The Players Are Revolting

[GeordieSaint]

19 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.

Thanks for the link. 

The issue I have that is the guidelines are that… guidelines. There needs to be some form of judgement applied as there will be examples of where scenarios are not captured in the guidelines that meet mitigating circumstances. Last night was a clear example. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Secondary contact being one

Yes, that is certainly the mitigating factor that could have been taken into consideration.

[GeordieSaint]

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The article lists the potential mitigating factors.

All or some? I note it states “includes” which suggest it’s not all…

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, that is certainly the mitigating factor that could have been taken into consideration.

Agreed. But it does rather show that the article is misrepresenting the facts. 

For me, it proves that the ref didn't have to send him off as people are claiming. It was their opinion that there were no mitigants. Which is why I believe it was human error. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Agreed. But it does rather show that the article is misrepresenting the facts. 

For me, it proves that the ref didn't have to send him off as people are claiming. It was their opinion that there were no mitigants. Which is why I believe it was human error. 

Just playing devil's advocate.

I'm not sure there was enough initial contact by Brown to provide mitigation.  He was essentially grabbing at Currie.  I think the mitigation in this sense is if shoulder/head contact from the tackler was lower on the ball carrier's body and then went up to the head.

[Dunbar]

The main issue I have with the RFL guidelines is that nowhere in the whole document is the word accidental used.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Just playing devil's advocate.

I'm not sure there was enough initial contact by Brown to provide mitigation.  He was essentially grabbing at Currie.  I think the mitigation in this sense is if shoulder/head contact from the tackler was lower on the ball carrier's body and then went up to the head.

It doesn't help because it's clear that the document has been written with high tackles in mind. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

It doesn't help because it's clear that the document has been written with high tackles in mind. 

And this goes all the way back to my original point.

I believe that the RFL (as in Union now) consider all head clashes as a high tackle now.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

And this goes all the way back to my original point.

I believe that the RFL (as in Union now) consider all head clashes as a high tackle now.

In principle I don't have an issue with that, as long as the outcome can be penalty, yellow or red. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

In principle I don't have an issue with that, as long as the outcome can be penalty, yellow or red. 

Or accidental?

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Or accidental?

Potentially, I can see the argument for it, but I think even when accidental you've usually tackled without getting your head out of the way. That's the only thing about last night, Brown's head was up high, I think it's clear they want to change that. 

But I think you set yourself up if you don't accept that accidents happen, so yeah, I'd agree. 

[N2022]

Just watched Wire v Hull highlights. Odd that Brown goes while the other was just a yellow, but the big thing that bothers me is the 'holding the head'. I get that a knock might hurt but wonder if we're going to see players highlighting head contact to draw ref's attention and get opponent carded. And where do the HIA protocols fit in with this. Random thoughts, but just things that occur to me.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, N2022 said:

Just watched Wire v Hull highlights. Odd that Brown goes while the other was just a yellow, but the big thing that bothers me is the 'holding the head'. I get that a knock might hurt but wonder if we're going to see players highlighting head contact to draw ref's attention and get opponent carded. And where do the HIA protocols fit in with this. Random thoughts, but just things that occur to me.

I thought that as well.  But apparently Currie needed 6 stitches in the cut so that's going to hurt when it opens up.

[sentoffagain2]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I thought that as well.  But apparently Currie needed 6 stitches in the cut so that's going to hurt when it opens up.

   You could tell it was a bad cut i posted straight away it would need a few stitches.It was on the eyebrow very much like boxers get.Purely accidental though just a genuine accident.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   You could tell it was a bad cut i posted straight away it would need a few stitches.It was on the eyebrow very much like boxers get.Purely accidental though just a genuine accident.

Agreed.

[PREPOSTEROUS]

12 hours ago, N2022 said:

Just watched Wire v Hull highlights. Odd that Brown goes while the other was just a yellow, but the big thing that bothers me is the 'holding the head'. I get that a knock might hurt but wonder if we're going to see players highlighting head contact to draw ref's attention and get opponent carded. And where do the HIA protocols fit in with this. Random thoughts, but just things that occur to me.

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.

[RigbyLuger]

10 minutes ago, 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.

Must make it harder for officials when players are trying to almost con them. Walmsley will have a word.

[N2022]

27 minutes ago, 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.

Thanks for this, and to Dunbar for his post. I'm an occasional viewer, more of a general sports fan, so no specialist. On the other part of my post, what is the flip of this with respect to Head Injury Assessment protocols? We're looking closely at each case of head contact, but the emphasis seems to be on determining cause and extent of blame. How it came about doesn't necessarily change the damage done, so from a safety side, what precautions are there? Are we seeing players checked for concussion by refs? Coming off to be assessed? 

[PREPOSTEROUS]

11 minutes ago, N2022 said:

Thanks for this, and to Dunbar for his post. I'm an occasional viewer, more of a general sports fan, so no specialist. On the other part of my post, what is the flip of this with respect to Head Injury Assessment protocols? We're looking closely at each case of head contact, but the emphasis seems to be on determining cause and extent of blame. How it came about doesn't necessarily change the damage done, so from a safety side, what precautions are there? Are we seeing players checked for concussion by refs? Coming off to be assessed? 

Concussion spotters are/will be placed in grounds to look for such instances, plus the clubs doctors will also be on the lookout. It's not on the refs. 

[EggFace]

After the rubbish I had to put up with the Rugby Union World Cup final and the Castleford Wigan and add Warrington v Hull games it was a refreshing change seeing no red cards in the Scotland England game and Wigan Penrith...this is how it should be.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, EggFace said:

After the rubbish I had to put up with the Rugby Union World Cup final and the Castleford Wigan and add Warrington v Hull games it was a refreshing change seeing no red cards in the Scotland England game and Wigan Penrith...this is how it should be.

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

[RigbyLuger]

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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

That's a great question. I didn't really notice any difference in the way it was reffed, but I could just be thick.

[OriginalMrC]

1 hour ago, EggFace said:

After the rubbish I had to put up with the Rugby Union World Cup final and the Castleford Wigan and add Warrington v Hull games it was a refreshing change seeing no red cards in the Scotland England game and Wigan Penrith...this is how it should be.

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

Edited February 25 by OriginalMrC

[JohnM]

Yes, accidental. Absurd decision. But playing devil's advocate just for a moment and trying to find some reason behind the decision, (don't shoot the messenger):  Could the officials justification be that he joined the tackle when it was in progress, didn't need to and that had he not done so, the head clash would not have occurred.  

[Dave T]

Again, loathe to bring Union I to it, but I reluctantly will. 

I'm in a Scottish pub and they had the 6N on. French player sent off for head on head in the tackle. Handled perfectly. Yellow, reviewed, upgraded to red. It was also a perfect demonstration of what we should be clamping down on, the tackler made full on head contact in the tackle. It was dangerous and clearly a red. 

I detest the sport, but we really should be borrowing what we can from them in this area, they have gone through all this 2 years in advance of us. Let's not start from scratch when there are earnings to be had.