Fri 25th Apr: SL: Leeds Rhinos v Hull KR KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Harry Stottle]

47 minutes ago, gavin7094 said:

There is always danger when a tackler tries to effect a forceful, front on tackle on a ball carrier leading with their head.  Tacklers could easily reduce that danger by either reducing the force (I.e. not "smashing" them) or by going in much lower or from the side and attempting to wrap rather than put in a big hit.

 

 

 

If, by "stand away" you mean not charge in recklessly leading with their shoulder and, instead, pause briefly and look for an opportunity to make a safer tackle, then yes.

 

There are many incremental steps in between where we are now and this.

Compared to where we were when I started watching in the 1970s, when head high tackling was commonplace, we are in a much better place now without reducing the physicality of the sport, which we all enjoy.

However, there is still more to do.

The game will never be totally safe, but we have a duty to make it safer.

With due respect Gavin, your suggestions will and can simply not work, example defender sees ball carrier running at him with force, let's use a forcefull big fast forward as the attacker, if defender is concerned that he has not to meet force with force the defender will get trampled, castigated by his coach, fellow players and fans for not making an effort to stop the attacker.

Now is the time for me to put on my tin helmet, I strongly believe that the sport has been sanitised enough, I would no way condone going back to the days of 'Thugby League' of  the 60s, 70s and early 80's but I think that doing as you suggest or want to happen will result in the game becoming detached and unrecognisable as Rugby League Football.

Today I will be attending a NCL Div 3 match, all those lads take part and play in the game they love, they are not good or lucky enough to make a living out of the sport but they will put in as much effort into their performance as do their professional counterparts, I just wonder what kind of reaction you would get if you told them to 'stand off' in a tackle if someone is running forceably at them.  They would probably look at you as if you had 2 heads.

[redjonn]

22 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Kendall seems to be getting all the stick, when in reality it was the VR that made the calls

thought it was amusing when the ref had to go all the way to the other end of the pitch to watch the big screen before his decision...

 

and to add... even then he got the decision wrong.... according to some fans.... chuckle

Edited April 26 by redjonn

[gavin7094]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

With due respect Gavin, your suggestions will and can simply not work, example defender sees ball carrier running at him with force, let's use a forcefull big fast forward as the attacker, if defender is concerned that he has not to meet force with force the defender will get trampled, castigated by his coach, fellow players and fans for not making an effort to stop the attacker

Harry, you have chosen to focus on force as being the only way to stop a big, forceful ball carrier.  It isn't.  There are many other techniques.  If meeting force with force was the only way then less strong players would never be able to make an effective tackle.

I am aware of your views of how our game has gone soft over the years.  I happen not to share them.  I think it is harder than ever.  Less brutal, yes, but still physically harder.

Players just need to adjust their tackling technique a little.

 

[MZH]

So having had the chance to watch all three card incidents again, I haven't really changed my mind, but I accept there is a lot of grey in all three.

On balance, Sinfield's was probably the worst. Simply because there's no mitigation at all. No attempt to wrap and hits an upright player forcefully to the head. He was lucky it was a yellow.

I can see the arguments either way with the Sue tackle, but I don't think Lisone has fallen into the contact in quite the way some people seem to be making out. He was already in the process of being tackled by Minchella and as a result was stumbling forward, and his head was in a pretty low position as he ran a few paces. I appreciate things happen a lot quicker when you are out there, but I'm pretty sure Sue could see that Lisone was falling before he goes in to make the hit. The hit was forceful and he didn't attempt to wrap. I think its a red personally, but I do also understand that Sue has to try and effect a tackle and he has very little to aim at, and not much time to think about it. So taking that into account, if it was given as a yellow and described as clumsy rather than reckless, I would be happy to go with that.

The Handley one was the harshest of the three, and I would have given a yellow for it. But again, I understand why a red was shown. We've seen yellows for late hits with no attempt to wrap this year even when they haven't been high. So whilst the tackle was far from the worst you will see, it did kind of tick every box.

I'd also throw in that Newman should have been carded for using his head on the floor. I called it at the time and they brought it up later in commentary. I can only assume the ref didn't see that one. Fair enough.

