Sheffield

[Simon Hall]

1 hour ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

One of the letters in League Express did include an incident in a recent Wigan game when Nsemba was clearly knocked out yet was allowed back on the field later. Why has nothing been done about this?

Nsemba wasn't knocked out.

[JohnM]

Maybe someone can shed light on these two conflicting statements taken from the League Express article.

“A key detail to keep front of mind: Matty Marsh was completely fit to play – this isn’t disputed by anyone, including the RFL."

and 

"The RFL received direct notification from Hannah Cole (Eagles’ medic) that she would not clear Matty Marsh to play." 

Edited November 7, 2024 by JohnM

[LeeF]

9 hours ago, M j M said:

What is Davidson's agenda and why is he trumping up this BS? Is it just a means of getting at the RFL for some reason?

I never really had any views on him before but this just seems absurd if not dangerous, bending facts to try and portray Aston as hard done to and the RFL as the real culprits.

Davidson has done some good stuff over recent years but this case is one, like you, I don’t understand.

 

[LeeF]

9 hours ago, M j M said:

What is Davidson's agenda and why is he trumping up this BS? Is it just a means of getting at the RFL for some reason?

I never really had any views on him before but this just seems absurd if not dangerous, bending facts to try and portray Aston as hard done to and the RFL as the real culprits.

Duplicate 

 

Edited November 7, 2024 by LeeF

[TrueBull]

19 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

AFAIK the 'other' code's rules would have meant he had to be immediately substituted and not allowed to return.

This is one of the drivers. Both codes believe themselves separate from each other but from an Actuary/Insurers point of view they're both collision sports and if one changes its rules to reduce contact height, the insurers will see that and reduce the risk to that one and therefore proportionally increase the risk (and premiums) of the other .

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, TrueBull said:

This is one of the drivers. Both codes believe themselves separate from each other but from an Actuary/Insurers point of view they're both collision sports and if one changes its rules to reduce contact height, the insurers will see that and reduce the risk to that one and therefore proportionally increase the risk (and premiums) of the other .

What would you suggest TB?

Other than go to the intended only 'armpit level and below' tackles that were going to be introduced for 2025, I consider if the RFL had gone ahead with that rule there would eventually be so much more lost revenue with fans turning away from the game than what would be lost through increased insurance premiums, what do you think?

[TrueBull]

They understand that. That's what I think the RFL are doing. They are trying to keep tackle height at this level whilst maximizing every other HIA protocol they have control over - training for medical staff, this app that they are tendering for,  objective and validated head tests - balance tests, memory tests. Which is why the book (and I think they were right to do so) has been thrown at Aston. 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

What would you suggest TB?

Other than go to the intended only 'armpit level and below' tackles that were going to be introduced for 2025, I consider if the RFL had gone ahead with that rule there would eventually be so much more lost revenue with fans turning away from the game than what would be lost through increased insurance premiums, what do you think?

And the legal suits? How much do they cost if they are successful?

For the sport's insurance alone we're talking a seven figures per year, four fold increase. We can't afford that. 

Fans will turn away and fans will come in, the minutiae of the on field itself is actually relatively insignificant to that I'd argue (take the utter dreariness of other sports to see that). Regardless, any lost revenues would pale in insignificance compared to the fees currently and in future having to be paid.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

what do you think?

I think it's irrelevant to a thread about a deliberate failure to follow a basic procedure and then lying about it.

[hawk-eye]

30 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I think it's irrelevant to a thread about a deliberate failure to follow a basic procedure and then lying about it.

Those are very serious allegations, can you back them up?

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, hawk-eye said:

Those are very serious allegations, can you back them up?

There's been a tribunal about it and everything.

[The Blues Ox]

15 minutes ago, hawk-eye said:

Those are very serious allegations, can you back them up?

Have you read the notes? Or are you just believing the social media stuff that is not reporting all the facts?

[RP London]

36 minutes ago, hawk-eye said:

Those are very serious allegations, can you back them up?

I think you're being deliberately contrary here TBH

[JohnM]

42 minutes ago, hawk-eye said:

Those are very serious allegations, can you back them up?

Here is the document you've probably looked at already. In it,there is a link to download the full detailed proceedings  These are well worth a read as they deal with the facts rather than some attempt to start up a sort of cuture-war

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/63225/

 

Edited November 8, 2024 by JohnM

[JohnM]

On 06/11/2024 at 20:52, Tommygilf said:

So has an appeal gone in or not?

Is there any way to find out? By my calculations () they had until close of play on 5th November. Maybe they were busy that day hiding barrels of gunpowder in the cellars of RFL HQ.

(If due process allows an appeal and if Sheffield feel they have a case then of course they should appeal as these are serious issues)

 

 

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

And the legal suits? How much do they cost if they are successful?

