Hand on head player culture - challenging development

[Scubby]

It is creeping in more and more but the game now seems to be riddled with it. I played the game and have watched for decades and up until recently it was very rare for a player to put their hand to their head when getting compromised in a tackle and/or brushed/clipped on the head.

The cynic in me is now viewing this as a TV-type signal to the VR to watch a replay - it is happening more and more. The big thing was Liam Farrell on Saturday. He is hard as nails and I have watched him for years - great and fair player. His team were down with a few minutes to go and he immediately puts his hand to his head after what looked like a standard tackle he receives 100+ times a season. The replay showed head contact was fractional and to the ref's credit he made him play on. I don't blame Farrell at all but when you see a straight and fair lad like that do it you know there is something endemic spilling into the game.

Same thing happening a lot with players who twist and back into tackles. 

In football they refer to feeling contact (rather than being hurt) for going down. Let's not go there.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Scubby

[Damien]

I think that's a bad example but I certainly agree with the general point. I think the only way to stop it is to not let the VR to have any input on such incidents. This has always been a bit of grey area in the game, whether the VR should get involved, and this sometimes seems to be allowed and then other times not.

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think that's a bad example but I certainly agree with the general point. I think the only way to stop it is to not let the VR to have any input on such incidents. This has always been a bit of grey area in the game, whether the VR should get involved, and this sometimes seems to be allowed and then other times not.

The only reason that example was used is that is was completely out of character for Farrell to gesture like that after being tackled. I have watched a decade of him playing for Wigan and England and he was doing the same gesture as nearly every other player you see in games now. If he has been hurt in the past he just stays down. When you see that in someone like Farrell you think hold on a minute. 

[DavidM]

I’m more and more convinced that there’s more negatives than positives in terms of the  VR/ Bunker nowadays . It’s increasingly infected the game and not only distorted and fragmented it but affected player behaviour adversely . We’re micromanaging a game now to the point in the NRL of literally scrutinising every tackle , with any high contact resulting in further scrutiny so any quick tap is stopped for the process . There are many other things I don’t like that I could go into , and it seems odd that we introduce laws to speed up the game then other protocols usually involving technology to slow it down . I’d gladly get rid of VR . It doesn’t eliminate controversy or errors , and it would reduce the length of a game which at times is ridiculous . If not than cut it right back to adjudicating ingoal . I know that’s more than this thread but the overinvolvement of technology and offield officialdom frustrates me 

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Scubby said:

The only reason that example was used is that is was completely out of character for Farrell to gesture like that after being tackled. I have watched a decade of him playing for Wigan and England and he was doing the same gesture as nearly every other player you see in games now. If he has been hurt in the past he just stays down. When you see that in someone like Farrell you think hold on a minute. 

I dispute the insinuation that he wasn't hurt, you yourself make a good case why he wouldn't do that. Probably didn't explain that too well. As I said I agree with the general point.

[del capo]

39 minutes ago, Scubby said:

It is creeping in more and more but the game now seems to be riddled with it. I played the game and have watched for decades and up until recently it was very rare for a player to put their hand to their head when getting compromised in a tackle and/or brushed/clipped on the head.

The cynic in me is now viewing this as a TV-type signal to the VR to watch a replay - it is happening more and more. The big thing was Liam Farrell on Saturday. He is hard as nails and I have watched him for years - great and fair player. His team were down with a few minutes to go and he immediately puts his hand to his head after what looked like a standard tackle he receives 100+ times a season. The replay showed head contact was fractional and to the ref's credit he made him play on. I don't blame Farrell at all but when you see a straight and fair lad like that do it you know there is something endemic spilling into the game.

Same thing happening a lot with players who twist and back into tackles. 

In football they refer to feeling contact (rather than being hurt) for going down. Let's not go there.

2 match ban  issued by Review Panel for that assault on Farrell..................

[Bobby123]

46 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think that's a bad example but I certainly agree with the general point. I think the only way to stop it is to not let the VR to have any input on such incidents. This has always been a bit of grey area in the game, whether the VR should get involved, and this sometimes seems to be allowed and then other times not.

