Rule Changes for 2024

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Anything that reduces players suffering brain injuries - because that's what they are - is the only logical way forward. For those who object, would you be happy for your son/daughter to be hit round the head on a regular basis knowing this could cause brain damage? Clamping down on head contact isn't "spoiling the game", head contact is threatening the future health of the players. 

It's rare there's an NRL game now where at least one player doesn't go off for an HIA.

 

Yes I am all for measures being brought in to reduce head injuries, but what about those accidental incidents which there are far far more of than the actual 'bad' tackles by an individual, like those that I have described in a post above where the attacker puts his head into the contact area of an intended fair tackle already in motion, or the most damaging incidents where team members clash heads in the same tackle by coming from opposite angles, those can be by players stood upright, crouched for a mid torso hit, or a leg tackle, the best way that those can be avoided is to only allow one man in a tackle, if there is more than one in do you suggest that should be penalised, and then there is the defender putting his head in the wrong place, how is that avoided?

Honestly, the game is so so clean today in comparison to the one I played and grew up with, and the pro game is light years away from the days of "Thugby League" in how clean it has evolved into.

In a high speed high collision sport such as RL is head injuries are unavoidable they will undoubtedly happen, the only way to avoid them completely is not to go on to the field of play, or as in the case of kids, parents simply do not let their offspring play the full contact version, instead take up "touch rugby".

No one likes to see player's hurt so what would you do Rammy to absolutely eliminate head injuries from the sport of Rugby League Football?

Also directed and requested to @LeeF for his interpretations.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Wakefield Ram]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes I am all for measures being brought in to reduce head injuries, but what about those accidental incidents which there are far far more of than the actual 'bad' tackles by an individual, like those that I have described in a post above where the attacker puts his head into the contact area of an intended fair tackle already in motion, or the most damaging incidents where team members clash heads in the same tackle by coming from opposite angles, those can be by players stood upright, crouched for a mid torso hit, or a leg tackle, the best way that those can be avoided is to only allow one man in a tackle, if there is more than one in do you suggest that should be penalised, and then there is the defender putting his head in the wrong place, how is that avoided?

Honestly, the game is so so clean today in comparison to the one I played and grew up with, and the pro game is light years away from the days of "Thugby League" in how clean it has evolved into.

In a high speed high collision sport such as RL is head injuries are unavoidable they will undoubtedly happen, the only way to avoid them completely is not to go on to the field of play, or as in the case of kids, parents simply do not let their offspring play the full contact version, instead take up "touch rugby".

No one likes to see player's hurt so what would you do Rammy to absolutely eliminate head injuries from the sport of Rugby League Football?

Also directed and requested to @LeeF for his interpretations.

No one is suggesting you can absolutely eliminate head injuries. That argument is like saying you can't eliminate car crashes so there's no point in wearing a seat belt. 

Bring in and stick with the new laws. These are the same ones RU have brought in. There was the old guard with the "the games going soft" line but I've not heard any complaints from the players I ref that they aren't getting hit round the head as much.

Limit contact training to once a week. The NFL have done this.

Do brain scans on SL players. They do this on boxing. This won't happen as the results would be too alarming. See link below.

Yes the game has also changed from handling and evasion into one of mostly one player hit ups helped by a large increase in substitution s. The 10m offside which was supposed to encourage open play along with holding down at the PTB has changed the game to one of "winning the arm wrestle". Reducing the holding down and the offside to 5-7m would reduce the size of collisions and force teams to use more skill to break down defences.

Watch a game on YouTube from 80s/90s and see how quick the PTBs, lack of 3-4 men gang tackles, fewer hitups and how much passing there was. 

If not then players like James Graham, Llachlan Coote etc.. will continue to suffer brain damage for our entertainment. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/nrl/article-11292875/James-Graham-forced-return-concussions-early-contributed-brain-damage.html

This is an informative read on the subject 

https://www.drakefoundation.org/rugby-concussions/

Edited November 28, 2023 by Wakefield Ram

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

No one is suggesting you can absolutely eliminate head injuries. That argument is like saying you can't eliminate car crashes so there's no point in wearing a seat belt. 

