The Players Are Revolting

[EggFace]

6 hours ago, OriginalMrC said:

Not really relevant when both games had no tackles that would potentially be a red under the new guidelines 

Well if we could keep what we had yesterday for the future no problem but looking to the rest of this and next season it's like walking on egg shells.

[EggFace]

7 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Was there anything in either game that would have been a red in this year's Super League?

Yes I saw a few that would of got picked up by certain refs like Stu Barnes, Tom Grant and Marcus Griffiths in both codes games but at the end I pay for entertainment and thats what I got and whats wrong with that.

[Coggo]

Watched the WCC game back and lost count of the tackles where initial contact is above the armpit (but no head contact is made). 

I’m really worried about this rule coming in next year in the professional game. I’d go as far as saying that Penrith might’ve have won the game under the armpit rule.

[Harry Stottle]

On 24/02/2024 at 10:35, 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

I have thought along the same lines, like a coach on the touchline beckoning the player's off the pitch.

[RigbyLuger]

Powell backing the players

 

 

 

 

[RP London]

On 25/02/2024 at 09:09, PREPOSTEROUS said:

In Currie's case, there are photos showing was he was holding his head, but the premise of what your are worried about is valid. We saw this with neck rubbing after a tackle. Percival being a prime offender, to get the refs attention, more so when a video ref was present. 

Its all on the MRP. They can nip this in the bud with how they handle the situation. If they double down then the slightest brush of head could see players staying down to get that advantage. The one hope I have is that the that players all seem equally dismayed by the decision so collectively they could self police each other.

is this not what the green card was supposed to stop.. if you go down holding something then you go off the pitch for 1 or 2 minutes (not really sure).. that means if the decision doesnt go your way all you are doing is putting your team down to 12 for 2 minutes and therefore should stop players milking it.. or at least that was the idea.. i think i've seen 1 used so far.

[Coggo]

14 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

Powell backing the players

 

 

 

 

"I don't see the Australians going down that line. I think we've been panicked into [it] and been led by people who don't really understand the game". Totally agree with Powell on this.

[JohnM]

Is it possible, maybe, that by having people who do understand the game may not be quite as analytical in assessing and minimising the risks, though. A point of view, yes, but not in my view, the determinant opinion. A dispationate and  evidence-based assesment by specialists and  experts, and yes by actuaries, regulatory and risk managers is in my view more relevant but with owner, coach and player input.

[Dave T]

Sounds like a reasonable response from the RFL today. Protected the referee, but didn't actually say it was a change, they used the word emphasise, which was telling. 

[Harry Stottle]

On 25/02/2024 at 22:15, RigbyLuger said:

Powell backing the players

 

 

 

 

Just caught up with this, what a load of sense Mr Powell says, "how am I supposed to coach how to tackle a player who puts his head down there".

So let's add another law just as daft, if a player takes evasive action by ducking yellow card him/her.

Edited February 27 by Harry Stottle

[RP London]

4 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Just caught up with this, what a load of sense Mr Powell says, "how am I supposed to coach how to tackle a player who puts his head down there".

So let's add another law just as daft, if a player takes evasive action by ducking yellow card him/her.

In Union it is supposed to be a penalty for anyone ducking into the tackle (this is at age grade and community game due to the sternum tackle rule), unless you are within 5 of the try line. It has IMHO stopped some of this but it hasn't been strictly enforced by the refs, equally I haven't seen head highs coming from it becuase the players themselves have readjusted. 

IMHO there is a lot of knee jerk reaction to this at the moment. The rules are there for a reason and players need to adjust. If there are constant issues due to these rules then that is different and the RFL seem to be looking at these, but equally the players do need to adjust themselves and some of the tackles while not being viscous have been reckless and while there is the argument of "best players on the pitch" that surely has to count for players getting injured through reckless, needless tackles. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

In Union it is supposed to be a penalty for anyone ducking into the tackle (this is at age grade and community game due to the sternum tackle rule), unless you are within 5 of the try line. It has IMHO stopped some of this but it hasn't been strictly enforced by the refs, equally I haven't seen head highs coming from it becuase the players themselves have readjusted. 

IMHO there is a lot of knee jerk reaction to this at the moment. The rules are there for a reason and players need to adjust. If there are constant issues due to these rules then that is different and the RFL seem to be looking at these, but equally the players do need to adjust themselves and some of the tackles while not being viscous have been reckless and while there is the argument of "best players on the pitch" that surely has to count for players getting injured through reckless, needless tackles. 