We should ignore VR  in my opinion. If a qualified and professional official denotes How a try, what on earth is the reason for this decision to be sent upstairs?. 

[Dunbar]

We will get more and more of it.

If the video ref is present and a player knows that contact has been made with the head then he will potentially stay down and get it reviewed - it happens a lot now and will get worse.

The problem with this situation is that there are two conflicting drivers:

1.  If there was contact with the head (high shot) or pressure on the neck (crusher) then it is foul play.

but

2. many times, the offended player could have got up and played on and in the era before the video ref, he would have done, and so despite the action being illegal the player has 'won' a penalty where he would not have for the last 100 years.

This will continue as it helps teams to win field position and possession.

In my view, the only way it can be irradiated is for the playing and coaching staff to determine that this is not how the game is played.  It is a tough sport and part of that is giving and taking the lumps and let the ref on the field find foul play... if he misses one, you get him in the next tackle (fairly if you have any sense or you risk conceding a penalty, or more, yourself).

I mentioned on a thread a while back that the only people who could remove the playing for penalties and I was asked "do you live in the real world"?  That, for me, is a sad indictment on how the game is going - the acceptance that it is inevitable.

 

[Scubby]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

We will get more and more of it.

If the video ref is present and a player knows that contact has been made with the head then he will potentially stay down and get it reviewed - it happens a lot now and will get worse.

The problem with this situation is that there are two conflicting drivers:

1.  If there was contact with the head (high shot) or pressure on the neck (crusher) then it is foul play.

but

2. many times, the offended player could have got up and played on and in the era before the video ref, he would have done, and so despite the action being illegal the player has 'won' a penalty where he would not have for the last 100 years.

This will continue as it helps teams to win field position and possession.

In my view, the only way it can be irradiated is for the playing and coaching staff to determine that this is not how the game is played.  It is a tough sport and part of that is giving and taking the lumps and let the ref on the field find foul play... if he misses one, you get him in the next tackle (fairly if you have any sense or you risk conceding a penalty, or more, yourself).

I mentioned on a thread a while back that the only people who could remove the playing for penalties and I was asked "do you live in the real world"?  That, for me, is a sad indictment on how the game is going - the acceptance that it is inevitable.

 

Yes, exactly. I used Farrell as an example of the gesture not in isolation. We are seeing repeated gestures of the player putting his hand on his scalp for these whether a penalty is being blown of not. To me, it is now moving uneasily towards a conscious communication to the VR to watch the replay. The more replays are watched, the more it will escalate.  

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

We will get more and more of it.

If the video ref is present and a player knows that contact has been made with the head then he will potentially stay down and get it reviewed - it happens a lot now and will get worse.

The problem with this situation is that there are two conflicting drivers:

1.  If there was contact with the head (high shot) or pressure on the neck (crusher) then it is foul play.

but

2. many times, the offended player could have got up and played on and in the era before the video ref, he would have done, and so despite the action being illegal the player has 'won' a penalty where he would not have for the last 100 years.

This will continue as it helps teams to win field position and possession.

In my view, the only way it can be irradiated is for the playing and coaching staff to determine that this is not how the game is played.  It is a tough sport and part of that is giving and taking the lumps and let the ref on the field find foul play... if he misses one, you get him in the next tackle (fairly if you have any sense or you risk conceding a penalty, or more, yourself).

I mentioned on a thread a while back that the only people who could remove the playing for penalties and I was asked "do you live in the real world"?  That, for me, is a sad indictment on how the game is going - the acceptance that it is inevitable.

Whilst I admire your view I think its incredibly optimistic to think that will ever happen. I know you your also saying that too. There is not a chance players and coaches will go down that road. Its win at all costs.

As such I think the only way to stop it is to not use the VR for in play decisions and to return the VR to only being used when it comes to determining tries. Take it out of the equation completely.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

Same with the neck rubbing, much more prevalent when the video ref is present.

[daz39]

I agree, any kind of cheating should be stamped out of the game rather than encouraged by going to the screen and checking if there was foul play, if the ref doesn't see any initially tough, get on with the game!