Bring in and stick with the new laws. These are the same ones RU have brought in. There was the old guard with the "the games going soft" line but I've not heard any complaints from the players I ref that they aren't getting hit round the head as much.

Limit contact training to once a week. The NFL have done this.

Do brain scans on SL players. They do this on boxing. This won't happen as the results would be too alarming. See link below.

Yes the game has also changed from handling and evasion into one of mostly one player hit ups helped by a large increase in substitution s. The 10m offside which was supposed to encourage open play along with holding down at the PTB has changed the game to one of "winning the arm wrestle". Reducing the holding down and the offside to 5-7m would reduce the size of collisions and force teams to use more skill to break down defences.

Watch a game on YouTube from 80s/90s and see how quick the PTBs, lack of 3-4 men gang tackles, fewer hitups and how much passing there was. 

If not then players like James Graham, Llachlan Coote etc.. will continue to suffer brain damage for our entertainment. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/nrl/article-11292875/James-Graham-forced-return-concussions-early-contributed-brain-damage.html

This is an informative read on the subject 

https://www.drakefoundation.org/rugby-concussions/

Thank you for your considered answer Rammy, but I see nothing in there to alter the way we are playing the game but let's see how the new rules go, and yes the preventative measures and testing is very good.

As for your "watch on you tube" and relating the game 30/40 years ago, I have been one of the champions on this site for suggesting that we revert back to 5 yards and reduce interchanges to a maximum of 4, that will eliminate the 10min behemoths (that didn't go down very well) in favour of lighter players with a better aerobic capacity, it will eliminate the number of drives we see in every set, attacking lines will be deeper encouraging passing, and the play makers will be able to play as the game goes on and fatigue plays a factor instead of the incessant fresh men being brought on to target them. With you all the way on that one.

Whilst it is not good that any player suffers head/brain injuries, it will always be a condition of the game we play/watch and a possibility however remote that may be that it could happen. You will most probably chastise me for saying the following, but everyone who plays this game realises and knows the risks involved, if they play amateur or ood enough and decide on taking up a professional career, some do it soley for the love of the sport, others for reward, and like you say when you get behind the wheel of a car that crash which could happen is not in the slightest in your mind it will happen to you.

I will read your links, thanks.

[Wakefield Ram]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thank you for your considered answer Rammy, but I see nothing in there to alter the way we are playing the game but let's see how the new rules go, and yes the preventative measures and testing is very good.

As for your "watch on you tube" and relating the game 30/40 years ago, I have been one of the champions on this site for suggesting that we revert back to 5 yards and reduce interchanges to a maximum of 4, that will eliminate the 10min behemoths (that didn't go down very well) in favour of lighter players with a better aerobic capacity, it will eliminate the number of drives we see in every set, attacking lines will be deeper encouraging passing, and the play makers will be able to play as the game goes on and fatigue plays a factor instead of the incessant fresh men being brought on to target them. With you all the way on that one.

Whilst it is not good that any player suffers head/brain injuries, it will always be a condition of the game we play/watch and a possibility however remote that may be that it could happen. You will most probably chastise me for saying the following, but everyone who plays this game realises and knows the risks involved, if they play amateur or ood enough and decide on taking up a professional career, some do it soley for the love of the sport, others for reward, and like you say when you get behind the wheel of a car that crash which could happen is not in the slightest in your mind it will happen to you.

I will read your links, thanks.

And thanks for your comments. I'm not sure that everyone actually can know the % risk of brain damage. Full-time SL players are at the greatest risk with greater intensity and frequency but there are so many variables -matches played, position played - but the Drake Foundation stats of 24% of pro players with signs of brain injury is worrying. And that's active players. 

 

[LeeF]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes I am all for measures being brought in to reduce head injuries, but what about those accidental incidents which there are far far more of than the actual 'bad' tackles by an individual, like those that I have described in a post above where the attacker puts his head into the contact area of an intended fair tackle already in motion, or the most damaging incidents where team members clash heads in the same tackle by coming from opposite angles, those can be by players stood upright, crouched for a mid torso hit, or a leg tackle, the best way that those can be avoided is to only allow one man in a tackle, if there is more than one in do you suggest that should be penalised, and then there is the defender putting his head in the wrong place, how is that avoided?

