The Players Are Revolting

[Archie Gordon]

6 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

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.

There does seem to be a difference in reffing as you move out from the middle of the pitch. Wingers are still getting knocked about the head without much fuss being made.

[The Blues Ox]

35 minutes ago, Derwent said:

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 ?

Hit the nail on the head, you can't just relax the interpreatations willy nilly when it comes to insurance. I don't get the whole insurance thing anyway, I mean who insures Ice Hockey or Amercian Football in this country? American Football in particular is prone to more head injuries than RL. Or is it simply a case of the RFL do not have the money that some insurers want to charge and this is all a bit of a smokescreen?

[The Blues Ox]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

Very much this.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

As a collective, yes.

Individuals who continue to glory in breaking the laws when they were playing, suing the gamefor not protecting them, so it has to adapt and then claim it has gone soft?  No.  They deserve it for me, I hate hypocrisy.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

As a collective, yes.

Individuals who continue to glory in breaking the laws when they were playing, suing the gamefor not protecting them, so it has to adapt and then claim it has gone soft?  No.  They deserve it for me, I hate hypocrisy.

[Dunbar]

The second post was for emphasis.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

Perhaps an idea for the players instead of striking, take the ###### and collaborate to play a game at walking pace. That would certainly get more attention than not showing up. Maybe at Magic WKND? That's the only way to mitigate against accidental head knocks.

In really I think the MRP can clear this up on Monday by advising the contact did not warrant a red card but would be given as a penalty in future so the refs know where the stand on that situation. Clearly Griffiths was unable to use common sense so needs to be saved from himself.

[gingerjon]

19 minutes ago, Gomersall said:

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.

I’m quite content saying that bad decisions occur and that calling one thing a bad decision doesn’t mean that all other decisions are good.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, Derwent said:

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 ?

Who knows or cares?

I mean, genuinely, is the insurance status of the players something that keeps you awake at night?

Given the lack of sympathy shown for some players when they have been injured and the insurance has not covered it, I am surprised to see so many people now greatly concerned about this aspect of the game.

(For clarity, I think making it less likely we will lose players to head shots and concussion protocols is a Good Thing regardless. I remain to be convinced - although I'm broadly positive - about next year's changes but am absolutely okay with the direction of travel this year.)

[Vambo]

I watched the Wire v Hull game and whilst I do agree that the red card was clearly an incredibly divisive (and IMO wrong) decision it could also be an important early  learning point for the game as a whole particularly in how accidental head clashes are/should be dealt with within the new landscape the game now finds itself in.

In fact many of the calls/non calls from that game certainly needed to be reviewed by those responsible for how the game is governed.

Important to remember though that we are only at week 2 and there were always gonna be contentious talking points whilst all involved get their heads around it all.

 

[RigbyLuger]

26 minutes ago, Vambo said:

I watched the Wire v Hull game and whilst I do agree that the red card was clearly an incredibly divisive (and IMO wrong) decision it could also be an important early  learning point for the game as a whole particularly in how accidental head clashes are/should be dealt with within the new landscape the game now finds itself in.

In fact many of the calls/non calls from that game certainly needed to be reviewed by those responsible for how the game is governed.

Important to remember though that we are only at week 2 and there were always gonna be contentious talking points whilst all involved get their heads around it all.

 

If only those in the heat of the moment had this same reaction. That's been more embarrassing than the call.

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, Vambo said:

I watched the Wire v Hull game and whilst I do agree that the red card was clearly an incredibly divisive (and IMO wrong) decision it could also be an important early  learning point for the game as a whole particularly in how accidental head clashes are/should be dealt with within the new landscape the game now finds itself in.

In fact many of the calls/non calls from that game certainly needed to be reviewed by those responsible for how the game is governed.

Important to remember though that we are only at week 2 and there were always gonna be contentious talking points whilst all involved get their heads around it all.

 

I think it's a good point about flushing this through now. Everyone is now using this to slate the whole clamp down, but tbh it is quite different from the high tackle piece. That is still bedding in and whilst there is debate around individual incidents, I think that'll settle quickly. 

The head on head one is a tricky one, because there absolutely has to be an onus on the tackler not to have his head in a dangerous position, some players do make dangerous tackles where their head is used as a weapon, but I think this is an area that needs to be navigated carefully. I always think James Graham was reckless with his head, and it is something that has been a problem in Union and US Footballers make many tackles with their head leading. 

So I can understand that in future we will see more red cards for head on head, but I just didn't see any foul play in that last night. Of course you can go down the route of saying the tackler can't have his head there, but I think that's a challenging position for the game to take on that one. But that will absolutely be the case for some tackles. 

Head in head is a tough one, and whilst I hate the in-report system, I wonder if that kind of incident is where this is appropriate until we get a clear vision of legal vs illegal in this space. 

[GeordieSaint]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Head in head is a tough one, and whilst I hate the in-report system, I wonder if that kind of incident is where this is appropriate until we get a clear vision of legal vs illegal in this space. 

Last night wasn’t really a case of head-on-head. Brown got spun round making the tackle that resulted in the head clash. Utterly ridiculous to send him off. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Last night wasn’t really a case of head-on-head. Brown got spun round making the tackle that resulted in the head clash. Utterly ridiculous to send him off. 

Agreed, but it was clearly judged as the tackler had his head in the tackle, rather than what you point out 

[Dunbar]

19 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Last night wasn’t really a case of head-on-head. Brown got spun round making the tackle that resulted in the head clash. Utterly ridiculous to send him off. 

