Diving

[Foordy]

I don't know why the ARLC are trying to make solving the increasingly common "Diving" problem, so complicated. I reckon i can solve it with one simple rule change.

"Video referees are under no circumstances permitted to review anything (including foul play) unless it is in the act of scoring a try"

therefore players staying down will only disadvantage their own team as it will give the defence a chance to get set. it will also make it so that only players that are actually hurt stay diown.

any foul play can still be handled by the MRC (as incompetent as they are, but thats another issue)

thoughts?

 

[Crazy Sam]

I think diving is the same as walking in cricket. It's down to the peer pressure of players to set their own standard on what's acceptable in the spirit of the game. In both cases I think players who dive or don't walk on a clear 'out' should expect to cop crap from spectators and other players about it.

 

[KingWebcke]

At least the diving in rugby league is actually restricted (generally) to players who have been fouled. I have far more sympathy for a player 'diving' after he has been belted in the face by a stray arm.

 

[Coxy]

Agree Foordy. Ban video ref involvement in foul play. The report for the hit on Fa'alogo was an absolute joke! He barely even got touched.

I'd also have forced interchanges for players who struggle to get to their feet due to a head knock.

 

[Porthoz]

Mandatory interchange for any player that stays down, not allowing him to return for at least 10 minutes. That should do it...

 

[Alec]

How about 24 more refs, so we have 1 for each player.

 

[GCBRONCO]

How about 24 more refs, so we have 1 for each player.

We would also need a video ref for each of those refs so they can refer when they are afraid to make a call.

 

[Kimlo]

I hope Griffin coaches our players to dive on any potential penalty. I actually hope every coach in the game coaches it that way so the NRL can do something about it.
@Porthoz has the right idea, mandatory interchange if they dive, that'll cut out the bullshsit.

 

[Huge]

The truth is most diving incidents occur after someone is actually struck and that is what needs to be stopped, not the person fouled being lambasted. If you expect the player fouled to bounce back to their feet you are rewarding the practice of foul play. If someone is stupid/nasty/incompetent enough to foul a player why not penalise them. I know it's a contact sport but I've seen enough of those lazy efforts and would be happy enough to see them penalised out of the game. The video ref picks up a lot that's missed due to the speed of the play and Im glad. The recent hit on Inglis ( alleged dive ) thoroughly deserved a penalty and rightfully so he got one. Blaming Inglis when he was the one fouled is missing the point.

 

[broncos4life]

Mandatory interchange for any player that stays down, not allowing him to return for at least 10 minutes. That should do it...

This is what I was coming in here to say. All the refs have to do is enforce the mandatory interchange and you will coaches telling the players if you stay down you better be half fucking unconcious.

This issue would be gone in about 2 weeks

 

[Morkel]

I understand what you're saying CF, but a lot of what we're seeing is slight incidental contact. You can't penalise everything that touches / brushes the face, which is where we're seeing dives now. And you can't just say the video ref has to stay out of it, because often these things happen in a situation where there's minimal line of sight to the on-field refs & touchies because of the number of players in a ruck. If something is missed, a legit infringement, and someone can see it via multiple cameras, you have to use it.

The problem is that the video refs are idiots. The NRL tried to stop diving by changing the rule that the only time a video ref can intervene is if the foul act is sufficient enough to be put on report. So the video refs are looking at EVERYTHING that has just the slightest of contact, and because they believe it's worth a penalty, they put it on report. No. Just fucking no. If it's seriously not enough to put on report, leave it the **** alone. The video refs aren't the big boss in the sky, looking to have the final & ultimate say on every play. They're merely a tool. So do your job. Worthy of report? No? **** off then. A love tap that may have been called a penalty if a ref spotted it but was not that bad? ****. Off.

 

[Huge]

True, sometimes there is a little bit of contact that is merely a result of bodies moving fast and that is to be expected. The Inglis one recently was not that type though, it was a smack on the face that had the player attempted a legitimate tackle would never have occurred and that's the type incident that a player can stay down for to draw a warranted penalty. Had a ref seen it clearly it may have been awarded regardless so I have no problem with a video ref intervening after review.

We went to two refs because of great frustration with incorrect decisions but as is usual for we human beings we focus on the relatively few mistakes still being made. I watched an old game recently and it was absolutely littered with poor calls, off sides and downright bad decisions. The refs, bad as they are are getting so much more right these days. My only concern is the blatant bias shown at times and the preconceived notions some refs have.

Never in the history of rugby league have so many correct decisions been achieved, a fact often overlooked.

 

[Browny]

Yes the correct decisions are often made but that still make absolute howlers

 

[hidethesuspect]

If you introduce a mandatory interchange for injured players it will only slow the game down and those who are genuinely hurt but come good after a moment don't deserve to be benched. I think Foordy's idea of video refs are only to be used for when ruling on a try is the best solution. If the on field ref doesn't blow the whistle then tough titties.

 

[Coxy]

If you introduce a mandatory interchange for injured players it will only slow the game down and those who are genuinely hurt but come good after a moment don't deserve to be benched. I think Foordy's idea of video refs are only to be used for when ruling on a try is the best solution. If the on field ref doesn't blow the whistle then tough titties.

And you know what will happen then? Referees will say "Gee, maybe something was in that, we better put it on report and see what happens". But to report, they have to penalise.

 

[hidethesuspect]

I am lost, are you saying that video ref to rule on tries only is not a good idea? You gotta explain it better for the simple minded children like me.