For the sport's insurance alone we're talking a seven figures per year, four fold increase. We can't afford that. 

Fans will turn away and fans will come in, the minutiae of the on field itself is actually relatively insignificant to that I'd argue (take the utter dreariness of other sports to see that). Regardless, any lost revenues would pale in insignificance compared to the fees currently and in future having to be paid.

 

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I think it's irrelevant to a thread about a deliberate failure to follow a basic procedure and then lying about it.

Whoa chaps, In a roundabout way I was just asking the question re the 'Armpit and below tackles', from what I understand it has been abandoned for next season, though I have seen nothing official to say so, can either of you confirm is the Armpit coming into play next year or is it carry on as this past season. Thanks

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Whoa chaps, In a roundabout way I was just asking the question re the 'Armpit and below tackles', from what I understand it has been abandoned for next season, though I have seen nothing official to say so, can either of you confirm is the Armpit coming into play next year or is it carry on as this past season. Thanks

The RFL came out and said the new rules would not be coming in to the proffesional game. They said a ridiculously small sample of data on head knocks this season was enough to say there was no need to implement the new laws. 

[JohnM]

I'd just like to add that for Mark Aston the sanction is serious and will have a major impact on him and on the Eagles and I'm sure it's not being taken lightly.  Equally, putting a player in a possibly life-limiting situation is also very serious. Every club should be examining itself,  ensuring that it has, and will continue to,  adhere to the protocols. The costs of not doing this right could cripple the whole game.

[Angelic Cynic]

6 hours ago, JohnM said:

Is there any way to find out? By my calculations () they had until close of play on 5th November. Maybe they were busy that day hiding barrels of gunpowder in the cellars of RFL HQ.

(If due process allows an appeal and if Sheffield feel they have a case then of course they should appeal as these are serious issues)

 

 

I believe Mr Aston is going through Sports Resolution,an independent sports arbitration service.

This was mentioned by a journalist who digs slightly deeper than those considered gullible.

I believe there may be an element of distrust where the RFL are concerned.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

I believe Mr Aston is going through Sports Resolution,an independent sports arbitration service.

So does that mean an appeal has been lodged?

The RFL use Sports Resolution all the time. They're the lot named for appeals to the grading scores for example.

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

I believe Mr Aston is going through Sports Resolution,an independent sports arbitration service.

This was mentioned by a journalist who digs slightly deeper than those considered gullible.

I believe there may be an element of distrust where the RFL are concerned.

You don’t mean the appeals service that is named by the RFL in the operational rules. That’s not the gotcha some may think it is

[Harry Stottle]

19 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

The RFL came out and said the new rules would not be coming in to the proffesional game. They said a ridiculously small sample of data on head knocks this season was enough to say there was no need to implement the new laws. 

Thanks Oxy, I believed that to be the case and bought my season ticket based on that, had the RFL gone ahead and implemented the rule changes then I would not have been that committal and instead would have seen how it developed on TV before deciding to attend or not, the start off last season with the referee's and MRP interpretations was enough for me (not everyone) but then the RFL saw sense and eased off, for me had they gone ahead with the 'Armpit and below' rule it would have ruined the game.

Just my thoughts of course.

[redjonn]

29 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Thanks Oxy, I believed that to be the case and bought my season ticket based on that, had the RFL gone ahead and implemented the rule changes then I would not have been that committal and instead would have seen how it developed on TV before deciding to attend or not, the start off last season with the referee's and MRP interpretations was enough for me (not everyone) but then the RFL saw sense and eased off, for me had they gone ahead with the 'Armpit and below' rule it would have ruined the game.

Just my thoughts of course.

Whilst I can see that a new rule being introduced would initially cause some confusion and debate around decisions I am not so sure how dastardly a game would be affected once time has been allowed for the initial chaos.

So I'm just wondering how badly affected some would think the game will be.

Just that given anything above the shoulder is now normally deemed at least a penalty, and the first tackling is more often than not put around the arms with multiple others coming into an arm wrestle until refs calls hold - which sometimes seems an age,  I am not sure how many tackles allowed today will be outlawed. Thus I wonder how much a game would be impacted.

Edited November 9, 2024 by redjonn

[The Blues Ox]

In the amateur game its not really changed anything apart from stopping those awful collar grab tackles. I think the RFL just needed to be seen to be doing something but I don't think the reality was quite as bad as people from the RFL were making out especially to drop the plans to introduce the new rules in the 2025 season and based off a pointless amount of data that could easily just be variance.

[JohnM]

On 06/11/2024 at 20:52, Tommygilf said:

So has an appeal gone in or not?

...as big a mystery as Lord Lucan's disappearance.