The Players Are Revolting

[Coggo]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

dont know why you think it is a grab for the moral high ground.. thats a very bizarre take on what is written.. 

the armpit rule is eminently sensible when taken with risk calculations (insurance).. the ability to "accidently hit the head" is reduced by moving the initial point of legal contact to below the shoulder, there is also a shoulder in the way to get to the head.. to be hitting around the shoulder means (by the shape of the shoulder) a larger possibility to hit the head due to "riding up".. it really is quite an obvious move. 

As I said "if proven to get injuries down" what exactly is the argument against it?? you can still have massive hits (look at Simms on Williams from this weekend) and it be perfectly legal so "the spectacle" is not damaged... if its cards then 1. stop doing it and there wont be cards and 2. who is better to have on the pitch for longer the offender or the player that is getting injured, how do you judge a "better player" who is now missing games... there really isnt a good argument not to implement the rule across the game IF it is proven to do this (and you only get proof by testing). Its not a moral high ground its just common sense. 

no idea what the offside rule has got to do with the argument about armpit tackles being introduced to the NRL after being "tested" in the super league.

If you have no idea what the offside rule has got to do with it then I can see no point in continuing this discussion. Let's pick it up again in 2025...

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, RP London said:

you can still have massive hits (look at Simms on Williams from this weekend) and it be perfectly legal so "the spectacle" is not damaged

The ironic thing is that a lot of the people complaining about the arm pit law are also those who complain that the wrestle has ruined the game.  Well, a wrestle tackle starts with an upright tackle to secure the ball and then 2 other players 'managing' the player to the ground.

If a tackler has to bend his/her back and hit lower, the wrestle will be much reduced.  But we would have big hits.... maybe more as the emphasis would be on contact taking a player to the ground.

We could return to being a a collision sport and not a wrestling sport.  You would think people would be happy with this.

Edited February 21 by Dunbar

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, Coggo said:

If you have no idea what the offside rule has got to do with it then I can see no point in continuing this discussion. Let's pick it up again in 2025...

explain then.. why does an offside 10 meters away mean you cannot tackle below the armpit? did you see the simms v williams tackle.. have you seen every other big hit, and below armpit tackle made under the current rules?

I played the game with a 10 metre offside for 20 years and managed to hit people below the armpit quote comfortably. 

So please explain the relevance..

Edited February 21 by RP London

[JohnM]

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Not sure of the relevance. 

That's becuase there isn't any.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Their ironic thing is that a lot of the people complaining about the arm pit law are also those who complain that the wrestle has ruined the game.  Well, a wrestle tackle starts with an upright tackle to secure the ball and then 2 other players 'managing' the player to the ground.

If a tackler has to bend his/her back and hit lower, the wrestle will be much reduced.  But we would have big hit.... maybe more as the emphasis would be on contact taking a player to the ground.

We could return to being a a collision sport and not a wrestling sport.  You would think people would be happy with this.

totally agree.. there would be more 1 on 1 hits that can be bigger too... I just dont get the logic behind the arguments put forward.. its like the cards stopping good players playing yet injuries to other good players stopping them playing dont seem to be a concern

[MZH]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up, but with the new guidelines is it maybe time to explore a change to the card system?

The course of a game can be changed massively by a red card being shown. This wasn't such a big deal when reds were shown once in a blue moon, but if we are going to be getting a few people sent off every week that's potentially a lot of one sided games because of it. Of course people will say its up to players to keep the tackles down, and that's true. But what if you've paid good money to watch your team and they are down to 12 after 10 minutes? Or if you are a casual viewer who decides to watch a game and it's over as a contest after 20 minutes? We are in the entertainment business afterall, and we have more exposure this year than perhaps ever before.

Imo we should leave the yellow card as it is, and reserve the red cards for the more thuggish, premeditated stuff. But also introduce a third card for those more marginal tackles, where the guilty player can't take further part in the game, but where it allows the 18th man to be activated in his place. They would still be subjected to the same disciplinary action etc. But it means less games being decided by a mistimed challenge or an over zealous referee decision.

Edited February 21 by MZH

[OriginalMrC]

There is some very confused arguments in this thread. Head high tackles have always been illegal and for very good reason. As a player there's nothing worse than getting boshed in the head and just because in the past it's been accepted as part and parcel of the game doesn't make it right. If you want head high tackles to continue then great but you won't have a sport in 20 years time. 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, MZH said:

I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring this up, but with the new guidelines is it maybe time to explore a change to the card system?

The course of a game can be changed massively by a red card being shown. This wasn't such a big deal when reds were shown once in a blue moon, but if we are going to be getting a few people sent off every week that's potentially a lot of one sided games because of it. Of course people will say its up to players to keep the tackles down, and that's true. But what if you've paid good money to watch your team and they are down to 12 after 10 minutes? Or if you are a casual viewer who decides to watch a game and it's over as a contest after 20 minutes? We are in the entertainment business afterall, and we have more exposure this year than perhaps ever before.

