The Players Are Revolting

[GeordieSaint]

Players of all generations are going mental on Twitter. Current players like the England Captain (Williams) are actively saying it’s ridiculous. Clearly past players are calling it out. It’s being picked up down under too and what took me by surprise a little, former players like Richard Whiting and Craig Huby are actively calling out Fozzard and Goulding.

[GeordieSaint]

The England Captain:

 

[Dunbar]

I missed the game last night.

I had to watch the video on Twitter half a dozen times to find what the incident actually was that warranted a penalty, never mind a card.

This is where the whole thing becomes a mess.  I am one who recognises the need for change and support a clampdown on deliberate or even reckless/careless contact with the head. 

But this is purely accidental and wasn't in the initial tackle action.  You cannot legislate to eliminate all accidental contact.

This type of incident negatively effects the RFL's efforts as it gives a louder voice to those who say the initiative is bad for the game.  They need to find a very sensible middle ground here.

[dkw]

Amazing to see some of the ex players involved in suing the RFL for historic injuries suddenly go quiet over all these new rules, you would think they would be happy with it all, yet Goulding, Fozzard etc have gone completely silent.

We went from a few dozen insurance companies involved in the sport to fighting to get one to insure the game with all these provisos around mitigating head contact. 

[GeordieSaint]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

Amazing to see some of the ex players involved in suing the RFL for historic injuries suddenly go quiet over all these new rules, you would think they would be happy with it all, yet Goulding, Fozzard etc have gone completely silent.

We went from a few dozen insurance companies involved in the sport to fighting to get one to insure the game with all these provisos around mitigating head contact. 

They are openly being attacked by some of their former peers. Whiting and Huby are two I have clocked this morning. 

[graveyard johnny]

wouldnt be surprised to see a team not return to the field after HT and forfeit the match  in protest if this continues

[Maximus Decimus]

Only the RFL would take a look at Super Rugby Union and get ideas. 

Like pretty much everyone else, I saw that last night and came away thinking there is no game if that is a red card. I had to watch it about 3 times to see where the infringement even was.

People will get annoyed and make exaggerated claims, but the reality is that it ruined the game as a contest for everybody there. In the long term that will be very damaging.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This type of incident negatively effects the RFL's efforts as it gives a louder voice to those who say the initiative is bad for the game. 

 

45 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

wouldnt be surprised to see a team not return to the field after HT and forfeit the match  in protest if this continues

Yes, that's the type of thing I meant.

[RigbyLuger]

49 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

They are openly being attacked by some of their former peers. Whiting and Huby are two I have clocked this morning. 

The quicker that some who want to criticise realise why, the better. Last night was a mess, but the reason for it is clear. If the sport wasn't being sued, this wouldn't be happening to the level it is.

[GeordieSaint]

Appears Brierley is interested in getting the Captains from each club together:

 

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I missed the game last night.

I had to watch the video on Twitter half a dozen times to find what the incident actually was that warranted a penalty, never mind a card.

This is where the whole thing becomes a mess.  I am one who recognises the need for change and support a clampdown on deliberate or even reckless/careless contact with the head. 

But this is purely accidental and wasn't in the initial tackle action.  You cannot legislate to eliminate all accidental contact.

This type of incident negatively effects the RFL's efforts as it gives a louder voice to those who say the initiative is bad for the game.  They need to find a very sensible middle ground here.

It’s one bad decision.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It’s one bad decision.

So, you are saying that the referee and video referee were not applying the guidelines they have been given and they simply made a bad call and future accidental head contact from a defender will not be punished?

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So, you are saying that the referee and video referee were not applying the guidelines they have been given and they simply made a bad call and future accidental head contact from a defender will not be punished?

Given what we’ve seen in every other game so far, that is pretty much exactly what I think.

[Derwent]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Amazing to see some of the ex players involved in suing the RFL for historic injuries suddenly go quiet over all these new rules, you would think they would be happy with it all, yet Goulding, Fozzard etc have gone completely silent.

We went from a few dozen insurance companies involved in the sport to fighting to get one to insure the game with all these provisos around mitigating head contact. 

I find the whole insurance issue strange. If these rule changes were a requirement of getting the game and its players insured then surely no British player can play under international rules anymore ?