Hi RP, if player's duck into a tackle how does the tackler readjust if he has already committed himself to hitting the defender in the torso region? What if the tackler doesn't move and stands upright as Tom Amone did and the attacker doesn't go low and runs into defender effecting a head clash subsequently tackler gets a 2 match notice? There are tackles that simply cannot be delivered around the leg area because of the proximity of the attacker to the defender.

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi RP, if player's duck into a tackle how does the tackler readjust if he has already committed himself to hitting the defender in the torso region? What if the tackler doesn't move and stands upright as Tom Amone did and the attacker doesn't go low and runs into defender effecting a head clash subsequently tackler gets a 2 match notice? There are tackles that simply cannot be delivered around the leg area because of the proximity of the attacker to the defender.

If the player has gone around the torso and the attacker ducks into it then there are mitigating factors to the tackle and it is graded accordingly by the RFL and is not as serious as straight on tackles to the had and not treated as such, it is laid out IIRC in some of the posts on here about the way they go through the process, it is certainly laid out in the actual documents if not reproduced on here.. they have thought about this. IMHO I would penalise the attacker as RU do which has meant less people risk it. 

I havent seen the Tom Amone one and cannot, from the description you have given, picture it so will just not comment and see if i can find it when i have a sec. 

On your last sentence we are not asking them to deliver tackles around the leg area, just not around the head.

[RP London]

16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi RP, if player's duck into a tackle how does the tackler readjust if he has already committed himself to hitting the defender in the torso region? What if the tackler doesn't move and stands upright as Tom Amone did and the attacker doesn't go low and runs into defender effecting a head clash subsequently tackler gets a 2 match notice? There are tackles that simply cannot be delivered around the leg area because of the proximity of the attacker to the defender.

if this is the one you mean 

Then it deserves a penalty and perhaps a card as they are trying to clamp down (dont know what his previous is like but that does affect the ban).. He has gone in bolt upright. not the slightest bit of a duck to make the tackle, the attacking player is running in upright (we dont want them to duck into the tackle) and therefore there is a clash of heads.. its not a big one granted but it is still one and if Tom Amone bends his back even slightly to get his head down he is ok, tackle is made and there is no issue and that is what we need to encourage. If he is bolt upright that could be a lot worse, frankly for both parties. He had the time, he wasnt stepped, the attacking player just ran straight in.

For me that one is on Amone, the rule is there and he has plenty of opportunity to change his angle of tackle. 

application of the rule by the ref or the bans by the MRP are different from the rule itself as we are seeing at the moment with the Nu Brown incident. 

 

[Dunbar]

On 27/02/2024 at 15:55, RP London said:

If the player has gone around the torso and the attacker ducks into it then there are mitigating factors to the tackle and it is graded accordingly by the RFL and is not as serious as straight on tackles

Indeed, the RFL guidelines state this in their mitigating factors so it may not even be deemed foul play.

And they go further to say "If ball carrier intentionally contacts tackler’s head using their head the penalty will be reversed"

[Lowdesert]

On 27/02/2024 at 15:23, RP London said:

In Union it is supposed to be a penalty for anyone ducking into the tackle (this is at age grade and community game due to the sternum tackle rule), unless you are within 5 of the try line. It has IMHO stopped some of this but it hasn't been strictly enforced by the refs, equally I haven't seen head highs coming from it becuase the players themselves have readjusted. 

IMHO there is a lot of knee jerk reaction to this at the moment. The rules are there for a reason and players need to adjust. If there are constant issues due to these rules then that is different and the RFL seem to be looking at these, but equally the players do need to adjust themselves and some of the tackles while not being viscous have been reckless and while there is the argument of "best players on the pitch" that surely has to count for players getting injured through reckless, needless tackles. 

From what I can see Clubs have been consulted but at different levels.  So many players wouldn’t be up in arms about this otherwise and wouldn’t be getting punished with bans and fines.

The galling thing for me is that if the Laws had been officiated correctly, over the years, then much of this would be already addressed.  Instead we had the half hearted attempts of a few years ago where clubs complained of the officiating and the rfl eased off.  To add to that, players wouldn’t have been practicing hitting ball carriers high, holding them up and then wrestling them to the floor before more wrestle.  Cultures like this can’t be changed quickly, yet just this week an accidental clash between a player and a referee has been punished with a fine and a ban.  Just seems that some punishment is being meted out without considering enough human factors.

