Unnecessary forceful contact

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, redjonn said:

I thought he was put on report, which is reasonably if ref thought their was more than just tackling but intent against a player unable to protect.  Often see players put on report when ref is unsure about a challenge.

The disciplinary panel will decide.

But a penalty was given to the Broncos.

What law was broken for the penalty to be given?

[dkw]

Ridiculous decision, is this an actual law or did the ref make it up? 

[ehbandit]

If this is the way the game is going, it is losing its appeal to me. This is something that coaches teach as a tactic to help dominate the opposition. First man covers the ball, second man comes in and lifts an elbow, third man hits the exposed ribs, then drops and chops the legs. Good tackle.

[Dunbar]

Let me make my views on this as clear as I can.

Was this tackle (or any third man tackle on a held player) a cheap shot? Yes, it was.  But a cheap shot isn't illegal. 

And in Rugby League, ever since I started watching and playing, if one of the opposition pack got one in then you absolutely had his number and made sure you got one back later in the game for your team.

But there was nothing illegal in the tackle and a penalty for unnecessary forceful contact is a made up penalty from a referee who thinks a player tackled an opponent too hard.

I am not one to say the game is going soft.  We absolutely have to get rid of the head shots and the other dangerous tackles.  The sport is still as tough as ever. The players are bigger, stronger, fitter, faster and more skilful than they have ever been.

And I am not one to throw about hyperbole to say I won't watch the game again. But I will say this. If we get to a point where a penalty is blown because a referee thinks a tackle was too hard or too forceful then it isn't the game I love.  It will have lost something really really important. 

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Let me make my views on this as clear as I can.

Was this tackle (or any third man tackle on a held player) a cheap shot? Yes, it was.  But a cheap shot isn't illegal. 

And in Rugby League, ever since I started watching and playing, if one of the opposition pack got one in then you absolutely had his number and made sure you got one back later in the game for your team.

But there was nothing illegal in the tackle and a penalty for unnecessary forceful contact is a made up penalty from a referee who thinks a player tackled an opponent too hard.

I am not one to say the game is going soft.  We absolutely have to get rid of the head shots and the other dangerous tackles.  The sport is still as tough as ever. The players are bigger, stronger, fitter, faster and more skilful than they have ever been.

And I am not one to throw about hyperbole to say I won't watch the game again. But I will say this. If we get to a point where a penalty is blown because a referee thinks a tackle was too hard or too forceful then it isn't the game I love.  It will have lost something really really important. 

Fully agree, thing is giving penalties for that nonsense just gives ammunition to those who do say the games going soft, it's counterproductive. Everyone sensible agrees high shots and other ones need eradicated from the game, but to penalise a hit because it hurt is just ridiculous. I still don't know if the ref just made that up, is it an actual law.

[redjonn]

When a player slides in and his knees make contact I have often seen a penalty or player on report or even sent off. I assume as no specific law that its judged dangerous play.

I assume the ref saw this incident too as dangerous play. No specific rule but as above judged dangerous play.

Just guessing...

 

[Sports Prophet]

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

But a penalty was given to the Broncos.

What law was broken for the penalty to be given?

 

10 hours ago, dkw said:

Ridiculous decision, is this an actual law or did the ref make it up? 

This was one in a growing number of on the spot decisions from the referees and bunker that are defying the basics of the sport (this decision was made by the bunker I think). 

The first time I really saw a decision like this was when Sam Burgess was penalised for Souths when he forcefully dropped onto the ball carrier who was lying on the floor, motionless, without yet having been called held, waiting for a tackle to be effected. Sam figured, alright, I’ll effect this tackle then. Caused a big stink and I didn’t think there was anything wrong with it.

I think it was a fair tackle and agree with @Dave T, the arm is wrapping around later, like so many more charges I see these days for players using their shoulder.

As to strange decisions, a Manly player last week was tackled on the Sharks goal line. He then threw the ball away, not knowing the tackle count had been restarted. Ashley Klein then called the ball back declaring “the ball was touched in flight, it’s six again, Manly play the ball”. Bizarre.

[Cerulean]

15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

... And I am not one to throw about hyperbole to say I won't watch the game again. But I will say this. If we get to a point where a penalty is blown because a referee thinks a tackle was too hard or too forceful then it isn't the game I love.  It will have lost something really really important. 

You are not allowed to attack an opponent using your fist, elbow, forearm, head, knee, or foot as a weapon: and yet the shoulder should be accepted as a weapon?

The purpose of the tackle is to stop the progress of the player and the ball; and should probably not be used as an opportunity to damage and incapacitate the firmly held and defenceless ball carrier, perhaps his breaking the ribs (“put the man on the ground, or call held; and get on with playing rugby” would be my plea, though I suspect I’m in a tiny minority these days).