 

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Agreed, but it was clearly judged as the tackler had his head in the tackle, rather than what you point out 

This is a good article that explains why that incident was given as a red card and was not a bad decision by the referee (I mean it wasn't a bad decision in the sense that it was absolutely in line with the guidelines given to the referees).

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/13079497/high-tackle-law-controversy-explained-what-does-super-league-do-now

 

[The Blues Ox]

What an awful take by journalist Matt Shaw. He is normally ok but this is a disgraceful view about the situation. 

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I’m quite content saying that bad decisions occur and that calling one thing a bad decision doesn’t mean that all other decisions are good.

This is a good article.

High tackle law controversy explained: What does Super League do now? | Rugby League News | Sky Sports

Regarding the Nu Brown red, I have copied the text below.  Based on this, was it a bad decision or was it a good decision based on the guidelines that the referee's have been given?

When deciding the punishment for head contact, these are the steps that are followed by referred as outlined by the RFL.

First, it is asked: Was contact made with the ball carrier's head/neck on contact by the tacklers' upper or lower limb, shoulder, head or other body part?

In the case of Brown, this will have been answered yes.

If there are significant mitigating factors, it is no penalty. If it is not forceful or dangerous it is a penalty. If the player repeatedly offends or there are mitigating factors, it is a yellow. If it is forceful or dangerous, it is a red.

In Brown's case, there were no mitigating factors.

Mitigating factors include:

1. Tackler clearly bent at the waist and/or knees to make contact with ball carrier legally and ball carrier unexpectedly and rapidly loses height/changes direction (where deliberate, penalty may be reversed), and tackler unable to adjust.

2. Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid the ball carrier's head.

3. Initial contact by the tackler is reactionary and tackler immediately releases ball carrier.

4. Head contact is indirect or secondary (initial contact to body, then minor contact to ball carrier's head).

Why is there no mitigating factors you may ask? This is because the referee judged it to be forceful or dangerous contact.

A "high level of force or danger" is considered to be when "contact is made to ball carrier's head by head or shoulder of tackler".

Regardless of anything else, if a head hits a head, it is automatically considered high danger.

Therefore, by the letter of the law, the contact from Brown on Currie is a red.

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is a good article.

High tackle law controversy explained: What does Super League do now? | Rugby League News | Sky Sports

Regarding the Nu Brown red, I have copied the text below.  Based on this, was it a bad decision or was it a good decision based on the guidelines that the referee's have been given?

When deciding the punishment for head contact, these are the steps that are followed by referred as outlined by the RFL.

First, it is asked: Was contact made with the ball carrier's head/neck on contact by the tacklers' upper or lower limb, shoulder, head or other body part?

In the case of Brown, this will have been answered yes.

If there are significant mitigating factors, it is no penalty. If it is not forceful or dangerous it is a penalty. If the player repeatedly offends or there are mitigating factors, it is a yellow. If it is forceful or dangerous, it is a red.

In Brown's case, there were no mitigating factors.

Mitigating factors include:

1. Tackler clearly bent at the waist and/or knees to make contact with ball carrier legally and ball carrier unexpectedly and rapidly loses height/changes direction (where deliberate, penalty may be reversed), and tackler unable to adjust.

2. Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid the ball carrier's head.

3. Initial contact by the tackler is reactionary and tackler immediately releases ball carrier.

4. Head contact is indirect or secondary (initial contact to body, then minor contact to ball carrier's head).

Why is there no mitigating factors you may ask? This is because the referee judged it to be forceful or dangerous contact.

A "high level of force or danger" is considered to be when "contact is made to ball carrier's head by head or shoulder of tackler".

Regardless of anything else, if a head hits a head, it is automatically considered high danger.

Therefore, by the letter of the law, the contact from Brown on Currie is a red.

Does the conclusion that head on head is automatically high danger come from within the quotes section?

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Does the conclusion that head on head is automatically high danger come from within the quotes section?

Yes, everything in bold is the quote.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

 

This is a good article that explains why that incident was given as a red card and was not a bad decision by the referee (I mean it wasn't a bad decision in the sense that it was absolutely in line with the guidelines given to the referees).

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12196/13079497/high-tackle-law-controversy-explained-what-does-super-league-do-now

 

It would be interesting to see that in writing from the RFL, because that looks like journos words rather than official RFL guidance. 

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Does the conclusion that head on head is automatically high danger come from within the quotes section?

HEAD CONTACT SANCTIONING FRAMEWORK (PROFESSIONAL SENIOR; HEAD CONTACT PROCESS (HCP) 2024 – MATCH REVIEW PANEL & OPERATIONAL RULES TRIBUNAL) (rugby-league.com)

[Dave T]

@Dunbar

That article claims that shoulder or head on head can't have mitigation and is therefore automatic red. 

It isn't, as we saw with Powell, it was shoulder to the head, but the ref called substantial lowering of the attacker as mitigant.

So either the ref didn't follow protocol or the article is incorrect. 

I would be very surprised if any contact with head on head or shoulder on head is auto red with no opportunity to consider mitigation, which is what the article claims. 

[Dave T]

I

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

HEAD CONTACT SANCTIONING FRAMEWORK (PROFESSIONAL SENIOR; HEAD CONTACT PROCESS (HCP) 2024 – MATCH REVIEW PANEL & OPERATIONAL RULES TRIBUNAL) (rugby-league.com)

That shows the article was incorrect. 

Dangerous can be downgraded to yellow with mitigating factors 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I

That shows the article was incorrect. 

Dangerous can be downgraded to yellow with mitigating factors 

The article lists the potential mitigating factors.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The article lists the potential mitigating factors.

Secondary contact being one