Instant red and yellow cards for head contact in the NRL

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

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.

Nonsense, this isn't the 80s. The players recognised it was unfortunate rather than intentional foul play. But it was foul play. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

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

Of course. And I assume, like you, when I was taught to tackle we bent our back. We're you taught to stand upright to tackle? 

Even on my RFL coaching course we were never taught to stand upright to make tackles. 

[Harry Stottle]

Just now, Dave T said:

Nonsense, this isn't the 80s. The players recognised it was unfortunate rather than intentional foil play. But it was foul play. 

I don't care if it is the 00's, 80's, 60's or 20's, player's will react if a teammate is intentionally injured.

[Dave T]

Just now, Harry Stottle said:

I don't care if it is the 00's, 80's, 60's or 20's, player's will react if a teammate is intentionally injured.

Why are you adding the word intentional? 

That isn't a requirement for foul play. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Why are you adding the word intentional? 

That isn't a requirement for foul play. 

Isn't it?

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Why are you adding the word intentional? 

That isn't a requirement for foul play. 

Quite right. Intention should come into play when dishing out bans

[LeeF]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Isn't it?

No it isn’t 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Isn't it?

That seems quite a basic point for this whole discussion. 

[Big Picture]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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. 

I did walk through it and I can now see why you say that Tyson Gamble made contact with the jaw, though it looks more like under the jaw.  I'd upload a screenshot but for some reason TRL says that a 185 kB file is too big!  What's up with that @John Drake?

 

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, frank said:

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

Where in my post did I say I liked high tackles,yes stamp out the deliberate swinging arm shots & shoulder shots but high tackles do occur accidentally and shouldn’t result in send offs to suit  overeating drama queens like yourself who probably have never taken a hit up in their life.

[DavidM]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

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.

But accidents are being penalised and put on report . And yes it’s unavoidable . So how can a sanction do anything ? It’s hardly a discipline issue .Minimal nothings that are just laughable are being penalised and put on report . No amount of official intervention will change these things . Where we are now is a massive overreaction that’s spoiling the game . It’s a joke at times.  We’ve lost all sense of reason and middle ground . The Papali challenge yes , take action , more of it for things like that ... but things like the game being stopped to penalise and on report for Townsend is just plainly ridiculous . Sharks were in that then . How is any number of penalties and bans eradicating things like that ? There has to be a middle ground which we’ve totally wiped out , that’s what looks plain daft for the game . It’s rugby league  , you’ll never eliminate risk or injury . We always do this , go to extremes and lose all perspective in trying to prove something . It’s also a further step towards the VR running the game . He’s analysing every tackle , the ref is under remote control from the bunker via an earpiece ... ‘ yes , no , who , where , what should I do ..’ . Half the time he’s got no idea but this voice is telling him what to do . We’re going back all over the place for things no one else has seen . Generally we’re now  looking for something we’ll never achieve by definition of the game , and somewhere we’ll never get to 

[redjonn]

I think their is a degree of over reaction and more to be seen to do something as distinct from enforce what was the current rules/law.  It seems to me that if it about protecting players from concussion, etc then its not just the specific high tackles that need to be looked at but the whole game. Is the speed of the game causing more concussion even if normal tackles, is it players tiredness leading to more poor tackle techniques due to that tiredness... etc etc etc...

maybe their has been some rules changes that have contributed towards concussion.

[Dunbar]

I think we have to start all of these discussions with an understanding of what the game is trying to achieve here.

We all know that a large proportion of HIA result from either the tackler getting their head in the wrong position and catching hips etc or accidental collisions, again often involving two tacklers clashing heads. These types of incidents will never be irradiated. 

Similarly, evidence suggests that it is the repetitive contact that causing long term damage and this is primarily legal tackles (and heading the ball in football for example).

In short. Rugby League is a sport where long term brain injury needs to be considered. 

This brings us back to the current situation. I don't think the NRL are doing anything that will mitigate these injuries (due to the above) and so what they are doing is being seen to be doing something. 

A tackler making direct and forceful contact with the head - accidental or otherwise - should be a penalty.  And deliberate acts of foul play should be a yellow or red depending on severity. But incidents like Townsend where it was clearly an accidental collision shouldn't be on report as that makes the game look ridiculous. 

Surely a better way for the authorities to show a zero tolerance attitude is to dish out lengthy suspensions for acts of foul play where the head is attacked... particularly late or blindsided.

I do think we have to protect players but I also think this weekends actions have gone too far. Hopefully a balance will be found.

[DavidM]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

I think their is a degree of over reaction and more to be seen to do something as distinct from enforce what was the current rules/law.

Excellent point . Rules are in place for foul play but for to long proper sanctions in games were not being used , and officials were lax in using yellow and red cards . The overarching cop out of on report for serious ill discipline has come back to bite them and now theyve reacted to their own laxity over time by going from one extreme to the other overnight . Their own failings of officialdom in handling foul play have to a big extent have got us here . Refs just needed to properly police and punish it rather than pass the buck which they did far to often 

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I think their is a degree of over reaction and more to be seen to do something as distinct from enforce what was the current rules/law.  It seems to me that if it about protecting players from concussion, etc then its not just the specific high tackles that need to be looked at but the whole game. Is the speed of the game causing more concussion even if normal tackles, is it players tiredness leading to more poor tackle techniques due to that tiredness... etc etc etc...

maybe their has been some rules changes that have contributed towards concussion.

Seems we were writing similar comments at the same time.