I have reduced my interest in the sport as it has gradually migrated from one where evasion was a major component, towards impact becoming predominant; so I understand the view of many on here who believe that “their” sport is in danger of changing. But allowing the sport to have the appearance of a vehicle for thuggery is going to have consequences, particularly in attracting new young players.

[Dunbar]

53 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

You are not allowed to attack an opponent using your fist, elbow, forearm, head, knee, or foot as a weapon: and yet the shoulder should be accepted as a weapon?

The purpose of the tackle is to stop the progress of the player and the ball; and should probably not be used as an opportunity to damage and incapacitate the firmly held and defenceless ball carrier, perhaps his breaking the ribs (“put the man on the ground, or call held; and get on with playing rugby” would be my plea, though I suspect I’m in a tiny minority these days).

I have reduced my interest in the sport as it has gradually migrated from one where evasion was a major component, towards impact becoming predominant; so I understand the view of many on here who believe that “their” sport is in danger of changing. But allowing the sport to have the appearance of a vehicle for thuggery is going to have consequences, particularly in attracting new young players.

People have different favourite parts of the sport, I get that.

I enjoy great skill and execution and I enjoy the elusiveness of some of our fantastic athletes.  But as a former forward who absolutely loved the physical battle on the pitch, seeing two sets of forwards seek domination, to allow their skilful and elusive players to execute, is still my favourite part.

I still see plenty of elusive players in Rugby League and I simply can't agree with your statement that a strong legal tackle is the appearance of a vehicle for thuggery.  It is an integral part of the sport.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Cerulean said:

You are not allowed to attack an opponent using your fist, elbow, forearm, head, knee, or foot as a weapon: and yet the shoulder should be accepted as a weapon?

The purpose of the tackle is to stop the progress of the player and the ball; and should probably not be used as an opportunity to damage and incapacitate the firmly held and defenceless ball carrier, perhaps his breaking the ribs (“put the man on the ground, or call held; and get on with playing rugby” would be my plea, though I suspect I’m in a tiny minority these days).

I have reduced my interest in the sport as it has gradually migrated from one where evasion was a major component, towards impact becoming predominant; so I understand the view of many on here who believe that “their” sport is in danger of changing. But allowing the sport to have the appearance of a vehicle for thuggery is going to have consequences, particularly in attracting new young players.

So ban the use of the shoulder in a tackle, seriously?

[Cerulean]

23 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

People have different favourite parts of the sport, I get that.

I enjoy great skill and execution and I enjoy the elusiveness of some of our fantastic athletes.  But as a former forward who absolutely loved the physical battle on the pitch, seeing two sets of forwards seek domination, to allow their skilful and elusive players to execute, is still my favourite part.

I still see plenty of elusive players in Rugby League and I simply can't agree with your statement that a strong legal tackle is the appearance of a vehicle for thuggery.  It is an integral part of the sport.

Thanks

A carefully considered, carefully stated counter-argument. Always good to hear, and coming close to having me change my point of view.

I do hope, though, when considering the appearance of the game, those in charge will always take into account what might attract new enthusiasts - players and spectators, as well as satisfying existing fans.

[Cerulean]

19 minutes ago, dkw said:

So ban the use of the shoulder in a tackle, seriously?

That's clearly not what I said, or implied.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

Thanks

A carefully considered, carefully stated counter-argument. Always good to hear, and coming close to having me change my point of view.

I do hope, though, when considering the appearance of the game, those in charge will always take into account what might attract new enthusiasts - players and spectators, as well as satisfying existing fans.

I have stated on here a few times that I would like to see the game experiment with a maximum number of players in the tackle.

If we reduced the maximum number of players in the tackle to 2 (for example), would it limit the wrestling, bring back collisions to bring players to the ground rather than holding them upright, while simultaneously increasing the number offloads?

I much prefer the collision tackles than wrestling tackles and I also think the wrestling is more stressful on the body leading to injuries. 

Of course no-one knows how the game would evolve as we have clever and innovative coaches, but I think it would be worth a look.

[dkw]

1 minute ago, Cerulean said:

That's clearly not what I said, or implied.

So what is you want to ban? Is it OK to put the shoulder in if only one defender is currently involved, or 2, or 3? Can't put the shoulder in if a player has stopped forward momentum? Your point on other body parts is a red herring as you aren't allowed to use them in any way in any tackle, the shoulder is completely allowed.

As for your point on modern RL being more about impact than evasion, that's just nonsense I'm afraid. The sport has always been based on impact and contact and hopefully will continue to be. I think your remembering older games through rose tinted glasses, if anything it was more impact based back then, almost completely about wearing down the opposition to create space later on, much more attritional.

