Instant red and yellow cards for head contact in the NRL

[Davo5]

Can’t wait to read the whinging on here in a years time after the game resembles netball on grass.

Some of the worst head knocks come from players tackling low and getting their head in the wrong position or making contact with the runners hip.

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So how would you term this tackle?

If it had been deliberate I am sure Hep Cahill would have had some reaction from the Warrington players around him but they didn't do anything whatsoever, in my opinion they all saw it for what it was, a tackle aimed at the midriff which it would have been had Hodgson not put his head in the collision area, no way whatsoever could Cahill pull out of it, and had Hodgson been upright we would all be saying what a great timed tackle it was. 

Cahill got sent off and suffered a long suspension which was absolutely ridiculous.

It's a dangerous tackle. Hodgson is allowed to put his head where he wants, Cahill isnt allowed to hit his head. 

It's an unfortunate one, but the reckless nature of it makes it dangerous. Tackles have a duty of care. 

[Lowdesert]

5 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Can’t wait to read the whinging on here in a years time after the game resembles netball on grass.

Some of the worst head knocks come from players tackling low and getting their head in the wrong position or making contact with the runners hip.

I agree with the last line Dave.  One of the finest tacklers I’ve ever seen, Lee Jackson, got it wrong now and again.  

This is why I’ve said head knocks and the concussion injuries will never go.  It’s the lazy and also the malicious hits that I can’t understand in 2021.  

[Damien]

Just now, Davo5 said:

Can’t wait to read the whinging on here in a years time after the game resembles netball on grass.

Some of the worst head knocks come from players tackling low and getting their head in the wrong position or making contact with the runners hip.

I'm not sure how enforcing the existing rules more strongly and deterring foul play through stricter punishment makes the game unwatchable, a non contact sport or netball on grass. The game is the same, the rules are the same, the only difference is the rules are being more strictly enforced.

The players will learn and adapt, they always have done. Its only been pure laziness all round that has led to the blasé attitude we see now. Accidental collisions will happen and we will still get head knocks, that is unavoidable. However it is only right that the game mitigates when it can and discouraging foul play and contact to the head is the obvious way.

[Dave T]

Another yellow in the NRL just now. 

Straight forward high tackle, the player having no intention of hitting the ball carrier anywhere other than the head/jaw. 

[gingerjon]

One on the TV just now. Roosters v Cowboys. Roosters player's lazy tackle with arm out and first contact is in the face.

Sin bin.

No complaints. That's as it should be.

[Chris22]

40 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

They are being sued by ambulance chasing lawyers. The game is a fast moving  contact sport. 

In soccer,  players deliberately head the ball, repeatedly, legally.   Boxers regularly hit each other in the head, repeatedly. 

Go figure. 

In football, similar litigation is planned - Forty ex-footballers set to take legal action over dementia links in 2021 | Football News | Sky Sports

And whatever you think of the individuals who are suing or their representatives, the financial risk that this poses to the game is potentially very severe. No amount of criticism of those people will change that. 

I think we should do what we can to both reduce the financial risk to the sport and keep our best players playing for as long as possible.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Another yellow in the NRL just now. 

Straight forward high tackle, the player having no intention of hitting the ball carrier anywhere other than the head/jaw. 

 

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

One on the TV just now. Roosters v Cowboys. Roosters player's lazy tackle with arm out and first contact is in the face.

Sin bin.

No complaints. That's as it should be.

Can I please have your interpretation gentlemen of Lachlan Burrs "High Tackle" on James Tedesco for which he was penalised, put on report and sent to the bin for 10mins leaving his team with 12 men, effectively a total game changer.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Can I please have your interpretation gentlemen of Lachlan Burrs "High Tackle" on James Tedesco for which he was penalised, put on report and sent to the bin for 10mins leaving his team with 12 men, effectively a total game changer.

Only after you've given yours for the one that you're quoting.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

It's a dangerous tackle. Hodgson is allowed to put his head where he wants, Cahill isnt allowed to hit his head. 

