental health I feel a similar rule could benefit the sport? To particularly protect the playmakers.  

(I don’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff and I don’t want to see the physicality gone from our great game)

[Damien]

Surely this kind of protection already exists within the laws of the game? It is up to the governing bodies and referees to more strictly enforce those rules and associated punishments. 

[Scotchy1]

4 minutes ago, Southerner said:

I’ve been watching NFL and noticed they give players extra protection with the rule “unnecessary roughness”.

Considering the Burrow situation and the fanfare around concussions/mental health I feel a similar rule could benefit the sport? To particularly protect the playmakers.  

(I don’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff and I don’t want to see the physicality gone from our great game)

It would be far too difficult to police consistently in RL.

The eventual outcome will be contact with the Head being banned. Its a question of whether we choose to do that quickly or delay the inevitable. 

[Leyther_Matt]

I thought this thread was a precursor for my Saturday morning after watching the Grand Final with a ruck of Aldi lager

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Southerner said:

I’ve been watching NFL and noticed they give players extra protection with the rule “unnecessary roughness”.

Considering the Burrow situation and the fanfare around concussions/mental health I feel a similar rule could benefit the sport? To particularly protect the playmakers.  

(I don’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff and I don’t want to see the physicality gone from our great game)

A suggestion was made some time ago in Australia and promoted by Andrew Johns to reduce the number of interchanges instead of continually having fresh player's coming onto the field, it was allowing those 15 minute behemoths who cause damage with or without ball in hand especially at the targetted play makers.

[The Rocket]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Surely this kind of protection already exists within the laws of the game? It is up to the governing bodies and referees to more strictly enforce those rules and associated punishments. 

The problem is that so many of the incidents are accidental and parents don`t distinguish between those two when considering whether to allow little Johnny or Jodie to play League.

I would go as far to say that the fear of head knocks is a greater threat to childrens participation than the fear of spinal injury used to.

[langpark]

I hate niggle and wouldn't mind it being cracked down on. But being such a grey area people will always whine about consistency etc. So I say, best we just leave it alone. 

[The Rocket]

30 minutes ago, Southerner said:

Considering the Burrow situation and the fanfare around concussions/mental health I feel a similar rule could benefit the sport? To particularly protect the playmakers.  

 

The concern with concussions, the affect of repeated head knocks and the question of whether this can lead to long term mental health issues or brain damage is an issue that is playing out in all contact sports world wide.

Traditional head gear in League has been shown to be useful in protection against lacerations but have no discernible use in preventing concussions. 

NFL style head gear is impractical in League due to the non-stop nature of play.

This issue isn`t going to go away and who knows where it is going to end up if it ever gets into the courts en masse.

I wonder if there can`t be developed some sort of lightweight, impact absorbing, possibly even disposable type head gear that would offer at least offer some protection. It wouldn`t offer protection to the front of the head as there would be no visor but could offer some protection to all but the nastiest of knocks. They have to be completely stamped out, but as we know head knocks are some times unavoidable when players slip or fall and accidently coming into contact with an arm or head or even hip etc.

 I`ve been thinking about this for quite a while. Given the advances that have been made in car design and impact absorption in car crashes surely there could be something learned from that , that could be scaled down. I`m thinking some type of lightweight aluminium covered, about 1 -1 1/2 inch(3-5cm) thick, styrofoam filled , disposable head gear. Not the heavy duty gear that can also be a weapon in itself like NFL, something more lightweight. How effective this would be in absorbing impact, I don`t know of course, maybe there is a better material, this is what materials scientists are for, but I wonder if it is worth thinking about, especially also if we want apprehensive parents to continue to allow their children to play or ex-players wondering why their memories aren`t so good any more.

O.k people are going to say what about the cost ? Well my answer to that is, if ex-players from all levels of the sport start lining up with their lawyers the cost may seem insignificant, it may just have to be absorbed by the game.

 

 

 

 

[JohnM]

Every time I see the words "unnecessary roughness" I think "what about necessary roughnes?"

With helmets, isn't there an issue of risk compensation whereby collision impact increases because wearers feel more protected?

[DavidM]

Sounds like the apocryphal ‘ penalty for tackling too hard ‘ , like smashing down on a bloke who chooses to fall on the floor .

[Damien]

25 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Every time I see the words "unnecessary roughness" I think "what about necessary roughnes?"

With helmets, isn't there an issue of risk compensation whereby collision impact increases because wearers feel more protected?

Yes and that is the big issue in the NFL.

[Barry Badrinath]

this would be a category for the likes of mcilroum, where everyone else is playing with 'necessary roughness' he's running around treading the line on actual violence.  However cos thats the way he plays, consistently, he gets away with it, otherwise you'd be penalizing nearly every tackle he makes.  Thats why it takes something gobsmackingly bad like the dwyer incident before he gets cited and banned.

 

 

Just re the NFL, they dont get it right all the time, about a week ago, there was hell going around on twitter re a sack on a quarterback (tackled in posession) the tackler got penalized for driving him into the ground, it just seemed like a normal tackle, especially for the nfl.