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Derwent said:

I find the whole insurance issue strange. If these rule changes were a requirement of getting the game and its players insured then surely no British player can play under international rules anymore ?

Yes. Thankfully, it is also about creating an environment where people can play rugby without getting hit in the head because that is a good thing to do.

Because we’re here to watch rugby, not people getting hit in the head.

[Damien]

I am fully behind the clampdown but no one will convince me that the red card last night wasn't nonsense. It lacked all common sense and frankly is the sort of decision/ruling that is made by people with little knowledge or understanding of the game. Purely accidental collisions, where the tackler has not been wreckless, should not be a sending off offence. It shouldn't even be a yellow card.

And this is an issue. If people that are generally supportive of these moves feel like this then it is going to badly affect the overall message and intent. It will only lead to more players speaking out and more fans talking of alienation which will only damage the overall aim of these wider changes. The RFL certainly need to clarify this sending off and either say it was wrong or make changes to their interpretation. 

Edited February 24 by Damien

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Given what we’ve seen in every other game so far, that is pretty much exactly what I think.

Well, let's hope you are right.

[Derwent]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes. Thankfully, it is also about creating an environment where people can play rugby without getting hit in the head because that is a good thing to do.

Because we’re here to watch rugby, not people getting hit in the head.

But if they can’t play under international rules then how come Wigan are doing exactly that this evening ? Are their players playing without insurance ? Will players be uninsured when they play for England ?

[RigbyLuger]

56 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Appears Brierley is interested in getting the Captains from each club together:

 

I'd have more sympathy for them if they admitted that the sport is in a tough situation, and had to do something. That and if they'd actually supported the current union, and all the other previous ones. This appears to be a moan over the sport trying to protect the players as much as they can.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

I am fully behind the clampdown but no one will convince me that the red card last night wasn't nonsense. It lacked all common sense and frankly is the sort of decision/ruling that is made by people with little knowledge or understanding of the game. Purely accidental collisions, where the tackler has not been wreckless, should not be a sending off offence. It shouldn't even be a yellow card.

And this is an issue. If people that are generally supportive of these moves feel like this then it is going to badly affect the overall message and intent. It will only lead to more players speaking out and more fans talking of alienation which will only damage the overall aim of these wider changes. The RFL certainly need to clarify this sending off and either say it was wrong or make changes to their interpretation. 

I think there is a real risk here that there are guidelines for the ref's to punish head clashes and call it a foul by the defender.

And in some cases, there may be a case for a defender executing an upright tackle with first contact getting their timing wrong and resulting in a head clash.  That will fall into the reckless category and probably should be punished. 

But last night was 100% accidental and not deliberate or reckless.  As you say, there needs to be clarification on this.

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I think there is a real risk here that there are guidelines for the ref's to punish head clashes and call it a foul by the defender.

And in some cases, there may be a case for a defender executing an upright tackle with first contact getting their timing wrong and resulting in a head clash.  That will fall into the reckless category and probably should be punished. 

But last night was 100% accidental and not deliberate or reckless.  As you say, there needs to be clarification on this.

If the RFL, MRP or whoever stand by the red card then it could be very dangerous. Being sent from the field because of an accident, rather than foul play starts to edge the game towards a lottery rather than a sporting contest

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

If the RFL, MRP or whoever stand by the red card then it could be very dangerous. Being sent from the field because of an accident, rather than foul play starts to edge the game towards a lottery rather than a sporting contest

I hope gingerjon is correct and this was just a bad call.

But I have a real worry that they are going to go down the route of saying the tackler has a responsibility (duty of care) to not put himself in a position to cause such head contact.  Without taking this too much cross code, this is the Union interpretation.

I very much hope I am wrong and my worries are unwarranted. 

[Gomersall]

58 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It’s one bad decision.

So you’re not counting the Thewlis try stopping head tackle on Sutcliffe as a bad decision then? It wasn’t even given as a penalty just ignored completely by the on field ref and the VR.

[Gomersall]

42 minutes ago, Derwent said:

I find the whole insurance issue strange. If these rule changes were a requirement of getting the game and its players insured then surely no British player can play under international rules anymore ?

Who insures the NRL. Are their premiums too high for the RFL? 

[Dave T]

It's really classless for people to be attacking players making a legal claim.