Honestly, the game is so so clean today in comparison to the one I played and grew up with, and the pro game is light years away from the days of "Thugby League" in how clean it has evolved into.

In a high speed high collision sport such as RL is head injuries are unavoidable they will undoubtedly happen, the only way to avoid them completely is not to go on to the field of play, or as in the case of kids, parents simply do not let their offspring play the full contact version, instead take up "touch rugby".

No one likes to see player's hurt so what would you do Rammy to absolutely eliminate head injuries from the sport of Rugby League Football?

Also directed and requested to @LeeF for his interpretations.

I don’t know why you are asking me for my “ interpretations” but if you want me to support actions that continue to make this game safer for all concerned by reducing the potential for head injuries that I 100% do support that. Note the word “reducing” not “eliminating”.

My targets are the players, coaches and their pet journalists and media presenters/ summarisers who will whinge when the penalty count goes up and will blame the match officials when it’s the players and coaches who are at fault. I want the RFL to not back down which isn’t an unreasonable stance or controversial. 

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

And thanks for your comments. I'm not sure that everyone actually can know the % risk of brain damage. Full-time SL players are at the greatest risk with greater intensity and frequency but there are so many variables -matches played, position played - but the Drake Foundation stats of 24% of pro players with signs of brain injury is worrying. And that's active players. 

 

You could argue that non pro players are at greater risk because of poor technique, big differences in players both physically and fitness wise and a greater number of clubs and players not following the correct concussion protocols. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

I don’t know why you are asking me for my “ interpretations” but if you want me to support actions that continue to make this game safer for all concerned by reducing the potential for head injuries that I 100% do support that. Note the word “reducing” not “eliminating”.

My targets are the players, coaches and their pet journalists and media presenters/ summarisers who will whinge when the penalty count goes up and will blame the match officials when it’s the players and coaches who are at fault. I want the RFL to not back down which isn’t an unreasonable stance or controversial. 

You have the better of me what precisely do you not want the RFL to back down from.

But, will you be admonishing all of those targets you claim will be whingeing if they do so when it is the attacking player who is the cause of an head injury, like slipping or ducking into a well aimed well timed tackle and he himself the attacker is putting his head into the contact area, this has been going on here for a while and as I said was tried in Aus until the weight of your stated targets plus the fans were against it for good reason not in the manner of seeing someone hurt.

[LeeF]

5 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

You have the better of me what precisely do you not want the RFL to back down from.

But, will you be admonishing all of those targets you claim will be whingeing if they do so when it is the attacking player who is the cause of an head injury, like slipping or ducking into a well aimed well timed tackle and he himself the attacker is putting his head into the contact area, this has been going on here for a while and as I said was tried in Aus until the weight of your stated targets plus the fans were against it for good reason not in the manner of seeing someone hurt.

You’ve clearly either not read the article properly or if you have you don’t understand what you have read. The article specifically mentions the attacker putting their head into the contact area. 

As for whinging by coaches, players and their pet media contacts when players are correctly penalised; carded and/ or banned then yes I will want the RFL to not back down but if you want to deliberately misunderstand just to have an argument then I will leave you to it 

[Harry Stottle]

10 hours ago, LeeF said:

As for whinging by coaches, players and their pet media contacts when players are correctly penalised; carded and/ or banned then yes I will want the RFL to not back down but if you want to deliberately misunderstand just to have an argument then I will leave you to it 

I have never mentioned being correctly penalised for deliberate foul play I fully agree that player's should be and yes the RFL should not back down, my concern is that IF there are consistent bad calls by the ref - which we have been witness to both here and in Aus - then those are rightly pointed out and castigated by whoever, live on TV by the commentary, coaches and players post match, journo's etc. Do you agree with that?

Let's see what live play brings shall we.