It's an unfortunate one, but the reckless nature of it makes it dangerous. Tackles have a duty of care. 

What made it dangerous was Hodgson's bad technique of catching the ball, nothing else.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Only after you've given yours for the one that you're quoting.

Absolutely disgraceful interpretation by the referee, Tedesco was the soul reason that it was judged to be a high tackle his head contacted Burrs arm not the other way round. 

[UTK]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Can I please have your interpretation gentlemen of Lachlan Burrs "High Tackle" on James Tedesco for which he was penalised, put on report and sent to the bin for 10mins leaving his team with 12 men, effectively a total game changer.

After my disappointment at the first bin involving Tyson Gamble the other night I felt the rest of the games so far have been much more appropriate uses of the bin ...... until then. Josh Papali'i earlier - Barely wrapping tackle, shoulder contact directly to the middle of the face = gone, more than acceptable. Same with Wighton for a very dangerous cannonball tackle. Even Tupouniua earlier - Swinging arm, direct contact with the head and well away from the body is fair enough.

Burr being binned there is not a scenario which should ever decide the result of the game as it did there. Would the Cows have come back? Maybe, maybe not, but as soon as Burr is gone the game is over. Tedesco is literally on his knees and drops to that height within a metre of contacting Burr - there is simply nothing he can do. Penalty? Sure, more than happy to take a strict liability approach but a sin-bin is a completely different kettle of fish and just ruined what was a decent game until that point. If this continues you'll have to simply ban Tedesco from playing because he does this every single week.

 

[gingerjon]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

Absolutely disgraceful interpretation by the referee, Tedesco was the soul reason that it was judged to be a high tackle his head contacted Burrs arm not the other way round. 

Sorry - I've worded what I wanted you to do poorly. I meant: as you're asking me to comment on something it would only be fair to offer an opinion on the incident that I'd mentioned that you responded to.

So, if you could do that, I'll get on with rewatching the one you've mentioned.

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, UTK said:

After my disappointment at the first bin involving Tyson Gamble the other night I felt the rest of the games so far have been much more appropriate uses of the bin ...... until then. Josh Papali'i earlier - Barely wrapping tackle, shoulder contact directly to the middle of the face = gone, more than acceptable. Same with Wighton for a very dangerous cannonball tackle. Even Tupouniua earlier - Swinging arm, direct contact with the head and well away from the body is fair enough.

Burr being binned there is not a scenario which should ever decide the result of the game as it did there. Would the Cows have come back? Maybe, maybe not, but as soon as Burr is gone the game is over. Tedesco is literally on his knees and drops to that height within a metre of contacting Burr - there is simply nothing he can do. Penalty? Sure, more than happy to take a strict liability approach but a sin-bin is a completely different kettle of fish and just ruined what was a decent game until that point. If this continues you'll have to simply ban Tedesco from playing because he does this every single week.

 

Just listening to Todd Payten he says he feels sorry for the fans, it is the biggest weekend of the season people have paid a lot of money to come along but the game is being ruined by the instruction from above to the referee's who he feels sorry for they are under to much pressure with these head interpretations.

[Big Picture]

26 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Absolutely disgraceful interpretation by the referee, Tedesco was the soul reason that it was judged to be a high tackle his head contacted Burrs arm not the other way round. 

That's incorrect.  On the replay you can see that Hodgson had his knees bent in a crouching position and Cahill's arm was down as the ball came down.  Cahill then raised his arm to the level of Hodgson's head as he made contact, in my view that contact warranted a sin-binning.

[Harry Stottle]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sorry - I've worded what I wanted you to do poorly. I meant: as you're asking me to comment on something it would only be fair to offer an opinion on the incident that I'd mentioned that you responded to.

So, if you could do that, I'll get on with rewatching the one you've mentioned.

You've lost me with that Ginger?

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

You've lost me with that Ginger?

No worries. I’ve phrased it badly.

[frank]

6 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Total overreaction from the NRL that will kill the game if it continues.

I stopped watching football when it became a non contact sport and we are in danger of making RL unwatchable.