[DavidM]

Mat Lodge conned a penalty staying down … but conversely the bunker is playing along and rewarding players staying down . Lots of tackles are the same , but a player doesn’t stay down . I just hate to see it , and they’ll do it if it continues to be beneficial . There’s a ref and two touchjudges , if they don’t see it it hasn’t happened . The process of working back from a player staying down to find a reason for it by studying frame by frame from every angle just demoralises me . Rugby league aint meant to be played viewed or officiated like this

Edited May 30, 2022 by DavidM

[super major]

Surely if there is a foul inspector Cullen will spot it especially if player is playing wire soon

[Dunbar]

39 minutes ago, Damien said:

Whilst I admire your view I think its incredibly optimistic to think that will ever happen. I know you your also saying that too. There is not a chance players and coaches will go down that road. Its win at all costs.

As such I think the only way to stop it is to not use the VR for in play decisions and to return the VR to only being used when it comes to determining tries. Take it out of the equation completely.

I agree.  I would just have VR for tries and even then limit to grounding decisions etc.  The obstruction calls can be quite subjective and the on field ref gets it right 99% of the time anyway so let's just trust them.

[DavidM]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I agree.  I would just have VR for tries and even then limit to grounding decisions etc.  The obstruction calls can be quite subjective and the on field ref gets it right 99% of the time anyway so let's just trust them.

Exactly . Many things are still interpretation , just somebody else’s . Referees where there’s a VR are getting more detached from fully refereeing the game .  

[DI Keith Fowler]

Invent a rule and people will try to subvert it or gain advantage. I don't know how you could stop it.

[Barley Mow]

Players who do this are explicitly indicating that there has been contact with their head - I think they should have to go off for an HIA.

I imagine most would then no longer hold their head unless they were in real pain.

[Wakefield Ram]

Players shouldn't feign injury but equally tacklers shouldnt be near the players head. There are already a number of players suing the game for their lack of duty of care and the RFL backed down on their attempt to reduce head tackles in the game.

The game really needs to realise it is sleepwalking into more lawsuits as well as more importantly failing to do the best to protect players welfare.

Doubt anyone would accuse NFL players of being soft but they now do 1 contact session a week. And Rugby League? Effectively nothing except HIAs.

The focus should be on protecting players as far as reasonably can to mitigate the risk of brain injuries, not worrying whether a contact to the head was bad enough to get a penalty or not.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Wakefield Ram

[sfmedusa]

The problem is that the size of apparent head knock or whether it's foul play or not have very little bearing on whether there is actually a brain injury present or the degree of that injury.  A brother of one of my friends lost his life to a severe seizure following a very mundane bump on the head which caused neither loss of consciousness nor a duck egg at the site of impact. 

Furthermore, when Andrew Fifita had his broken larynx last year neither he nor a panel reviewing all of the tackles he had been in that match could identify how that injury actually occurred, and when Alex Walmsley broke his neck he had actually got up and walked off the pitch before the severity of his injuries had been recognised.

I agree entirely that the gamesmanship that comes with the holding a hand to the head is very much to be frowned upon, but there is still possibly insufficient care in place for brain injury or potential brain injury during matches.  Discouraging the holding of the head by insisting that all who do it go for a HIA may actually put some who are genuinely hurt off from doing so, and thus may lead them to be more open to further injury while impaired. 

I'm afraid there is no answer that will satisfy everybody on this one, and we all know that if we followed the medical advice nobody would ever play rugby ever, so that doesn't help at all.

Edited June 3, 2022 by sfmedusa
typo

[Copa]

I’m currently happy to let them do it if it helps tacklers focus on avoiding head contact.

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Copa said:

I’m currently happy to let them do it if it helps tacklers focus on avoiding head contact.

It doesn't really do that though does it? We have seen for years that the award of a penalty is little punishment for a high tackle and is of little deterrence.

[dkw]

11 hours ago, Damien said:

It doesn't really do that though does it? We have seen this weekend that the award of a penalty is little punishment for a high tackle and is of little deterrence.

fixed that for you.