Game's gone

[unapologetic pedant]

30 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

So what will @EggFace do when players are sent off in the NRL for the same infringements? The increased knowledge about the damage that collision sports cause is not an exclusively European thing.

The Zyon Maiu'u send-off in the Warriors/Tigers trial wasn't a million miles from the Liam Watts red last night.

This thread has reminded me of a routine from "The Professor's Late Hit" on Fox League. They showed a clip of Phil Gould saying that doctors and lawyers would ruin the game. Then said "We already know how that would look". Followed by some footage of the Wallabies.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Many years ago, I suggested a red card should mean a reduction to 17v16 in squad terms and a loss of one interchange. The only thing I'd amend now is making it alsdo a 'sin bin extra' bit where the side is down a player for 15 minutes.

I quite like that but I would maybe simplify it even more.

All foul play that is deemed a player is sin-binned means a team is down a player for 10 minutes... but a more serious foul (a red now) means that the player who committed the foul cannot return but the team goes back up to 13 after the 10 minutes.

The player is punished as they are ejected from the game and the team is punished (and provides an advantage to the opposition) by being down an interchange player.

[EggFace]

25 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have raised the question before whether ejecting players from the game but still allowing 13 players on the pitch is the correct balance.  As well as having strong bans as a deterrent for foul play.

This way, the player is punished but the fans still see 13 vs. 13 (obviously with fewer players to interchange).

US sports do this and I think it is worth considering even if we decide not to adopt it.

The AFL also do it.

[Odsal Outlaw]

17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I quite like that but I would maybe simplify it even more.

All foul play that is deemed a player is sin-binned means a team is down a player for 10 minutes... but a more serious foul (a red now) means that the player who committed the foul cannot return but the team goes back up to 13 after the 10 minutes.

The player is punished as they are ejected from the game and the team is punished (and provides an advantage to the opposition) by being down an interchange player.

Quite like that idea. Would at least mitigate some of the issues the new rules cause and avoid games being mis-matches or ruined as a spectacle (like when Watts was sent off for Cas)

[doc]

5 hours ago, Gomersall said:

Are?

Mortified as I am, I thank you for pointing this out.

[doc]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Shudder to think what else nourishes his are soul.

I deserved that.

[gingerjon]

29 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I quite like that but I would maybe simplify it even more.

All foul play that is deemed a player is sin-binned means a team is down a player for 10 minutes... but a more serious foul (a red now) means that the player who committed the foul cannot return but the team goes back up to 13 after the 10 minutes.

The player is punished as they are ejected from the game and the team is punished (and provides an advantage to the opposition) by being down an interchange player.

My reason for adding the extra five minutes is that I think we have to keep it clear on the field that there is a difference between a yellow and a red so the team do get punished more with a red.

[unapologetic pedant]

35 minutes ago, EggFace said:

Maybe the crackdown should be 20 minute red card....keep the game safe and punters happy ?

The desire to keep punters happy would not be prominent in the defence of any future case brought by current players against the RFL.

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I have raised the question before whether ejecting players from the game but still allowing 13 players on the pitch is the correct balance.  As well as having strong bans as a deterrent for foul play.

How legally watertight would this potentially be?

The RFL might have to show that they did everything in their power to deter forceful contact to the head. That would mean sufficiently punitive measures imposed on teams and clubs, not just the individual players responsible.

[EggFace]

5 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The desire to keep punters happy would not be prominent in the defence of any future case brought by current players against the RFL.

How legally watertight would this potentially be?

The RFL might have to show that they did everything in their power to deter forceful contact to the head. That would mean sufficiently punitive measures imposed on teams and clubs, not just the individual players responsible.

Get the legal eagles set up a disclaimer for players.....you know the risks and if don't like don't do it simple as that.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The desire to keep punters happy would not be prominent in the defence of any future case brought by current players against the RFL.

How legally watertight would this potentially be?

The RFL might have to show that they did everything in their power to deter forceful contact to the head. That would mean sufficiently punitive measures imposed on teams and clubs, not just the individual players responsible.

What are your legal qualifications?

[Ullman]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I have raised the question before whether ejecting players from the game but still allowing 13 players on the pitch is the correct balance.  As well as having strong bans as a deterrent for foul play.

This way, the player is punished but the fans still see 13 vs. 13 (obviously with fewer players to interchange).

US sports do this and I think it is worth considering even if we decide not to adopt it.

I remember Brian Smith suggesting something very similar decades ago (I've got a feeling it was in a piece he did for Open Rugby magazine). It gained zero traction back then but I think there's a lot of merit in it.

[unapologetic pedant]

28 minutes ago, doc said:

I deserved that.

How refreshing to see repentance and self-flagellation. Soothes the soul.

Ironically enough, my early years were spent in the shadow (literally not metaphorically) of a church called "All Souls". Must have been maybe 10 or 11 before I realized it wasn't called "Our Souls".

[unapologetic pedant]

22 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What are your legal qualifications?

That's my affair.

