Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Just cus I was curious:

 

Quote

UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS

Article 8 There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:

(a) striking an opponent anywhere with the foot or any part of the leg with a whipping motion;

(b) contacting a runner out of bounds;

Note: Defensive players must make an effort to avoid contact. Players on defense are responsible for knowing when a runner has crossed the boundary line, except in doubtful cases where he might step on a boundary line and continue parallel with it.

(c) a member of the receiving team cannot go out of bounds and contact a kicking team player out of bounds. If this occurs on a kick from scrimmage, post-possession rules would apply if appropriate (9- 5-1);

(d) running or diving into, or throwing the body against or on a ball carrier who falls or slips to the ground untouched and makes no attempt to advance, before or after the ball is dead;

(e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;

(f) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position.

(g) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily.

(h) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.

(i) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try. (j) if a player illegally launches into a defenseless opponent. It is an illegal launch if a player (1) leaves both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into his opponent, and (2) uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) to initiate forcible contact against any part of his opponent’s body.

Note: This does not apply to contact against a runner, unless the runner is still considered to be a defenseless player, as defined in Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.

A.R. 12.17 Third-and-20 on A30. Runner A1 runs to the A33, where he is tackled by B1, who hooks his fingers under the front of the runner’s helmet, but not his facemask, and forcibly twists his head. Ruling: 15 yards for unnecessary roughness. It is an automatic first down. A’s ball first-and-10 on A48.

Article 9 It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 73

   (1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;

   (2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

   (3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;

   (4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air;

   (5) A player on the ground at the end of a play;

   (6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return;

   (7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession, and

   (8) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:

   (1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and

   (2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

Note: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Do you mean late hits? They are already outlawed 

I mean the borderline ones. The ones where the ball has just been passed or just been kicked but realistically the tackler was never going to get to the ball. The ones where basically they just put a hit on a prone player 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DavidM said:

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

I see what you’re saying but I’m referring more to the half backs getting smashed after kicking on the 6th tackle and fouls in the act of scoring. 
 

This type of “unnecessary roughness” is whilst the tackled player is unable to defend themselves and therefore in a vulnerable position. 

I do however think it’s unreasonable to use the excuse to smash a player when they’ve taken a voluntary tackle.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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? 

The main two I have a problem with is late tackles on the kicker and the same on players in the act of scoring (especially out wide on centres and wingers).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

This one in particular is relevant in League: 

(f) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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? 

Marginally late hits on kicker or passer of the ball, often with no arm wrapping purely to put a "shot in" to get into the pivots head.

Elbows and palms in the face on the floor during a tackle. 

The arm striking from a defender to an attacker (the attacker shouldn't have hold of him in the first place granted too).

General niggle. 

Granted the latter 3 don't directly lead to a concussion, but a game where they are prevalent because a team or handful of players, for whatever reason, have decided to bring that into the gameplan that day makes concussion inducing contact/actions more likely as players front up and get more angry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Southerner said:

This one in particular is relevant in League: 

(f) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position.

Quite, the amount of players hit once in a relaxed body position is outrageous.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The stuff about late hits on kickers and passers is something that we have to be careful with. If it is late definitely penalise it, and I would say in Super League we get the balance right most of the time. If it is borderline, you have every right to be hit there. If you want to pass right at the line, that is the risk you take. If you choose to kick off a slow PTB, that is the risk you take. Maybe the issue is not carding enough people for the genuine late hits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a definition needed between a borderline tackle (ok) a late tackle (accepted) a hit/high tackle/shoulder (not accepted) or a late version of those.

a lot of tackles on kickers are the final variety,  players looking to wallop the kicker after the ball has gone with no technique, the other aspect as well, is what you saw last week on coote, where the 'defender' then shithouses whilst on top, forearm, kicking him in the head when getting up.  house stuff like that gets ignored and thats when stuff starts to bubble.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

you will see plenty roughness tonight.I detest the third or fourth"tackler" who just flops on top just to slow down the tackled player,for all his skills O loughlin is renowned for this>Does it add to the total tackles made,which is often remarked on by commentators?

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

The stuff about late hits on kickers and passers is something that we have to be careful with. If it is late definitely penalise it, and I would say in Super League we get the balance right most of the time. If it is borderline, you have every right to be hit there. If you want to pass right at the line, that is the risk you take. If you choose to kick off a slow PTB, that is the risk you take. Maybe the issue is not carding enough people for the genuine late hits. 

There always needs to be a line drawn. Wherever you draw that line there is a grey area either side of it.

When we say, as we do now, that if the tackler is 'committed'  its ok, we just see tacklers committing to the tackle earlier. They commit to that tackle not because its.good defence but because they know they get a free hit on a prone player. They aren't going to stop the ball or effect it. Just put a hit on. 

