RFL says no further action against Nu Brown…

[Old Frightful]

That’s alright then

Fa’amanu Brown receives no further action following his red card in Friday’s fixture for ‘head contact

the RFL have released a statement relating to the incident below 

Brown will be free to face London Broncos in Sunday’s Betfred Super League Round 3 fixture.

Full Statement:

Following Monday’s meeting of the Match Review Panel, the RFL acknowledges that the implementation of the new Head Contact Sentencing Framework caused controversy and confusion during Round Two of the Betfred Super League.

This was most obvious in Friday’s match at Warrington Wolves, with the dismissal of Hull FC’s Nu Brown late in the first half.

On studying the incident, the MRP decided it did not merit a charge under the Framework. This has highlighted a lack of clarity in the procedures regarding head on head contact, which left the officials at Friday’s game in an invidious position.

The section of the Framework relating to head-on-head contact will now be amended, emphasising that it applies only to initial contact. Once the mechanics of the tackle become more fluid, officials are able to use their knowledge and game-understanding to mitigate the sanction, to reflect the level of culpability of the tackler.

This point will be reinforced to Betfred Super League head coaches at a pre-arranged meeting on Wednesday, and to playing representatives of all 12 Super League clubs at a separate meeting later in the day.

Robert Hicks, the RFL’s Director of Operations and Legal, said:

“We are in the very early stages of the season at all levels having introduced significant changes as recommended by the sport’s Brain Health Sub-Committee, and in that regard we thank the players and coaches for their response.

“Comparing Round Two of the Betfred Super League to the opening round, there has been a significant reduction in the number of charges, reflecting a significant change in player behaviour – with a tiny proportion of over 3,000 tackle events leading to charges for head contact. It has been a similar story through the early rounds of the Betfred Challenge Cup and the AB Sundecks 1895 Cup.

“However we have acknowledged throughout this process that it would be challenging for all, and that as a governing body we need to be flexible, and sympathetic to those at the sharp end.

“The dismissal of Nu Brown at Warrington on Friday night was an uncomfortable moment for the sport, and it has highlighted a lack of clarity in the wording of the framework as followed by match officials on the night.

“We recognise this will be of little consolation to the player or his club – and we thank them for their measured response.

“Head to head contact was an area highlighted as especially important by the Brain Health Sub-Committee, given the impact on two players, so it will remain a focus of the framework, and will continue to be sanctioned – specific to initial contact.

“The meetings with head coaches and senior players this week are another opportunity to update and consult, given the importance of communication through this process.

“Next weekend is a significant one for the Community Game, marking the start of the National Conference League and a number of other competitions, meaning further adaptation for another group of players, coaches and match officials.

“As at the professional level, these changes have been introduced following recommendations from the Brain Health Sub-Committee given developments in medical and scientific knowledge, and with a focus on player welfare – and again as in the professional game, we are grateful to clubs, coaches, players and match officials for their support.”

[dkw]

So the games dead!

Or the games dead? 

Or the games, dead?

Or the, games dead?

[LeeF]

And here are the other minutes. 
 

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MATCH REVIEW PANEL MINUTES 26 FEB 2024 .pdf

 

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

So the games dead!

Or the games dead? 

Or the games, dead?

Or the, games dead?

No it’s dead

[Gomersall]

"The section of the Framework relating to head-on-head contact will now be amended, emphasising that it applies only to initial contact."

Playing devil's advocate, what happens if there is accidental initial contact but is then followed by deliberate head to head contact? Obviously foul play will be penalised but the new wording doesn't come across well IMO.

[LeeF]

So the protocols were incorrect and needed tweaking.

The correct action taken by the RFL imo

[dkw]

So as expected it was a misinterpretation of a badly worded rule, and not the games death knell after all...

[LeeF]

Just now, Gomersall said:

"The section of the Framework relating to head-on-head contact will now be amended, emphasising that it applies only to initial contact."

Playing devil's advocate, what happens if there is accidental initial contact but is then followed by deliberate head to head contact? Obviously foul play will be penalised but the new wording doesn't come across well IMO.

Here’s the bit

 

“Once the mechanics of the tackle become more fluid, officials are able to use their knowledge and game-understanding to mitigate the sanction, to reflect the level of culpability of the tackler.” 
 

A deliberate action in the second or subsequent phase will result in red or yellow

[Gomersall]

3 minutes ago, LeeF said:

And here are the other minutes. 
 

https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MATCH REVIEW PANEL MINUTES 26 FEB 2024 .pdf

 

What did Thewlis get?

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

So as expected it was a misinterpretation of a badly worded rule, and not the games death knell after all...

At least it generated some IMG points for social media interactions

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Gomersall said:

What did Thewlis get?

If it’s not on the list then presumably nothing. 
 

For some reason they have stopped publishing the non fines/ bans decisions this season

[Dunbar]

I think this is a fair result.

It is clear that the referees are being instructed to treat initial head on head contact as reckless and if their was no mitigation (i.e. a ball career lowering himself into the tackle) then a penalty or worse.

But they have recognised that this secondary contact was accidental and will look change the wording and the guidance, we can’t really expect more than that.

[Damien]

Well I'm glad the RFL have clarified what happened and admitted that it was wrong for someone to be sent off for an accidental contact like that. It is good that they have learned from their mistake and will now ammend this. Not much consolation for Hull FC though.

[OriginalMrC]

The correct decision. 

[Old Frightful]

Still looking for the apology.

[Chrispmartha]

Lisone one is really really harsh

[sam4731]

SL should have a similar tournament to the NRL's pre season challenge where we could iron out these kinks before letting loose the rules on everyone from a standing start. I know that teams play pre season games but they are very disjointed and are not played at a standard anywhere near comparable to a SL game.

[Old Frightful]

30 minutes ago, dkw said:

So as expected it was a misinterpretation of a badly worded rule, and not the games death knell after all...

It was the death knell of Friday’s game, of that there is little doubt.

[Spidey]

23 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

SL should have a similar tournament to the NRL's pre season challenge where we could iron out these kinks before letting loose the rules on everyone from a standing start. I know that teams play pre season games but they are very disjointed and are not played at a standard anywhere near comparable to a SL game.

The NRL games are played with 25 man squads with bonus points for things like offloads, that's hardly comparable to a normal game either

[Josef K]

I’m dun wiv it. 
since 1895 i have told people RL is finished, i won’t stop saying that until i am proven right. I am a massive RL fan but i love telling everyone #TheGameIsDead. 

[daz39]

55 minutes ago, LeeF said:

No it’s dead

I though it had just gone, it could be back though now!

[dkw]

59 minutes ago, daz39 said:

I though it had just gone, it could be back though now!

No, no, he's uh,...he's resting

[Wellsy4HullFC]

As good as it is that the RFL have acknowledged they have made an error in their protocol, it's no consolation to us.

"Sorry we f*cked up and cost you any chance of winning when the game was evenly contested. Our bad. Now, here's 4 charges for your players..."

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

As good as it is that the RFL have acknowledged they have made an error in their protocol, it's no consolation to us.

"Sorry we f*cked up and cost you any chance of winning when the game was evenly contested. Our bad. Now, here's 4 charges for your players..."

It isn’t but it was still a possibility they could have said the ref followed the guidance so tough. After the incident happened this was the only reasonable outcome really. 

[DavidM]

Some credit due there I think in the handling and explanation of that