[unapologetic pedant]

34 minutes ago, EggFace said:

Get the legal eagles set up a disclaimer for players.....you know the risks and if don't like don't do it simple as that.

Might well come to that eventually.

Values and circumstances change though, and there's a fashion for retrospective justice amongst the morally superior. A waiver signed in ostensibly less enlightened times might prove less than wholly reliable in subsequent periods.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I have raised the question before whether ejecting players from the game but still allowing 13 players on the pitch is the correct balance.  As well as having strong bans as a deterrent for foul play.

This way, the player is punished but the fans still see 13 vs. 13 (obviously with fewer players to interchange).

Just for the record, substantively I don't demur from this proposal.

Furthermore, I wouldn't dismiss a player for one-off accidental contact with the head. Only where there's malicious intent or when accidents repeat.

Good example of the latter was Dylan Napa and head clashes. When it happened a second time, he was effectively told he had no future in the NRL unless he sorted out his technique and stopped "leading with the head".

[EggFace]

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The Zyon Maiu'u send-off in the Warriors/Tigers trial wasn't a million miles from the Liam Watts red last night.

This thread has reminded me of a routine from "The Professor's Late Hit" on Fox League. They showed a clip of Phil Gould saying that doctors and lawyers would ruin the game. Then said "We already know how that would look". Followed by some footage of the Wallabies.

Zyon Maiuu looked justified ....Liam Watts was a yellow at most alongside Westerman.

RFL and even NRL take note plus don't take the ###### out of fans, players and coaches as you lose money and TGG

[AB90]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I quite like that but I would maybe simplify it even more.

All foul play that is deemed a player is sin-binned means a team is down a player for 10 minutes... but a more serious foul (a red now) means that the player who committed the foul cannot return but the team goes back up to 13 after the 10 minutes.

The player is punished as they are ejected from the game and the team is punished (and provides an advantage to the opposition) by being down an interchange player.

100% agree that the red card rule should be reviewed. The discrepancy in the punishment especially if it occurs early in the game is to drastic specifically for those calls that could go either way (yellow or red). 

I like the American model whereby when a player gets ‘ejected’ they are removed from the game (fined, suspended etc) however their team doesn’t go down a man. 

In the first round of SL 5 of the 6 games had a team down to 12 via a red card. Do we really want that as a game?

Another point I would look at is increasing the monetary fines. If players got fined half or even all their weekly salary for any yellow or red card high tackle discretion then rest assured they would be thinking twice when going into the tackle. 

[JohnM]

Re:  disclaimers. As far as I am aware, no disclaimer can absolve the issuer from negligence or from unknown effects.  

Perhaps Neil Hudgell and other lawyers in the game have considered the issue already. 

https://www.quittance.co.uk/personal-injury/advice/general/can-i-claim-compensation-if-i-signed-a-disclaimer

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) states that: "Contract terms, including ‘at your own risk' disclaimers, cannot be used to exclude or restrict an organisation's liability for death or personal injury caused by its negligence."

Disclaimer: I am not legally qualified but I do watch "Rumpole of the Bailey" 

[Coggo]

Seems to be a lot of folk unhappy with not only the ‘soft’ red cards but also the unintended consequences this is having vis a vis gamesmanship.

The fake ‘head injury’ incident in the Catalans vs Warrington game was particularly egregious.

Maybe these people should not be instantly dismissed as flatcappers and the like?

[gingerjon]

Stopping people being hit around the head isn't, thankfully, just because of ambulance lawyers. We want people out there playing rugby, if you want to see men whack each other round the chops, there are other sports for you.

[Coggo]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Stopping people being hit around the head isn't, thankfully, just because of ambulance lawyers. We want people out there playing rugby, if you want to see men whack each other round the chops, there are other sports for you.

100%.

Yet Liam Watts did not whack anyone across the chops like happens in other sports like, say, boxing.

Nor is there any advantage in falling to the floor voluntarily after being phantom-whacked then pretending you’re badly injured in other sports like boxing.

Totally get the duty of care imperative but it’s a more nuanced issue than simple black & white.

[Sports Prophet]

13 hours ago, EggFace said:

The AFL also do it.

I don’t think so

[Sports Prophet]

I like the idea of reducing the team by one player for the remainder of the match in the case of a red card yet only reducing the players on the pitch for ten minutes.

Did I see two yellow’s make a red on the weekend? Is that actually a thing in RL?

[RP London]

14 hours ago, EggFace said:

Maybe the crackdown should be 20 minute red card....keep the game safe and punters happy ?

or, and i know this is controversial, but the players could just learn and not hit people in the head, go in with swinging arms etc.. There'll always be the odd dodgy call but seriously the players just need to lower their tackle height.

 

It will happen and we will get on with it its just the first few weeks of serious crackdowns always start like this.

[RP London]

I know this could go down like a led balloon for mention union but I quite like their yellow and on review system.. there is still a straight red and a yellow no review but they can put a yellow on review and the TMO has 8 minutes to decide to upgrade it to a red or not by reviewing the footage.