So you like watching head high tackles. Bet you would soon change your mind if you were on the end of one.

[UTK]

9 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Just listening to Todd Payten he says he feels sorry for the fans, it is the biggest weekend of the season people have paid a lot of money to come along but the game is being ruined by the instruction from above to the referee's who he feels sorry for they are under to much pressure with these head interpretations.

Yeah I couldn't agree more with what he said there. I feel extremely sorry for the referees, they have been thrown under the bus all year with rule changes occurring every week. Peter V'landys is a complete and utter blight on the game, the sheer amount of reactionary garbage he has subjected the league to in his tenure is despicable.

Even if you were to agree with this particular change in approach, the way it has come about is completely amateurish, dropped in without a second thought as a result of some unfortunate missed calls last week. On top of this approach to the rules, V'landys came in and gave his mates at Fox a cut-price deal on the broadcast rights. Humoured the calls for changes to Origin eligibility in an attempt to further diminish the International game in favour of protecting origin. Openly slandered expansion areas such as Victoria and WA on the basis that AFL is more popular there, despite the fact these areas pay millions of dollars each year for the chance to host origin. The only thing the man cares about is his ego, he could not give a stuff less about Rugby League.

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What made it dangerous was Hodgson's bad technique of catching the ball, nothing else.

You can catch the ball however you want, you can't tackle however you want. 

The onus to not hit the head is 100% on the tackler. 

[Dave T]

55 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Can I please have your interpretation gentlemen of Lachlan Burrs "High Tackle" on James Tedesco for which he was penalised, put on report and sent to the bin for 10mins leaving his team with 12 men, effectively a total game changer.

I have some sympathy on that one, however where I disagree with many on this is when the commentator said he could do nothing but hit him high. That is simply not true. He could have actually bent his back or his legs. The tackler was fully upright, made no attempt to tackle low (he could have), we know that somebody running moves their head, sidesteps, moves up and down - the onus has to be on the tackler to go lower. 

So I do have some sympathy on that one (and itll settle down) but I also do believe that tacklers need to change their style, we can't blame the victims all the time. 

[Harry Stottle]

14 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

That's incorrect.  On the replay you can see that Hodgson had his knees bent in a crouching position and Cahill's arm was down as the ball came down.  Cahill then raised his arm to the level of Hodgson's head as he made contact, in my view that contact warranted a sin-binning.

You have got the wrong post BP.

You are missing the biggest clue, look at the Warrington player's reaction, if they had the same interpretation as yours Cahill wouldn't have needed sending off, he would have been carried off.

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

 

That wasn't round the shoulders. It was high and reckless and the tackler actually had his feet off the ground during parts of the Tackle. 

These tackles should absolutely be banned, no matter how 'surprised' the tackler looks and the commentators sound. 

I just watched it again and Tyson Gamble's contact was around the shoulders, I also couldn't see him with both feet off the ground at any point.  The second defender who made contact came in a bit high and his shoulder contacted Reuben Garrick's head, I could see a penalty being given for that but not more as that contact was incidental.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

I just watched it again and Tyson Gamble's contact was around the shoulders, I also couldn't see him with both feet off the ground at any point.  The second defender who made contact came in a bit high and his shoulder contacted Reuben Garrick's head, I could see a penalty being given for that but not more as that contact was incidental.

Walk through the replays, you will see contact with the jaw, and you will see feet off the ground, which is often an indicator used for reckless tackles. 

It was a high tackle. 

You can get it on freeze frame very clearly, but the NRL site won't let you screen grab. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I have some sympathy on that one, however where I disagree with many on this is when the commentator said he could do nothing but hit him high. That is simply not true. He could have actually bent his back or his legs. The tackler was fully upright, made no attempt to tackle low (he could have), we know that somebody running moves their head, sidesteps, moves up and down - the onus has to be on the tackler to go lower. 

So I do have some sympathy on that one (and itll settle down) but I also do believe that tacklers need to change their style, we can't blame the victims all the time. 

Have you ever made a tackle yourself Dave? Just curios.