Refereeing (Multiple Merged Threads)

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Tubby said:

 But what I do agree with is that players should have a voice and if we're not careful, we'll no longer have the game that many of us love.

On this point, whilst I don't necessarily disagree about players having a voice, in reality, I expect they would vote for bringing back the biff, shoulder charge and scrap red cards for high tackles. 

Rugby players aren't necessarily the best ones to ask about safety on a Rugby pitch. 

[Tubby]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm interested in the examples he is referring to that have been carded. If there are none this year, then what is he talking about? 

Is he talking about the absolute shocker from Nappa?

I'm not sure he specified this year, but either way, that's really no the point.  The point, for me, is that there are instances where a slip from an attacking player has meant that a tackle has ended up being high and players have been carded fro that.  I'm not going to try to pluck an example out of the air, but I'm sure we can agree that has happened in the recent past?

[Tubby]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

On this point, whilst I don't necessarily disagree about players having a voice, in reality, I expect they would vote for bringing back the biff, shoulder charge and scrap red cards for high tackles. 

Rugby players aren't necessarily the best ones to ask about safety on a Rugby pitch. 

I said that too.

[Dave T]

Just now, Tubby said:

I'm not sure he specified this year, but either way, that's really no the point.  The point, for me, is that there are instances where a slip from an attacking player has meant that a tackle has ended up being high and players have been carded fro that.  I'm not going to try to pluck an example out of the air, but I'm sure we can agree that has happened in the recent past?

Without an example it's hard to discuss, because every tackle is different. But a player slipping isn't always total mitigant, it depends on what the actions of a tackler is. 

[Tubby]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Without an example it's hard to discuss, because every tackle is different. But a player slipping isn't always total mitigant, it depends on what the actions of a tackler is. 

Again, I didn't say always.  But it happens.

[Tubby]

I do think we genuinely look at the game from entirely different viewpoints.  Having watched and played both codes of rugby for decades, I think aggression is hugely important.  I also think players can be their own worst enemies, but a balance is what's needed

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Tubby said:

I do think we genuinely look at the game from entirely different viewpoints.  Having watched and played both codes of rugby for decades, I think aggression is hugely important.  I also think players can be their own worst enemies, but a balance is what's needed

The good thing about Rugby League is players have plenty of opportunity to be aggressive even if we have zero tolerance to head tackles and late hits. 

[Tubby]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The good thing about Rugby League is players have plenty of opportunity to be aggressive even if we have zero tolerance to head tackles and late hits. 

I agree entirely, but tackles aren't black and white, every tackle is different, as you pointed out yourself.  I don't believe we disagree on what the game should be, just how 'mistakes' are interpreted.

I absolutely believe (having done so myself) that a player can go into a tackle to wrap up the ball and contain the attacker, only for him to slip and you end up with your arm across his face.  It's undoubtedly a high tackle, but there is no carelessness or malice, so to see a card for that seems unreasonable to me.  You see it differently and seem happy with every high contact being punished in the same way.  Fair enough.

[DavidM]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The good thing about Rugby League is players have plenty of opportunity to be aggressive even if we have zero tolerance to head tackles and late hits. 

But that comes up against the very nature of the game at times , I think Griffin is making this point which I believe is fair . In a high speed collision contact sport you will always get accidental and incidental contact with players body positions changing and players slipping etc . We’ve seen ballcarriers slip to ankle height and incurring head contact that’s been penalised . You cant legislate this out of the game by its very nature , or if you do it’ll be lacking all empathy with the realities of the sport 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Tubby said:

I agree entirely, but tackles aren't black and white, every tackle is different, as you pointed out yourself.  I don't believe we disagree on what the game should be, just how 'mistakes' are interpreted.

I absolutely believe (having done so myself) that a player can go into a tackle to wrap up the ball and contain the attacker, only for him to slip and you end up with your arm across his face.  It's undoubtedly a high tackle, but there is no carelessness or malice, so to see a card for that seems unreasonable to me.  You see it differently and seem happy with every high contact being punished in the same way.  Fair enough.

You don't need to put words in my mouth, I'm happy to tell you my opinion. 

I don't want every high tackle punished the same way, I find those calls extremely stupid. We see plenty of high tackles that do not get cards. 

I'm happy that every tackle is judged on their own merits and penalised as necessary. I haven't seen anything this year that I've found silly, unlike Griffin. 

[Tubby]

Just now, Dave T said:

You don't need to put words in my mouth, I'm happy to tell you my opinion. 

I don't want every high tackle punished the same way, I find those calls extremely stupid. We see plenty of high tackles that do not get cards. 

I'm happy that every tackle is judged on their own merits and penalised as necessary. I haven't seen anything this year that I've found silly, unlike Griffin. 

Fair enough

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, DavidM said:

But that comes up against the very nature of the game at times , I think Griffin is making this point which I believe is fair . In a high speed collision contact sport you will always get accidental and incidental contact with players body positions changing and players slipping etc . We’ve seen ballcarriers slip to ankle height and incurring head contact that’s been penalised . You cant legislate this out of the game by its very nature , or if you do it’ll be lacking all empathy with the realities of the sport 

We see plenty high tackles not carded. Bad tackles get cards and bans. 

Where a player has been penalised hitting somebody who has slipped it has always been for a lack of control and an element of recklessness. If you are tackling round the top of the ball and something happens that leads to the Tackle ending up in the face there is a case that you have carried out a higher risk tackle. Yiu live with those risks. 

