Dear NRL HQ & the media...

[Scorchie]

Play on, apparently.

it’s fine to protect the head, six hours notice is trash

 

[Accept]

The new rules are driving fans (especially older ones) away in a sport which can't afford to lose supporters. The TV ratings have been pathetic this year (and last) rating even less than Big Brother. I understand world sport has come of age and has wiped out any rough stuff. For example the NHL which is totally fucked these days and is like soccer on ice but it still maintains it's popularity.

Rugby League is a different beast though. Rubbing out fighting, shoulder charges, head contact etc is changing the total fabric of the game= fans losing interest. Not to mention the six again rule which has also turned fans off. I for one still love the game but I didn't grow up with it in my veins and I certainly don't blame supporters for becoming disenchanted.

 

[Midean]

The new rules are driving fans (especially older ones) away in a sport which can't afford to lose supporters. The TV ratings have been pathetic this year (and last) rating even less than Big Brother. I understand world sport has come of age and has wiped out any rough stuff. For example the NHL which is totally fucked these days and is like soccer on ice but it still maintains it's popularity.

Rugby League is a different beast though. Rubbing out fighting, shoulder charges, head contact etc is changing the total fabric of the game= fans losing interest. Not to mention the six again rule which has also turned fans off. I for one still love the game but I didn't grow up with it in my veins and I certainly don't blame supporters for becoming disenchanted.

You are right.
I was first drawn to league as a kid because it was brutal and tough.
You had to be tough as nails to play, and the small men in the game where admired because they held their own with the big blokes.
Fellas like Langer and Toovey were tiny compared to the likes of Harrigan and Lazarus.
There were brutal rivalries between teams and individuals and you knew that when they faced each other it was going to be a bloodbath.
There would be fights, and huge hits and every now and then some really dirty shit as well.

No one complained the game was too rough, or too violent, or that players were going to get hurt.
You had guys like Arty Beetson playing with a broken arm, and more recently, Peter Wallace playing on with a ruptured testicle.

These days players take a slap in the face and have to go to the sideline for a HIA.
The people that are offended by the rough stuff are calling the shots and its killed the essence of the game.

Bring back the biff, bring back the shoulder charge.
Make the players sign waivers so the game can be awesome again.

Obviously im half joking.
But still, no one got badly hurt from any fights on the field, and the big suspensions and send offs were used for the grubbiest of acts (Hopoates stray fingers for example).

Its not RL anymore, its a watered down version that has pandered to people who think brutality and aggression has no place in sports.

 

[broncsgoat]

So all you ever had to do, you fucking slimy sleazy muppet, is actually IMPLEMENT THE FUCKING RULES CONSISTENTLY. No-one asked for this kneejerk change except maybe Nick Fucking Politis. A few weeks ago poor Tommy Deardon nearly had his head taken off and there was crickets until the MRC.

Vlandys and Politis, has there ever been a more unlikeable duo around the game (and I can think of a few)??

Shame it was only nearly taken off

 

[Trill Harrigan]

can we at least bring back the tiff?

 

[theshed]

The new rules are driving fans (especially older ones) away in a sport which can't afford to lose supporters. The TV ratings have been pathetic this year (and last) rating even less than Big Brother. I understand world sport has come of age and has wiped out any rough stuff. For example the NHL which is totally fucked these days and is like soccer on ice but it still maintains it's popularity.

Rugby League is a different beast though. Rubbing out fighting, shoulder charges, head contact etc is changing the total fabric of the game= fans losing interest. Not to mention the six again rule which has also turned fans off. I for one still love the game but I didn't grow up with it in my veins and I certainly don't blame supporters for becoming disenchanted.

I get the hard stance on fighting and shoulder charges. They’re deliberate acts of foul play, and unnecessary risk.

I get cracking down on high tackles but the penalty is not fitting of the crime in many cases so far. Put them on report and fine them massive amounts, or suspend if needed. Sending off a player for a fairly innocuous incident that is bound to occur in any contact sport is impacting the results of the game beyond what is sustainable to its integrity. Put them on report and let the match review sort them out.

A player being off for 10 minutes has a huge impact on the result, 2 players even more so, and 2 players at once takes all doubt out of the result.

It would like making a boxer fight a round with 1 hand behind their back due to an accidental head clash. You may as well just make it a disqualification because the result is the same, in fact a disqualification could often be better for a teams ladder position than having to play out a game with 2 players in the bin due to for and against.

 

[Fozz]

Play on, apparently.

it’s fine to protect the head, six hours notice is trash

I think Sutton should take the play back to this game.

"hi Ivan, we're going to penalise PM for the high shot on Dearden so we'll restart play as soon as everyone is at the ground"

 

[Huge]

I get the hard stance on fighting and shoulder charges. They’re deliberate acts of foul play, and unnecessary risk.

I get cracking down on high tackles but the penalty is not fitting of the crime in many cases so far. Put them on report and fine them massive amounts, or suspend if needed. Sending off a player for a fairly innocuous incident that is bound to occur in any contact sport is impacting the results of the game beyond what is sustainable to its integrity. Put them on report and let the match review sort them out.

A player being off for 10 minutes has a huge impact on the result, 2 players even more so, and 2 players at once takes all doubt out of the result.

It would like making a boxer fight a round with 1 hand behind their back due to an accidental head clash. You may as well just make it a disqualification because the result is the same, in fact a disqualification could often be better for a teams ladder position than having to play out a game with 2 players in the bin due to for and against.