Now there is an argument to say this keeps a half back honest and you need to be brave to pass at the line because you will take a hit. But can the game sustain that when the consequences are so serious?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

There always needs to be a line drawn. Wherever you draw that line there is a grey area either side of it.

When we say, as we do now, that if the tackler is 'committed'  its ok, we just see tacklers committing to the tackle earlier. They commit to that tackle not because its.good defence but because they know they get a free hit on a prone player. They aren't going to stop the ball or effect it. Just put a hit on. 

Now there is an argument to say this keeps a half back honest and you need to be brave to pass at the line because you will take a hit. But can the game sustain that when the consequences are so serious?

 

I dunno, I think committed is only a defence when you aren't so far from the ball you have room to pull out. See JWH's penalty in the NRL GF for an example of where that defence didn't work.

When you're putting a kick in or as passing the ball you're bracing for contact anyway. The consequences generally only come from when you relax (concussion wise anyway). 

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

I dunno, I think committed is only a defence when you aren't so far from the ball you have room to pull out. See JWH's penalty in the NRL GF for an example of where that defence didn't work.

When you're putting a kick in or as passing the ball you're bracing for contact anyway. The consequences generally only come from when you relax (concussion wise anyway). 

But that's the thing. If the game allows you 'to be committed'. More players will be.

If we remove that and put the onus on the tackler to pull out. More players will do so. 

Given the choice I'd go back. 15-20years ago where a big punch up added to the excitement. Props were smacking each other all over and half backs were protected by a pack and not the rules. Its exciting, gets the blood pumping and I won't lie, I loved it. 

But we can't have that, its gone as an option. Its morally wrong and society won't accept it anymore. The game is going to have to change in some ways. And that's quite a small, easy way it can do that will protect players. Just move that line to say it doesn't matter if you are committed. You can't hit a player without the ball. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wigan vs Trinity first game back after lock down Hardaker seemed to be gunning for Johnstone and subsequently injured him with a perfectly legal but very vigorous tackle, basically swinging him around Tallis like then slamming him into the ground. Johnstone finished the game but was out for several weeks after. 

 

Maybe this was unnecessary roughness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Wigan vs Trinity first game back after lock down Hardaker seemed to be gunning for Johnstone and subsequently injured him with a perfectly legal but very vigorous tackle, basically swinging him around Tallis like then slamming him into the ground. Johnstone finished the game but was out for several weeks after. 

 

Maybe this was unnecessary roughness.

Was it you guys versus Catalans where you had a penalty reversed after micky mack lamped someone? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Wigan vs Trinity first game back after lock down Hardaker seemed to be gunning for Johnstone and subsequently injured him with a perfectly legal but very vigorous tackle, basically swinging him around Tallis like then slamming him into the ground. Johnstone finished the game but was out for several weeks after. 

 

Maybe this was unnecessary roughness.

I ve seen this sort of thing in kids football, and the example comes from the top, if you want kids to stop playing League that`s the way to do it. It`s got nothing to do with stopping someones progress or passing the ball, it`s more about hurting them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JohnM said:

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

Yes that`s a tricky one, the sort of lightweight impact absorbing head gear that I thought may be developed would protect against errant arms, accidental knocks etc. but as you say if it only lead to players putting their head down and charging into tackles, while the head gear may protect them initially the lightweight, impact absorbing nature of it, may mean that it would have to be changed too regularly to be practical, to make it any stronger defeats the purpose and the headgear can become the weapon itself.

I suppose it could still be worn by players who wanted to run in an upright manner, there would be no need for the tackler then to have any contact with the head, the head gear would only be there to protect from those accidental knocks or worse case scenario deliberate attacks to the head. Which have to be drummed out of the game as much as humanly possible.

When there was that big crack down on head knocks in the union WC, I think I remember a player running with the ball being penalised because he was deemed to be leading with his head, many thought the union had gone overboard and they did instruct the officials to ease up on the policing, but given unions target audience  are probably a little more concerned with this issue I thought it was instructive to where we might be ultimately heading( pardon the pun) as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

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.

A return to five metre defensive lines would reduce the severity of impact. 

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be strongly against bringing the worst rule in the NFL into our game.

As for head injuries, we have rules in place for that, and as an earlier post says, concussions are a result of the brain hitting the skull, either rapid acceleration or deceleration.

We would need to play touch to remove it.

 

Meanwhile, the UFC and boxing have never been more popular.

I agree with player welfare, but we also need to recognise what the fans of our sport are looking to watch.  Deal with foul play more stringently, and we would have a better result, no new rules needed.

 

Shots to the head have never been ok, is just that the way it has been ruled on over time has changed.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...