NRL General Discussion Thread

[Kimlo]

Why does Vlandys seem to believe he can tell everyone what to do, think, say and feel? He's told the NSW government they should have given Raudonikis a state funeral. Whether or not this is true is irrelevant, he just irks.

He seems much better suited to politics, or you know, horse racing where all the elite wankers congregate than rugby league. The sooner he ***** off the better.

 

[Sproj]

Annesley also confirmed Melbourne did nothing wrong on Friday when they tactically used a free interchange to replace five-eighth Cameron Munster with Nelson Asofa-Solomona after a high shot from Roosters lock Victor Radley, who was sin binned.

Munster went back on the field 30 seconds later having been checked by a doctor, swapping with Christian Welch, and the Storm had effectively rotated their props without cost.

"There's a bit of confusion that's been reigning about two different rules," Annesley said.

"The first is a rule that's been in our operational guidelines for probably the best part of a couple of decades. And that is about a free interchange if a player is injured as a result of foul play.

"So that means if a player is put on report, sin binned or sent off and the player who is the victim of that foul play comes off the field, they get a free interchange for that.

"That rule is not a new rule. It's been around for a long time ... What the Storm did in relation to that rule was legitimately within the rules," Annesley said.

Where the confusion has stemmed from, Annesley said, is the introduction of an 18th player, who can only come into the action if a teammate is ruled out for the match after foul play that resulted in the offender being sin-binned or sent off.

From NRL.com

At least they aren't even trying to pretend they are professional anymore. Because I didn't see Munster getting checked by a doctor in the 5 seconds he was off the field.

 

[Morkel]

Annesley also confirmed Melbourne did nothing wrong on Friday when they tactically used a free interchange to replace five-eighth Cameron Munster with Nelson Asofa-Solomona after a high shot from Roosters lock Victor Radley, who was sin binned.

Munster went back on the field 30 seconds later having been checked by a doctor, swapping with Christian Welch, and the Storm had effectively rotated their props without cost.

"There's a bit of confusion that's been reigning about two different rules," Annesley said.

"The first is a rule that's been in our operational guidelines for probably the best part of a couple of decades. And that is about a free interchange if a player is injured as a result of foul play.

"So that means if a player is put on report, sin binned or sent off and the player who is the victim of that foul play comes off the field, they get a free interchange for that.

"That rule is not a new rule. It's been around for a long time ... What the Storm did in relation to that rule was legitimately within the rules," Annesley said.

Where the confusion has stemmed from, Annesley said, is the introduction of an 18th player, who can only come into the action if a teammate is ruled out for the match after foul play that resulted in the offender being sin-binned or sent off.

From NRL.com

At least they aren't even trying to pretend they are professional anymore. Because I didn't see Munster getting checked by a doctor in the 5 seconds he was off the field.

Hang on a second. I understand the free interchange of player after an act of foul play (if put on report, blah blah), but didn't Munster use the HIA card to get back on the field?

 

[Foordy]

Hang on a second. I understand the free interchange of player after an act of foul play (if put on report, blah blah), but didn't Munster use the HIA card to get back on the field?

Yes

 

[Foordy]

Annesley also confirmed Melbourne did nothing wrong on Friday when they tactically used a free interchange to replace five-eighth Cameron Munster with Nelson Asofa-Solomona after a high shot from Roosters lock Victor Radley, who was sin binned.

Munster went back on the field 30 seconds later having been checked by a doctor, swapping with Christian Welch, and the Storm had effectively rotated their props without cost.

"There's a bit of confusion that's been reigning about two different rules," Annesley said.

"The first is a rule that's been in our operational guidelines for probably the best part of a couple of decades. And that is about a free interchange if a player is injured as a result of foul play.

"So that means if a player is put on report, sin binned or sent off and the player who is the victim of that foul play comes off the field, they get a free interchange for that.

"That rule is not a new rule. It's been around for a long time ... What the Storm did in relation to that rule was legitimately within the rules," Annesley said.

Where the confusion has stemmed from, Annesley said, is the introduction of an 18th player, who can only come into the action if a teammate is ruled out for the match after foul play that resulted in the offender being sin-binned or sent off.

From NRL.com

At least they aren't even trying to pretend they are professional anymore. Because I didn't see Munster getting checked by a doctor in the 5 seconds he was off the field.

you watch the NRL start whinging when every team uses this tactic to get an extra interchange or 2

 

[Midean]

Remember, this is the NRL we are talking about.
Alongside Australian boxing, its probably the most inept, corrupt and dodgy sporting organization in the world, and it got a lot more dirty when V'landys and his Horse racing gambling magnate buddies got involved.