[Barry Badrinath]

Just now, Damien said:

Yes and that is the big issue in the NFL.

its weird, i think they've got a penalty in the nfl for 'leading with the head/helmet' when tackling, which is bizarre when a lot of technique is literally launching yourself at an opponent 

[dkw]

41 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Every time I see the words "unnecessary roughness" I think "what about necessary roughnes?"

With helmets, isn't there an issue of risk compensation whereby collision impact increases because wearers feel more protected?

I was listening to a neurosurgeon on the radio discussing the footballers wearing them for heading the ball and he said they basically provided very little or no protection to the brain, more just to the skull as the damage caused to the brain is from the movement within the skull, it bashing against the skull etc and the helmets dont really cushion that.

[Smudger06]

Unnecessary roughness!?.....roughness is necessary!.....

[Davo5]

Isn't this what Lachlan Coote appeals for every time he's tackled ??

[Tommygilf]

I think the Burrow issue is slightly different to "unnecessary roughness". I'd put it instead into the category of "thugby" that is thankfully well out of the majority of the game. I don't mind wind up merchants and I certainly don't want teams being too nice or anything like that, but thuggishness is something we really have to come down hard upon. 

Like boxing for example, RL offers plenty of young mainly men the opportunity for an outlet of physical violence in a controlled and disciplined manner, channelling a lot of anger and frustration etc. I fundamentally believe that is a positive thing. However, it can if left unchecked and indisciplined stray into thuggishness and needs referees, the governing body and most fundamentally the coaches and players themselves to stop that culture at a club - at any and all levels of the game. I don't think its surprising that certain players and coaches (therefore teams) are/were associated with this sort of behaviour. 

On a personal level I think it comes down to a bit of treat others how you would like yourself to be treated. The line of roughness is sometimes very hard to define, but equally there are things that obviously stray well beyond it.

[Jim Prendle]

37 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

this would be a category for the likes of mcilroum, where everyone else is playing with 'necessary roughness' he's running around treading the line on actual violence.  However cos thats the way he plays, consistently, he gets away with it, otherwise you'd be penalizing nearly every tackle he makes.  Thats why it takes something gobsmackingly bad like the dwyer incident before he gets cited and banned.

 

 

Just re the NFL, they dont get it right all the time, about a week ago, there was hell going around on twitter re a sack on a quarterback (tackled in posession) the tackler got penalized for driving him into the ground, it just seemed like a normal tackle, especially for the nfl.

It's not just Mcilorum that plays like that, there are lots of players over the years who have done it. Take Ben Westwood for instance and his premeditated thuggery in the Grand Final when he broke Blake Green's face whilst he was prone and held on the floor.

If you want to wipe it out, then you will need to ensure that everyone is policed in the same manner, not just the "Usual" suspects.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Jim Prendle said:

It's not just Mcilorum that plays like that, there are lots of players over the years who have done it. Take Ben Westwood for instance and his premeditated thuggery in the Grand Final when he broke Blake Green's face whilst he was prone and held on the floor.

If you want to wipe it out, then you will need to ensure that everyone is policed in the same manner, not just the "Usual" suspects.

Nobody has said they wouldn't be policed in the same manner?

[Barry Badrinath]

31 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

It's not just Mcilorum that plays like that, there are lots of players over the years who have done it. Take Ben Westwood for instance and his premeditated thuggery in the Grand Final when he broke Blake Green's face whilst he was prone and held on the floor.

If you want to wipe it out, then you will need to ensure that everyone is policed in the same manner, not just the "Usual" suspects.

yeah, i know, i just used that as its the most recent incident, you don't need to get defensive.

 

#WDL

 

 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

3 hours ago, Southerner said:

I’ve been watching NFL and noticed they give players extra protection with the rule “unnecessary roughness”.

Considering the Burrow situation and the fanfare around concussions/mental health I feel a similar rule could benefit the sport? To particularly protect the playmakers.  

(I don’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff and I don’t want to see the physicality gone from our great game)

I can’t think of any “unnecessary roughness” that is currently allowed in the game that could lead to a concussion? 

[sentoffagain2]

11 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I can’t think of any “unnecessary roughness” that is currently allowed in the game that could lead to a concussion? 

 Dumping players on their head was dangerous but refs have enforced it well.Players know its a yellow or red card  so most that do happen are careless rather than intentional.We don't see as many solid tackles round the calves and ankles due to trying to stop offloads.For me first tackler low down and second round the shoulders covering the ball.Third one in flops as usual.

[Scotchy1]

22 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I can’t think of any “unnecessary roughness” that is currently allowed in the game that could lead to a concussion? 

Hits on the kicker or passer. 

[Michael1812]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Every time I see the words "unnecessary roughness" I think "what about necessary roughnes?"

 

[JohnM]

8 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Hits on the kicker or passer. 

exactly, especially frequent  on the kicker.