Instant red and yellow cards for head contact in the NRL

[The Daddy]

This is a rule change that will soon see the light of day in the NRL. In my view this has the potential to be an absolute disaster for the sport. 

Please do not bring this into UK RL!!

So if a player makes any sort of contact above the shoulders of an opposing player it's an instant red or yellow card.

In one Championship game I watched on the weekend there were 3-4 penalties against a single team for a high tackle which means with the new rule they'd have 9 players left on the field. 

Several of those penalties were dubious because the attacking player was slipping or falling into the collision in order to deliberately get the defending player to make contact with the head. With these sort of tactics in play a rule like this will create anarchy. 

Do not use this rule in Europe or in international football, it will ruin a lot of games 

[Just Browny]

It is vaguely inconvenient but we do need to stop people being hit in the head.

[The Daddy]

5 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

It is vaguely inconvenient but we do need to stop people being hit in the head.

Players don't get concussion from high tackles 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Players don't get concussion from high tackles 

[The Daddy]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Ok let me rephrase that for the deaf and dumb.

Most cases of concussion and instances where players fail head injury assessments are not the result of high tackles from opposition players.

There's a whole host of impacts during a game that cause head injuries and to focus purely on head high tackles is ridiculous 

[The Daddy]

Just now, The Daddy said:

Ok let me rephrase that for the deaf and dumb.

Most cases of concussion and instances where players fail head injury assessments are not the result of high tackles from opposition players.

There's a whole host of impacts during a game that cause head injuries and to focus purely on head high tackles is ridiculous 

 

[nkpom]

Evidence is now becoming clearer that the largest contributor to concussions among players is contact during training; this is why the NFL has no contact at all for most of their pre-season. This is not to dismiss the HIA and other protocols as mere window dressing, but they do more to be "seen to do" stuff than actually addressing the issue.

Combine this with the ever increasing push to speed up what is already a lightning fast sport and the legitimate tackling area in most cases gets reduced to the players chest region. Its not too far then to the shoulder and above - made more common by the fact that it's easier to deflect a tackling arm up above the neck, and players are penalised for high shots even when the tackled player is falling. These same techniques, and the wrestle to get the player to the floor has also created the crusher tackle.

Making rules up by the week to please what you think the TV audience wants will ALWAYS have knock on effects. And this new high tackle edict would have done nothing about the disgraceful knees in by Dylan Brown last week that ut Drew Hutchinson in hospital with broken ribs and a punctured lung.

[The Daddy]

30 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

It is vaguely inconvenient but we do need to stop people being hit in the head.

It's also inconvenient if I've paid to watch a game and I end up watching a game with 10 players on one side and 11 on another

[The Daddy]

1 minute ago, nkpom said:

Evidence is now becoming clearer that the largest contributor to concussions among players is contact during training; this is why the NFL has no contact at all for most of their pre-season. This is not to dismiss the HIA and other protocols as mere window dressing, but they do more to be "seen to do" stuff than actually addressing the issue.

Combine this with the ever increasing push to speed up what is already a lightning fast sport and the legitimate tackling area in most cases gets reduced to the players chest region. Its not too far then to the shoulder and above - made more common by the fact that it's easier to deflect a tackling arm up above the neck, and players are penalised for high shots even when the tackled player is falling. These same techniques, and the wrestle to get the player to the floor has also created the crusher tackle.

Making rules up by the week to please what you think the TV audience wants will ALWAYS have knock on effects. And this new high tackle edict would have done nothing about the disgraceful knees in by Dylan Brown last week that ut Drew Hutchinson in hospital with broken ribs and a punctured lung.

[Man of Kent]

I'm all for a clamp down on deliberate contact to the head but I'm instinctively wary of zero tolerance rules that leave no margin for interpretation.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Man of Kent said:

I'm all for a clamp down on deliberate contact to the head but I'm instinctively wary of zero tolerance rules that leave no margin for interpretation.

The key issue right now is that, across the board, the game is erring far too far the other way. Interpretation usually equalling forgiveness.

[Harry Stottle]

24 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Several of those penalties were dubious because the attacking player was slipping or falling into the collision.