Imo we should leave the yellow card as it is, and reserve the red cards for the more thuggish, premeditated stuff. But also introduce a third card for those more marginal tackles, where the guilty player can't take further part in the game, but where it allows the 18th man to be activated in his place. They would still be subjected to the same disciplinary action etc. But it means less games being decided by a mistimed challenge or an over zealous referee decision.

Personally I think it will calm down, players will adapt so i dont think we will see this throughout the season... 

All of the comments seen here are/have been made with all rule changes.. 

That said I've mentioned on a different thread that with all games now having a tv ref the red/yellow card rule introduced in RU is a good one where a serious yellow possible red can be reviewed while they are sitting in the bin. 

[Coggo]

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

explain then.. why does an offside 10 meters away mean you cannot tackle below the armpit?

It's not that tackles cannot be made below the armpit but, having played under this rule, I realise how much harder it will be to tackle, say, a 125kg prop with a 10-metre run-up. This will not only result in more 'give it to the big lad' hit-ups, it will also result in: 

1. A sharp uptick in penalties.

2. More gamesmanship as players lower their 'angle of attack' into the tackle due to 1.

3. Possibly increased concussions due to 2.   

[RP London]

3 minutes ago, Coggo said:

It's not that tackles cannot be made below the armpit but, having played under this rule, I realise how much harder it will be to tackle, say, a 125kg prop with a 10-metre run-up. This will not only result in more 'give it to the big lad' hit-ups, it will also result in: 

1. A sharp uptick in penalties.

2. More gamesmanship as players lower their 'angle of attack' into the tackle due to 1.

3. Possibly increased concussions due to 2.   

Interesting take on it and I couldnt disagree more.. the last thing i ever wanted to do (and i'm not the smallest) is try to hit the player you describe higher than the armpits, certainly not as the first man! Low and effective.. I had 1 concussion in 20 years and that was from a swinging arm.. 

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, Coggo said:

It's not that tackles cannot be made below the armpit but, having played under this rule, I realise how much harder it will be to tackle, say, a 125kg prop with a 10-metre run-up. This will not only result in more 'give it to the big lad' hit-ups, it will also result in: 

1. A sharp uptick in penalties.

2. More gamesmanship as players lower their 'angle of attack' into the tackle due to 1.

3. Possibly increased concussions due to 2.   

These are valid concerns.

I expect there will be more penalties during a period of time as players and coaches adapt. 

For point 2.  We definitely don't want to get to the rutting stags head clashes you see in Union where both the ball carrier and the tackler lead head first.  We need to observe and adjust for this.

Concussions can and do occur with lower tackling.   As you say, either from the clash of heads with lower angles or tackler 'friendly fire'.

What we know from the research is that the most frequent instances of concussions and HIA's is from where the tackler and tackled player share the same head space... i.e. an upright tackle.

We know lowering the tackle will reduce this but we don't know how much this will increase other HIA incidents. 

All we can do is be open to change and adapt appropriately to find the correct balance.

[Coggo]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

These are valid concerns.

I expect there will be more penalties during a period of time as players and coaches adapt. 

For point 2.  We definitely don't want to get to the rutting stags head clashes you see in Union where both the ball carrier and the tackler lead head first.  We need to observe and adjust for this.

Concussions can and do occur with lower tackling.   As you say, either from the clash of heads with lower angles or tackler 'friendly fire'.

What we know from the research is that the most frequent instances of concussions and HIA's is from where the tackler and tackled player share the same head space... i.e. an upright tackle.

We know lowering the tackle will reduce this but we don't know how much this will increase other HIA incidents. 

All we can do is be open to change and adapt appropriately to find the correct balance.

I appreciate you have thought about this, not merely thrown 'You just like thuggery' at me. 

[RP London]

30 minutes ago, Coggo said:

I appreciate you have thought about this, not merely thrown 'You just like thuggery' at me. 

well i'm glad you are not taking an open discussion personally 

As you note if you read the full post its "if it is proven to reduce injury I don't see an argument against it" I am sure you would agree with that statement, no? you know, taking all of your concerns on board it is proven to reduce injury ie your concerns would be proven not to be true... proven being the operative word rather than just speculating or using our own personal experience (Which I have done later).. it is proven not be the case then I wouldn't bring it in, and would remove it if it increases the likelihood of injury.. Its about proving theories, which cannot possible be a bad thing.. 

but if you want to take open conversation as a personal insult then go for your life and i'll leave you to it. 

[RP London]

40 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

These are valid concerns.

I expect there will be more penalties during a period of time as players and coaches adapt. 

For point 2.  We definitely don't want to get to the rutting stags head clashes you see in Union where both the ball carrier and the tackler lead head first.  We need to observe and adjust for this.

Concussions can and do occur with lower tackling.   As you say, either from the clash of heads with lower angles or tackler 'friendly fire'.

What we know from the research is that the most frequent instances of concussions and HIA's is from where the tackler and tackled player share the same head space... i.e. an upright tackle.

We know lowering the tackle will reduce this but we don't know how much this will increase other HIA incidents. 

All we can do is be open to change and adapt appropriately to find the correct balance.