I'm happy with ten in the bin, just as long as the other team have to sit out one for ten too. Yea yeah I know, why should they? Well, they should because we'd still have an even contest. No one wants an unfair fight. It's an imperfect solution but the alternative, an unfair contest is less desirable.

Some would argue that it's not a punishment but what if you could make it a punishment? If the 10 min send off came with a guaranteed (as a minimum, still possible for a longer suspension) 1 week stand down it would be a punishment fitting the crime but wouldn't create an unfair contest on the day.

Just food for thought. Not a declaration of any kind.

 

[Dexter]

It’s the reality in the litigious world we live in now. I predicted a while back that league would fall apart due it’s very nature. I’m honestly surprised it’s happening so quickly, though.

I can understand it, but damn, it’s gonna get ugly.

We haven't even started on high impact by the attacking player.
This will have to follow if the NRL continue down this line.
How is an attacking player who drops his shoulder to bump off a defender going low less culpable of causing head injury than a defensive player.

 

[theshed]

We haven't even started on high impact by the attacking player.
This will have to follow if the NRL continue down this line.
How is an attacking player who drops his shoulder to bump off a defender going low less culpable of causing head injury than a defensive player.

Yep; I was thinking this on Friday night. Gone are the days of the fend too..

 

[Dexter]

I've got to admit that while I agree it's coming, I don't understand, legally, what legs a potential case would have. I know there's duty of care etc, but these blokes knowingly enter (and remain in) an occupation where there is a risk of head damage. If you don't want to take the risk, don't play the game. Or take other mitigating steps - headgear etc. Why should the game have to 'protect' players if the player themselves aren't taking every step possible to remove the potential for damage? Surely by not wearing headgear, for example, they are contributing to the situation and any future damage? If they've played league their whole life, who are they going to target their case at? The NRL? Their club/former club? Who's to say the damage wasn't caused through a lifetime of the sport, do they go after their childhood club? The QRL/NSWRL? All of the above?

I agree headgear can only help but its minimal when it comes to impact on the brain.
The brain still moves which is what causes the damage

 

[Midean]

Its frustrating.
I get it that people have safety concerns for athletes.
But we live in a world where boxing and MMA exists, and they take hard blows to the head every time they participate and make a great living in the process.

No one is forcing these blokes to play RL and they 100% knew what they were signing up for when they first decided to play footy.

 

[Kimlo]

Its frustrating.
I get it that people have safety concerns for athletes.
But we live in a world where boxing and MMA exists, and they take hard blows to the head every time they participate and make a great living in the process.

No one is forcing these blokes to play RL and they 100% knew what they were signing up for when they first decided to play footy.

That's what I don't get. Why are the NRL even worried if these sports exist at all?

I'm guessing it's because the team's would be liable whereas in those sports, the guys are self employed so have no one to sue. But wouldn't the UFC/whoever the **** is the boxing administration have the same issues? It just doesn't make sense to me.

But surely you could sign a liability waiver and be done with it. Take reasonable precautions but don't alter the whole fucking game.

 

[Huge]

I agree headgear can only help but its minimal when it comes to impact on the brain.
The brain still moves which is what causes the damage

Just make the helmuts the same size as in Space Balls. Simple.

 

[Jedhead]

Yep; I was thinking this on Friday night. Gone are the days of the fend too..

Exactly, who will be the first to faceplam somebody off with a strongarm fend and score only to be called back, put on report ans sin binned?

As technically it's attacking the head of an opponent.

 

[LittleDavey]

I agree headgear can only help but its minimal when it comes to impact on the brain.
The brain still moves which is what causes the damage

Oh absolutely, but where does it stop? Big forwards colliding at speed (ie on kickoffs etc) would rattle the brain just as much as a high shot. If they're going to go down this like, like you said earlier, what happens when an attacking player's forearm hits a defender's head? Is that penalised, charged, sin-binned? RL is a contact sport whose very essence is "big men running into each other at speed". Nearly every tackle has the potential to rattle someone's head. How far will the administration go, where will they draw the line, and why there? It's just dumb.

Introduce a waiver and be done with it all.

 

[LittleDavey]

I get the hard stance on fighting and shoulder charges. They’re deliberate acts of foul play, and unnecessary risk.

I agree with you a lot of the time but not on this. The shoulder charge ban was the same situation as this, a knee jerk reaction to something that's not even a problem. Sure, some shoulder charges were going wrong and getting up too high...but they always have, and still do (ie Papa lastnight). Any shoulder charge to the head, intentional or not, should always have had the book thrown at it and for the most part they did. There's always been rules around attacking the head, the refs just gave far too much leeway with it. Blow the pea out of the fucking whistle, send them off, whatever...those rules have alwaysbeen there to be used.

Shoulder charges are not illegal play and IMO have a place in the game. Does anyone not enjoy watching a big shoulder charge done right? They're potentially game changing events, especially in the current iteration of the game with gluts of possession and few ways to get the ball back when you don't have it. I'd go so far as to say a well-timed and well-placed shoulder charge is less likely to cause a head injury than a textbook hips tackle, or the current shoulder-into-chest tackles, as both players heads are up and out of the way. It's still a crying shame they were ever rubbed out of the game.

 

[Sproj]

It’s like trying to put guys in cotton wool for fear they might get hurt in a contact sport…ummm it is a contact sport, I hate this sport these days. If I wanted to watch touch football, I’d watch touch football.