This,

Many times it is an unavoidable occurrence when a defender is in the motion of making a tackle and it is aimed to make contact in the chest, rib or arm area of the attacker, when the attacking player slips, stumbles or ducks at the precise moment and the whole of his upper body is suddenly 12" to 18" closer to the ground it is not the defender contacting the head but the attackers head contacting the arm, unfortunate but most definatley should not be classified as a rule infringement.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, nkpom said:

And this new high tackle edict would have done nothing about the disgraceful knees in by Dylan Brown last week that ut Drew Hutchinson in hospital with broken ribs and a punctured lung.

You're right.

But we should be acting on issues like that too. With equal amounts of zero tolerance.

[Saint Toppy]

I think they need to be cautious in how they apply this rule. Happy to see a card for head contact when its due to a swinging arm, shoulder etc. but it shouldn't be a card if the player is slipping and is about 2 feet off the ground as its then almost impossible for the defender to change their tackle once they've started it. In instances like this it should just be a penalty, a card of any sort would be harsh on the defender when they never had any intention or poor technique to hit the head of the opponent.

[Just Browny]

11 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

It's also inconvenient if I've paid to watch a game and I end up watching a game with 10 players on one side and 11 on another

And indeed if your best players, your Fages and your Johnstones, are sat in the stands with head injuries.

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

I think they need to be cautious in how they apply this rule. Happy to see a card for head contact when its due to a swinging arm, shoulder etc. but it shouldn't be a card if the player is slipping and is about 2 feet off the ground as its then almost impossible for the defender to change their tackle once they've started it. In instances like this it should just be a penalty, a card of any sort would be harsh on the defender when they never had any intention or poor technique to hit the head of the opponent.

Hi Saint, you have stated that if a player is slipping and it's impossible for the defender to change the direction of his intended "target" area, why should the player be penalised he has done absolutely nothing wrong.

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

And indeed if your best players, your Fages and your Johnstones, are sat in the stands with head injuries.

If they are sat in the stand because of an intentional action then the infringer should be sent off, but that is not what is being discussed.

[Just Browny]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

If they are sat in the stand because of an intentional action then the infringer should be sent off, but that is not what is being discussed.

Not just deliberate, reckless and careless too.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Not just deliberate, reckless and careless too.

Granted, but we are discussing when a tackle would be totally legal if not for the action of the attacker.

[Tommygilf]

59 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

Ok let me rephrase that for the deaf and dumb.

Most cases of concussion and instances where players fail head injury assessments are not the result of high tackles from opposition players.

There's a whole host of impacts during a game that cause head injuries and to focus purely on head high tackles is ridiculous 

This is an important point, tacklers are the most likely to come off worse in contact due to bad positioning and just the fact that tackling with the shoulder leaves the side of the head vulnerable to knees, elbows and hips. 

I do think there is a large element of this specific policy that is window dressing, but it is important window dressing.

[The Daddy]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This is an important point, tacklers are the most likely to come off worse in contact due to bad positioning and just the fact that tackling with the shoulder leaves the side of the head vulnerable to knees, elbows and hips. 

I do think there is a large element of this specific policy that is window dressing, but it is important window dressing.

I don't like window dressing if it leads to my teams players being sent off. 

Pray to God that this rule is kept well away from the World Cup 

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, The Daddy said:

I don't like window dressing if it leads to my teams players being sent off. 

Pray to God that this rule is kept well away from the World Cup 

Given that it's not even in the NRL yet, I think you're quite safe.

[Saint Toppy]

45 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Saint, you have stated that if a player is slipping and it's impossible for the defender to change the direction of his intended "target" area, why should the player be penalised he has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Because there's still contact with the head

[Chris22]

A 2014 study found that 39% of all injuries in rugby league were related to concussion.

The review found that concussion accounted for 29% of all injuries associated with illegal play, but 9% of injuries sustained in legal play. 

This week we have reports that a player is getting headaches and concussion like symptoms riding a bike after suffering two HIA's this year.

Stevie Ward has retired very early due to concussions and continues with severe symptoms.

Players are suing the sport for negligence due to concussion.

Like it or not this is an issue that will not go away. Positive action to deal with it and keep our best players playing should always be welcomed.

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Saint Toppy said:

Because there's still contact with the head

So if the defender is devoid of any blame whatsoever he should still be penalised? 

Strange one that how should the offence be termed, perhap's:-

Penalty for doing everything within the law but penalised because the attacker head butted his arm.