The RU one is interesting as they have a "no dipping in" rule at the lower levels where they have reduced the tackle height further than the pro/international game.. I dont see it working on weekends etc and think it needs a rethink of how it will be reffed/work.. I get the idea behind it but it just hasnt worked how they planned. I am not sure it will to be honest but they need to look at it. Things do seem to have calmed down this season though with the High tackles and from what i have seen watching Nat 2 north and coaching the colts (and son playing) they have adapted well to the height change for the most part.. 

Edited February 21 by RP London

[jacksy]

Go back to 5m. Take away the the big run ups and the mini car crash collisions. 

 

Edited February 21 by jacksy

[LeeF]

19 hours ago, Dave T said:

Now we have quality coverage of every incident, this is absolutely the kind of thing we should be looking at. 

They did try to explain some MRP decisions via the Sin Bin videos a couple of years ago but people watched them and still dismissed/ ignored/ thought they knew better despite the explanations provided being very clear.

That doesn’t mean don’t try again but I’m not optimistic that this time around would be any better. 

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, LeeF said:

They did try to explain some MRP decisions via the Sin Bin videos a couple of years ago but people watched them and still dismissed/ ignored/ thought they knew better despite the explanations provided being very clear.

That doesn’t mean don’t try again but I’m not optimistic that this time around would be any better. 

Yeah, this is a problem, many are just not really interested - but I don;t see that as a reason not to have transparency. It's something I'm interested in, purely from a thought process point of view (and seeing the incidents through the ref/panel's eyes) - it's an interesting piece of content rather than a helpful one that will calm people down. 

Angry people will stay angry.

[LeeF]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, this is a problem, many are just not really interested - but I don;t see that as a reason not to have transparency. It's something I'm interested in, purely from a thought process point of view (and seeing the incidents through the ref/panel's eyes) - it's an interesting piece of content rather than a helpful one that will calm people down. 

Angry people will stay angry.

I’m with you and would watch but yes we are probably in the minority. 

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

Not sure of the relevance. 

Why did you mention Fozzard and Goulding?

 

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

All the referees and disciplinary committee are doing is enforcing the laws as they are laid out.

Why would a disclaimer be needed to agree to play the game under the laws of the game.

Unless you are suggesting the disclaimer should say that the players are happy to be fouled and they don't want the referees to punish foul play - not sure how that makes life easier for anyone.

Those players talking about taking action must obviously feel that the refs and judiciary have gone to far with their judgments and actions.

The game now bears no resemblance to how the sport was once played and quite rightly so, and like these player's who fined reason to comment that it has gone to far I totally agree with them.

[Click]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Those players talking about taking action must obviously feel that the refs and judiciary have gone to far with their judgments and actions.

The game now bears no resemblance to how the sport was once played and quite rightly so, and like these player's who fined reason to comment that it has gone to far I totally agree with them.

I have no idea what games you watched over the last weekend, but to say that "The game now bears no resemblance to how the sport was once played" is quite a claim.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The ironic thing is that a lot of the people complaining about the arm pit law are also those who complain that the wrestle has ruined the game.  Well, a wrestle tackle starts with an upright tackle to secure the ball and then 2 other players 'managing' the player to the ground.

If a tackler has to bend his/her back and hit lower, the wrestle will be much reduced.  But we would have big hits.... maybe more as the emphasis would be on contact taking a player to the ground.

We could return to being a a collision sport and not a wrestling sport.  You would think people would be happy with this.

Last weekend Leigh player Tom Amone stands upright and the attacking player runs into him and creates a clash of heads, if the attacking player bends into the tackle as Dupree did at Castleford there would gave been no head clash, BUT Amone is cited and recieves a 2 game ban, which begs the question if Liam Watts had bent into the tackle aiming at the upper torso he would most likely have clashed heads with Dupree and most likely also got sent off, do you agree?

[Harry Stottle]

10 minutes ago, Click said:

I have no idea what games you watched over the last weekend, but to say that "The game now bears no resemblance to how the sport was once played" is quite a claim.

I go back quite a long way in this game, did you ever hear of the period it was labelled 'Thugby League', I don't know your age but if you ever witnessed how the game was once played it certainly bears no resemblance to a time before.

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Those players talking about taking action must obviously feel that the refs and judiciary have gone to far with their judgments and actions.

The game now bears no resemblance to how the sport was once played and quite rightly so, and like these player's who fined reason to comment that it has gone to far I totally agree with them.

I have said on here a few times that I preferred the way the sport was played in the 80’s / 90’s (some of that may be nostalgia I guess).  But the fact is that the sport is being sued by ex-players with the stated aim of protecting players from the damages that come from head knocks.  I really don't know what you expect the RFL to do.

The difference between you and me I guess is that I recognise change is inevitable and I actually think we could potentially see the sport improve with less upright tackling and wrestling.

In the end, if 90% of what Rugby League used to be when I was growing up is still there, it is by far the best sport in the world.

[StandOffHalf]

I think it is pretty unfair to say that the players are revolting. Some of them may be a bit unrefined and rough around the edges but the vast majority are good chaps.