[AB90]

46 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I think the first question that should  be asked when the clampdown on foul play is questioned is:

How else does the game avoid further legal claims and financial liabilities that could bankrupt the sport?

I have not yet heard a persuasive answer to that question.

A fair question but has the RFL or NRL actually ever paid legal compensation to a player who has symptoms of brain damage?

Just because a legal claim is lodged doesn’t mean the sport is negligent in their duty of care to the athletes. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, DavidM said:

We’ve seen ballcarriers slip to ankle height and incurring head contact that’s been penalised . 

Where are these examples of high tackles at ankle height? We need to avoid using silly examples to debate a point, otherwise the whole point becomes a nonsense. 

There was a high profile case where a Widnes player was sent off for hitting Brett Hodgson high as he caught a bomb low down. There was controversy over this because Hodgsons head was low, but it was ultimately a reckless tackle with no control from the tackler. He was red carded and banned for 2.

[DavidM]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We see plenty high tackles not carded. Bad tackles get cards and bans. 

Where a player has been penalised hitting somebody who has slipped it has always been for a lack of control and an element of recklessness. If you are tackling round the top of the ball and something happens that leads to the Tackle ending up in the face there is a case that you have carried out a higher risk tackle. Yiu live with those risks. 

You’re saying tackling  around the top of the ball is reckless ? 

 

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Where are these examples of high tackles at ankle height? We need to avoid using silly examples to debate a point, otherwise the whole point becomes a nonsense. 

You’ve never seen a player slip really low and get a penalty because a defender has caught his head ?

[Tubby]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Where are these examples of high tackles at ankle height? We need to avoid using silly examples to debate a point, otherwise the whole point becomes a nonsense. 

There was a high profile case where a Widnes player was sent off for hitting Brett Hodgson high as he caught a bomb low down. There was controversy over this because Hodgsons head was low, but it was ultimately a reckless tackle with no control from the tackler. He was red carded and banned for 2.

Just out of interest, have you ever seen a penalty/card given for a high tackle that you've disagreed with?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

You’re saying tackling  around the top of the ball is reckless ? 

 

You’ve never seen a player slip really low and get a penalty because a defender has caught his head ?

Point 1. No, I didn't say that. Tackling around the top of the ball is a higher risk tackle. Perfectly legal and effective if all goes to plan, but if your arm bounces up off the ball or the running player steps and wrong foots you and your arm ends up in their face then that isn't a massive surprise and it'll lead to being penalised. 

Point 2. Well I gave an example. Nobody else making these claims, Griffin, Tubby or yourself have done so. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Well I gave an example. Nobody else making these claims, Griffin, Tubby or yourself have done so. 

There are, obviously, just too many.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Tubby said:

Just out of interest, have you ever seen a penalty/card given for a high tackle that you've disagreed with?

There aren't many cards given for high tackles, so not many to disagree with really. When a card is dished out for a high tackle it is usually justified. 

It's an interesting debate as for years people complained about the on report system being used as a cop-out. 

If anything, over the years there are more instances of players getting away with bad tackles than getting punished for soft ones. 

I can't think of a card for a high tackle that was silly, off the top of my head. 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Tubby said:

Just out of interest, have you ever seen a penalty/card given for a high tackle that you've disagreed with?

To expand on thia point further, the one area where I think we have been over-zealous in recent years has been cards for late hits, we have seen some soft yellows for very little contact, but I think it's a difficult one to police, and I do think that the zero tolerance policy is hopefully starting to pay off now as it appears to be a less prominent offence in the game. 

[Tubby]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To expand on thia point further, the one area where I think we have been over-zealous in recent years has been cards for late hits, we have seen some soft yellows for very little contact, but I think it's a difficult one to police, and I do think that the zero tolerance policy is hopefully starting to pay off now as it appears to be a less prominent offence in the game. 

But you maintain that the high tackle decision making can't be 'over-zealous'?  I'm not trying to be  provocative, I'm genuinely trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

Edit: sorry, missed your previous post.  I've read it now.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Point 1. No, I didn't say that. Tackling around the top of the ball is a higher risk tackle. Perfectly legal and effective if all goes to plan, but if your arm bounces up off the ball or the running player steps and wrong foots you and your arm ends up in their face then that isn't a massive surprise and it'll lead to being penalised. 

I think this is a really important point.  Players are coached to tackle upright so that they can wrap the ball and stop any offload (you see it practiced in every warm up).  Once they have ensured the ball carriers momentum is stopped then they will be joined by colleagues looking to bring the player to ground via waist/hip tackles.

Nobody is saying this is illegal but it needs precision and if a tackler gets it wrong and makes contact with the head then it is a penalty... intentional or not.

We have moved on from a bent at the waist tackle with the shoulder around the hips or waist of the ball carrier for a huge number of collisions.  If we are going to coach players to tackle in a certain style then we need to accept the consequences if it goes wrong.

[Chris22]

30 minutes ago, AB90 said:

A fair question but has the RFL or NRL actually ever paid legal compensation to a player who has symptoms of brain damage?

Just because a legal claim is lodged doesn’t mean the sport is negligent in their duty of care to the athletes. 

I don't believe so, yet.

The case(s) of 40 or so ex-players against the RFL will in time give us a clearer picture.

[LeeF]

What Griffin is really saying is that this is the fault of the players and coaches not the RFL or the Match Officials. If they don’t coach poor technique or don’t commit fouls then there are no penalties or cards. On that basis I fully agree with Griffin

[LeeF]

Duplicate