[DavidM]

As the VR gains preeminence the confidence or will of the referee in terms of making decisions has faded away substantially . He now talks and gets talked to by the VR throughout the whole game , being directed by him and seemingly quite happily subservient . Now if he’s missed something that’s an extra pair of eyes , but so often he sees and calls something and right away he’s saying ‘ is there anything more I should do ?... if you don’t tell me otherwise I’m gonna do this etc etc ‘ . Well you’re in charge you can make your own decisions you know if you’ve seen something . Cummins was standing next to a tip tackle by the Roosters and immediately he asked the bunker what  he should do . 

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, DavidM said:

As the VR gains preeminence the confidence or will of the referee in terms of making decisions has faded away substantially . He now talks and gets talked to by the VR throughout the whole game , being directed by him and seemingly quite happily subservient . Now if he’s missed something that’s an extra pair of eyes , but so often he sees and calls something and right away he’s saying ‘ is there anything more I should do ?... if you don’t tell me otherwise I’m gonna do this etc etc ‘ . Well you’re in charge you can make your own decisions you know if you’ve seen something . Cummins was standing next to a tip tackle by the Roosters and immediately he asked the bunker what  he should do . 

As with many things, you make incremental changes, all of which are individually justified as making the game better and fairer, and then you look back and the cumulative effect is negative.

There is far too much input from video technology and, as with football, it is creating a sterile and passionless sport... but hey, we are getting every decision right so that is all that matters!

[DavidM]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

There is far too much input from video technology and, as with football, it is creating a sterile and passionless sport... but hey, we are getting every decision right so that is all that matters!

Well indeed , although there’s a certain irony in that last sentence I feel . I maybe a dinosaur but I feel we’re searching for a perfection and purity we will never and can never attain , and we lose so much of the essence of the sport in trying to attain it . I will go and watch my team , the ref will make his calls , some will be right some wrong and we’ll  chunter  under our breath , but he’ll be in charge of the game , it won’t be dissected to the nth degree and I’ll be home by quarter to five . I’ll take that every day of the week for good or ill . Now I know the genie can’t be put back in the bottle , technology is here to stay but the way we allow it’s absorption deeper into the fabric of the game and what we want it to do and the power it holds is getting counter productive to the spectacle , the officiating and the very essence of the sport which I fell in love with 

[bobbruce]

6 hours 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. 

They are the rule of the sport players know what they are signing up for. Show me in the RFL laws were it says defenders can hit players in the head. 

[bobbruce]

6 hours 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.

I’ve no problem with that being a red card. 

[John Drake]

3 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I did walk through it and I can now see why you say that Tyson Gamble made contact with the jaw, though it looks more like under the jaw.  I'd upload a screenshot but for some reason TRL says that a 185 kB file is too big!  What's up with that @John Drake?

 

We discourage file uploads on here now because our server does not have the space to accommodate them. 

Please upload files to an external file sharing site (there are many free ones of you Google) and just link to the file on here. 

Thanks

[bobbruce]

4 hours 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.

 

Interesting one with the Wighton one the ref didn’t seem too bothered with were he hit him. More the aggressive nature of the third man hit to the legs. Which I think is how it should be and would’ve cleared up the Powell one last week as he would more than likely received a yellow along with the Hull player. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I think we have to start all of these discussions with an understanding of what the game is trying to achieve here.

We all know that a large proportion of HIA result from either the tackler getting their head in the wrong position and catching hips etc or accidental collisions, again often involving two tacklers clashing heads. These types of incidents will never be irradiated. 

Similarly, evidence suggests that it is the repetitive contact that causing long term damage and this is primarily legal tackles (and heading the ball in football for example).

In short. Rugby League is a sport where long term brain injury needs to be considered. 

This brings us back to the current situation. I don't think the NRL are doing anything that will mitigate these injuries (due to the above) and so what they are doing is being seen to be doing something. 

A tackler making direct and forceful contact with the head - accidental or otherwise - should be a penalty.  And deliberate acts of foul play should be a yellow or red depending on severity. But incidents like Townsend where it was clearly an accidental collision shouldn't be on report as that makes the game look ridiculous. 

Surely a better way for the authorities to show a zero tolerance attitude is to dish out lengthy suspensions for acts of foul play where the head is attacked... particularly late or blindsided.

I do think we have to protect players but I also think this weekends actions have gone too far. Hopefully a balance will be found.

On the Townshend one, whilst I do have some sympathy with the Tackle, there is an alternate way to look at this being accidental. He made no attempt to lower his shoulder for the Tackle. He stayed stood at full height - by doing that the risk of a high tackle is increased - players know this and still choose to tackle at shoulder height. 

Where I have sympathy is how the game just does these things at random instead of a considered way, but I dont have sympathy with players who are looking to tackle right on the line and they get caught out. They are committing high risk plays, they can bend their legs/back if they choose to. 

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On the Townshend one, whilst I do have some sympathy with the Tackle, there is an alternate way to look at this being accidental. He made no attempt to lower his shoulder for the Tackle. He stayed stood at full height - by doing that the risk of a high tackle is increased - players know this and still choose to tackle at shoulder height. 

Where I have sympathy is how the game just does these things at random instead of a considered way, but I dont have sympathy with players who are looking to tackle right on the line and they get caught out. They are committing high risk plays, they can bend their legs/back if they choose to. 

It wasn't called a high tackle though, it was called a crusher. 

Here is the incident.  If this is foul play we will have no game left.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2021-cronulla-sharks-chad-townsend-crusher-tackle-reaction-south-sydney-rabbitohs-foul-play-crackdown/news-story/4107609723d0f9aac768100e4831ecd6

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

It wasn't called a high tackle though, it was called a crusher. 

Here is the incident.  If this is foul play we will have no game left.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2021-cronulla-sharks-chad-townsend-crusher-tackle-reaction-south-sydney-rabbitohs-foul-play-crackdown/news-story/4107609723d0f9aac768100e4831ecd6

Apologies, my mistake we are talking about different tackles.