[RP London]

11 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

From what I can see Clubs have been consulted but at different levels.  So many players wouldn’t be up in arms about this otherwise and wouldn’t be getting punished with bans and fines.

The galling thing for me is that if the Laws had been officiated correctly, over the years, then much of this would be already addressed.  Instead we had the half hearted attempts of a few years ago where clubs complained of the officiating and the rfl eased off.  To add to that, players wouldn’t have been practicing hitting ball carriers high, holding them up and then wrestling them to the floor before more wrestle.  Cultures like this can’t be changed quickly, yet just this week an accidental clash between a player and a referee has been punished with a fine and a ban.  Just seems that some punishment is being meted out without considering enough human factors.

I do agree with the last paragraph 100% they have been too weak in the past and bent to the clubs, it would not surprise me (but my memory of the era is fading away) if that had been the case in the period of the likes of Fozzard and be used as proof ie you knew there was an issue, you put in rules but you did not enforce them and that is therefore liability.. in a business sense HSE legislation is there, businesses have procedures, people can break the rules but if the company turns a blind eye it is then on them, if they "punish" then the responsibility for the breach is all on the person breaching.

 

[Harry Stottle]

12 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

yet just this week an accidental clash between a player and a referee has been punished with a fine and a ban.

I have looked to try to find video footage of that incident but to no avail, can anyone please provide a link, thanks.

[Lowdesert]

33 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I have looked to try to find video footage of that incident but to no avail, can anyone please provide a link, thanks.

The full game is on YouTube Harry.  I am not sure of the exact minute it happened.

[Harry Stottle]

15 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

The full game is on YouTube Harry.  I am not sure of the exact minute it happened.

I watched the game and if you would excuse me I would not wish to do so again, I never noticed it live but just wanted to see the incident - just like many adjudications by the panel when all the match day officials, anyone in attendance and opposing teams have not complained about anything, that we have this trial by video, is this to create fines to put more money into the coffers?

I imagine the panel sat there like a group of Dawson and Barraclough's Cissie and Ada character's "Oooh did you see that" when watching match videos.

[Lowdesert]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I watched the game and if you would excuse me I would not wish to do so again, I never noticed it live but just wanted to see the incident - just like many adjudications by the panel when all the match day officials, anyone in attendance and opposing teams have not complained about anything, that we have this trial by video, is this to create fines to put more money into the coffers?

I imagine the panel sat there like a group of Dawson and Barraclough's Cissie and Ada character's "Oooh did you see that" when watching match videos.

The only clip I’ve seen is from twitter.  I don’t know the exact minute as I would like to see it also.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Lowdesert said:

The only clip I’ve seen is from twitter.  I don’t know the exact minute as I would like to see it also.

Perhaps someone else can enlighten us?

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I have looked to try to find video footage of that incident but to no avail, can anyone please provide a link, thanks.

If it is the Liam Sutcliffe one then video is on this page.  He was running behind the ref for 10 / 15 metres with his head clearly in the direction of the ref so not unsighted.  The referee did not change direction.  There is no way the player should have collided with him.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/watch-liam-sutcliffe-incident-hull-9125424

 

[RP London]

42 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If it is the Liam Sutcliffe one then video is on this page.  He was running behind the ref for 10 / 15 metres with his head clearly in the direction of the ref so not unsighted.  The referee did not change direction.  There is no way the player should have collided with him.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/watch-liam-sutcliffe-incident-hull-9125424

 

he could definitely have avoided him.. 

[RP London]

57 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I watched the game and if you would excuse me I would not wish to do so again, I never noticed it live but just wanted to see the incident - just like many adjudications by the panel when all the match day officials, anyone in attendance and opposing teams have not complained about anything, that we have this trial by video, is this to create fines to put more money into the coffers?

I imagine the panel sat there like a group of Dawson and Barraclough's Cissie and Ada character's "Oooh did you see that" when watching match videos.

Trial by video is fine as it also works the other way and if the offence isn't actually that serious then that can be show too. If people just stop doing these things then there would be less to worry about. Not sure why the criticism is of the technology etc and not of the players TBH.