[StandOffHalf]

Newman should definitely have been sitting down for the head-butt.

[RigbyLuger]

16 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Just seen the replay of the Ash Handley Red card. It's never a red card, yellow yes, Red no way

 

.

Journalist on a crusade now. Gotta keep those clicks coming.

[Chrispmartha]

53 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Newman should definitely have been sitting down for the head-butt.

He would have probably welcomed the rest. Was throwing up at half time with food poisoning!

[V02]

10 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

I mis typed I meant Doctor not Physio.

The game already does stop as soon as the doctor enters the field.

10 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The point is Handley wasn't bending his back. He went in high, had no time to adjust, but it's still another player receiving a heavy blow to the brain. 

He was bent at his knees.

10 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Agree with it being no worse than the others and neither was Sue's, which was probably the harshest decision of the lot. But Handley went in high, if he'd bend his back, no penalty, no yellow card and another player would have avoided a heavy blow to his brain. 

 

[Liverpool Rover]

If Sues challenge was a red then so was Sinfields. Morgue was higher than Lisone was and Sinfield made no attempt to wrap his arms at all. 

[Dave T]

I think the biggest problem we've seen this year is that refs have been lenient. Wrongly so imo. They have shifted from the approach of last year and created confusion.

Then the Leeds game seemed to go back to last year, which I personally believe is correct, they were all bad hits to the head. But then yesterday we return to going soft and bottle red cards in Catalans and Cas games.

I'm not one to criticise the RFL.and refs, but there does need to be a review after this weekend, because games were refereed differently beyond the normal.expected inconsistencies due to refs being human.

[Hopie]

I've said it before but I don't like that when I watch a game I don't know which tackles are red, which are yellow and which are just penalties. Even when the referee explains the decision I still don't know if the decision is correct or consistent, it would be much worse in the ground with no ref mic.

It is like they are doing the disciplinary committee decisions in real time, which have always had mistakes and inconsistencies over the years with no time constraints. 

 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Hopie said:

I've said it before but I don't like that when I watch a game I don't know which tackles are red, which are yellow and which are just penalties. Even when the referee explains the decision I still don't know if the decision is correct or consistent, it would be much worse in the ground with no ref mic.

It is like they are doing the disciplinary committee decisions in real time, which have always had mistakes and inconsistencies over the years with no time constraints. 

 

I get frustrated when the ref says 'there is mitigation' but doesn't say what that is. That basically means they have bottled it and take the easy option of yellow.

That communication approach isn't good enough and is new this year.

[StandOffHalf]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I get frustrated when the ref says 'there is mitigation' but doesn't say what that is. That basically means they have bottled it and take the easy option of yellow.

That communication approach isn't good enough and is new this year.

I agree. Yesterday in Perpignan, the man in the middle said there was mitigation, without elaborating. If he or the VR sees mitigation, it should be detailed so that viewers and players have a better insight into thought processes and what officials are seeing. To be fair, the ref for the Sue send-off did provide quite a detailed breakdown of what he saw to justify a Red Card. 

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I agree. Yesterday in Perpignan, the man in the middle said there was mitigation, without elaborating. If he or the VR sees mitigation, it should be detailed so that viewers and players have a better insight into thought processes and what officials are seeing. To be fair, the ref for the Sue send-off did provide quite a detailed breakdown of what he saw to justify a Red Card. 

Yep, the ref on Friday did a very good job of explaining his decisions. Others throughout the season less so.

[Damien]

Not just in this match but while watching the Wigan match, as well as others, I just think the whole listening to the video ref comes across as poor and amateurish.

While in theory it's good to know what it going on I think at the moment it's doing more harm than good. It is just too poorly done, with poor quality camera angles and tech and it takes way too long. Often the video ref comes across as clueless and I don't see how it is enhancing things as it stands.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Not just in this match but while watching the Wigan match, as well as others, I just think the whole listening to the video ref comes across as poor and amateurish.

While in theory it's good to know what it going on I think at the moment it's doing more harm than good. It is just too poorly done, with poor quality camera angles and tech and it takes way too long. Often the video ref comes across as clueless and I don't see how it is enhancing things as it stands.

It’s all been done on the cheap.