[LeeF]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I have never mentioned being correctly penalised for deliberate foul play I fully agree that player's should be and yes the RFL should not back down, my concern is that IF there are consistent bad calls by the ref - which we have been witness to both here and in Aus - then those are rightly pointed out and castigated by whoever, live on TV by the commentary, coaches and players post match, journo's etc. Do you agree with that?

Let's see what live play brings shall we.

And yet all them correct calls by referees, the MRP and the Disciplinary resulted in an enormous amount of whinging by the said parties. Maybe you’ve forgotten that

[Wakefield Ram]

16 hours ago, LeeF said:

You’ve clearly either not read the article properly or if you have you don’t understand what you have read. The article specifically mentions the attacker putting their head into the contact area. 

As for whinging by coaches, players and their pet media contacts when players are correctly penalised; carded and/ or banned then yes I will want the RFL to not back down but if you want to deliberately misunderstand just to have an argument then I will leave you to it 

In RU, if there is a "late dip" by the attacker which causes a head clash, then the attacking player is penalised/carded. I've not had one of them yet. 

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

And yet all them correct calls by referees, the MRP and the Disciplinary resulted in an enormous amount of whinging by the said parties. Maybe you’ve forgotten that

As I said, lets see what the new season brings with the rule changes.

Are you a politician by any chance, you never answer a question that is posed to you.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[Harry Stottle]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

In RU, if there is a "late dip" by the attacker which causes a head clash, then the attacking player is penalised/carded. I've not had one of them yet. 

You ref Union as well Rammy?

Come to think of it I can't recall any head clashes in that situation. Plenty of penalties given against a defender when the attacker puts his head into the contact area though.

But as I said to Lee, let's see what the new season brings.

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

In RU, if there is a "late dip" by the attacker which causes a head clash, then the attacking player is penalised/carded. I've not had one of them yet. 

Which is mentioned in the article and can only be the correct way to proceed

[meast]

On 23/11/2023 at 21:09, Dunbar said:

I hope so. Feels like we have been here before though.

But I sincerely hope the fans, players, coaches and pundits don't start ranting that the ref's are ruining the game by blowing and let them clamp down properly and reset the tackle and play the ball laws.

"Games gone!"

[meast]

On 23/11/2023 at 21:15, daz39 said:

Excellent news re the 6 again in the 40, it had become a very annoying tactic by every team in every set.

It's akin to footballers being allowed to foul their opponents inside the opponents half and get the benefit of it.

Totally ruined the sport for me the last few years.

[meast]

On 27/11/2023 at 11:29, Dunbar said:

For the actual play the ball (rather than the defensive misdemeanours) I fear the new interpretations have already got the get out clause built in.

Making an effort to play the ball is entirely subjective and if there is a vocal negative response to early penalties the ref's will probably just become more and more lenient (consciously or subconsciously) on this effort until we penalise very little and drift back to where we are now.

And this is by no means a criticism of the ref's - just that they have been thrown under the bus by not being allowed to just penalise an improper play the ball and somehow have to judge how much of an effort a player has made.

If a player is or has attempting/attempted to play the ball by the laws but is off balance for instance or he's interfered with, I think that could be let go.

If they are making absolutely no attempt to regain their feet and play the ball correctly then they should, rightly be penalised.

That's how I see it anyway.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

You ref Union as well Rammy?

Come to think of it I can't recall any head clashes in that situation. Plenty of penalties given against a defender when the attacker puts his head into the contact area though.

But as I said to Lee, let's see what the new season brings.

Have you got any statistics to back that up Harry?
 

 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

Have you got any statistics to back that up Harry?
 

 

No I haven't LD, only thinking when watching when those incidents as they happened I thought they were harsh to penalise a defender.

Who would take statistics that said 'Was the ref correct' but considering the rules committee have highlighted it others must have also recognised it.

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, meast said:

"Games gone!"

The hashtags are being prepared already

[Wakefield Ram]

6 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

You ref Union as well Rammy?

Come to think of it I can't recall any head clashes in that situation. Plenty of penalties given against a defender when the attacker puts his head into the contact area though.

But as I said to Lee, let's see what the new season brings.

My son played at local RU club as a junior so ended up coaching and reffing RU. Interesting game to ref and generally fairly well-behaved.