[Cerulean]

10 minutes ago, dkw said:

... So what is you want to ban?...

I would, as the game always does, look at ways to avoid techniques which purposefully seek to damage an opponent. I did so as a junior coach (a long time ago), and still believe we should do so now.

[Cerulean]

17 minutes ago, dkw said:

...I think your remembering older games through rose tinted glasses...

Apologies if I seem oversensitive, but I always see this comment as a little offensive. I believe I have seen enough of the world now to make reasonable assessments of my viewpoint.

[dkw]

3 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

Apologies if I seem oversensitive, but I always see this comment as a little offensive. I believe I have seen enough of the world now to make reasonable assessments of my viewpoint.

 

7 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

I would, as the game always does, look at ways to avoid techniques which purposefully seek to damage an opponent. I did so as a junior coach (a long time ago), and still believe we should do so now.

By doing what in this instance, what exactly is it you want to change.

[dkw]

7 minutes ago, Cerulean said:

Apologies if I seem oversensitive, but I always see this comment as a little offensive. I believe I have seen enough of the world now to make reasonable assessments of my viewpoint.

I spent covid watching old RL games online, spread over decades in both comps, I soon realised these halcyon days often referred to were nothing of the sort. They were great to watch, I thoroughly enjoyed pretty much every single one, but they were not played the way many older RL fans like to talk about, and were no more open and free flowing than the current game. None of this is offensive, its just how I see it.

[Dunbar]

21 minutes ago, dkw said:

I spent covid watching old RL games online, spread over decades in both comps, I soon realised these halcyon days often referred to were nothing of the sort. They were great to watch, I thoroughly enjoyed pretty much every single one, but they were not played the way many older RL fans like to talk about, and were no more open and free flowing than the current game. None of this is offensive, its just how I see it.

It's just human nature.

I remember the '86 Kangaroos as being superhuman.  I rewatch the tests quite often and while I enjoy them every time it pretty much always surprises me how often both teams dropped the ball... its just that they just got up and formed the scrum in about 5 seconds.

[DavidM]

37 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

its just that they just got up and formed the scrum in about 5 seconds.

Going off on a massive tangent but I just want to say it anyway . There’s a scrum clock of 30 seconds , why do NRL referees spend literally the whole time standing in the tunnel giving a scrum lesson while the scrum half stands behind him waiting to put the ball in ? How does that look at first grade level . And can the players not remember the scrum lesson from the last scrum . It’s very strange .

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

It's just human nature.

I remember the '86 Kangaroos as being superhuman.  I rewatch the tests quite often and while I enjoy them every time it pretty much always surprises me how often both teams dropped the ball... its just that they just got up and formed the scrum in about 5 seconds.

Yeah, I get that it's human nature and totally understandable. Though I'm loathe to start this again, it's highlighted most in scrums, older fans wanting "proper contested scrums" back seem to forget the mess they were. I was shocked how bad they were on the early 80's, an absolute shambles of collapses and resets, to a point refs were desperate to get the game restarted and just allowed anything as long as the ball came back out.

 

[ELBOWSEYE]

4 hours ago, dkw said:

I spent covid watching old RL games online, spread over decades in both comps, I soon realised these halcyon days often referred to were nothing of the sort. They were great to watch, I thoroughly enjoyed pretty much every single one, but they were not played the way many older RL fans like to talk about, and were no more open and free flowing than the current game. None of this is offensive, its just how I see it.

At last someone who has taken off the rose colored nostalgia glasses.

 

[Wakefield Ram]

On 19/05/2023 at 11:59, Dunbar said:

Interested to get people's thoughts on this one.

James Fisher-Harris placed on report in the Panthers Broncos game for 'unnecessary forceful contact'.

The tackle in question is at about 40 seconds in this video https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/that-will-do-me-fatty-vautin-exposes-nrl-disgrace/news-story/b827791273adc36380ceda5334090e09

Not late (the tackle was not called held).

Not high.

Not a cannonball as it was a dig into the ribs.

So, as far as I can see, unnecessary forceful contact just means he tackled him too hard.

He's only been put on report, not found guilty of anything.

[Dunbar]

21 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

He's only been put on report, not found guilty of anything.

Yes, I don't think he was even charged after the game.

As someone else said, putting a tackle on report is an option for the referees.  My main point is that a penalty was given and as far as I can tell the penalty was for something that doesn't actually exist in the laws.

[DavidM]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Yes, I don't think he was even charged after the game.

As someone else said, putting a tackle on report is an option for the referees.  My main point is that a penalty was given and as far as I can tell the penalty was for something that doesn't actually exist in the laws.

I’m not sure why players get put on report when the match review panel goes through the games and can do what it wants