You just cant take the NRL seriously.
Look at the scummy shit that was uncovered by the pandemic, this code is a joke, which is a shame because the sport itself is brilliant.

 

[Morkel]

Yes

So was he off for the foul play rule, or for a HIA? You can't have both. If you leave for the foul play rules, you can't use the free HIA interchange to get back on. And if you're off for HIA, you need to be assessed, which is more than a >1 minute exercise. It's rotten and the NRL are too gutless to call them out.

 

[Foordy]

So was he off for the foul play rule, or for a HIA? You can't have both. If you leave for the foul play rules, you can't use the free HIA interchange to get back on. And if you're off for HIA, you need to be assessed, which is more than a >1 minute exercise. It's rotten and the NRL are too gutless to call them out.

While getting Cam Munster off for the foul play rule may be a free interchange, getting him back on actually costs an interchange anyway, however he used a HIA card to get back on so they didn't burn an interchange, and that's what Annersely is conveniently ignoring

 

[Sproj]

While getting Cam Munster off for the foul play rule may be a free interchange, getting him back on actually costs an interchange anyway, however he used a HIA card to get back on so they didn't burn an interchange, and that's what Annersely is conveniently ignoring

I don’t think he’s necessarily deliberately ignoring it because that would imply he was smart enough to know what he’s talking about in the first place. I just think he hopes that by talking about a totally unrelated rule with the 18th man, people will just not think about how dumb and stupid this all looks and how incompetent he is and move on.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Annesley also confirmed Melbourne did nothing wrong on Friday when they tactically used a free interchange to replace five-eighth Cameron Munster with Nelson Asofa-Solomona after a high shot from Roosters lock Victor Radley, who was sin binned.

Munster went back on the field 30 seconds later having been checked by a doctor, swapping with Christian Welch, and the Storm had effectively rotated their props without cost.

"There's a bit of confusion that's been reigning about two different rules," Annesley said.

"The first is a rule that's been in our operational guidelines for probably the best part of a couple of decades. And that is about a free interchange if a player is injured as a result of foul play.

"So that means if a player is put on report, sin binned or sent off and the player who is the victim of that foul play comes off the field, they get a free interchange for that.

"That rule is not a new rule. It's been around for a long time ... What the Storm did in relation to that rule was legitimately within the rules," Annesley said.

Where the confusion has stemmed from, Annesley said, is the introduction of an 18th player, who can only come into the action if a teammate is ruled out for the match after foul play that resulted in the offender being sin-binned or sent off.

From NRL.com

At least they aren't even trying to pretend they are professional anymore. Because I didn't see Munster getting checked by a doctor in the 5 seconds he was off the field.

As if we needed further proof Melbourne are allowed to do whatever they want.

 

[Kimlo]

Munster used a free interchange to get both off and on the field. Not a HIA.
It just so happens I've made a website to start covering these interchanges.

check it out www.hiatracker.melbourne
FI = foul play free interchange. Anything else is HIA.

 

[Foordy]

Munster used a free interchange to get both off and on the field. Not a HIA.
It just so happens I've made a website to start covering these interchanges.

check it out www.hiatracker.melbourne
FI = foul play free interchange. Anything else is HIA.

careful ... Vlandys will send a hitman after you for exposing NRL incompetence/Bias

 

[Kimlo]

careful ... Vlandys will send a hitman after you for exposing NRL incompetence/Bias

When I'm not busy I'll be looking at trying to do some more serious analysis beyond just presenting data.

Things like how often props get a "HIA" during their normal interchange period in other games.

Unfortunately the NRL doesn't really provide data in an easy to use way so it's a lot of manual effort.

 

[Foordy]

Unfortunately the NRL doesn't really provide data in an easy to use way so it's a lot of manual effort.

There's a reason for that

 

[Big Pete]

I don't see the big deal.

It was a lazy swinging arm from Radley that should have resulted in a yellow card either way. Sydney deserved to be penalised to the fullest so Melbourne putting their free interchange to good use was just smart. I don't have an issue if other teams do the same thing and it may make teams think twice before they start trying to maim opposition players.

 

[Kimlo]

I don't see the big deal.

It was a lazy swinging arm from Radley that should have resulted in a yellow card either way. Sydney deserved to be penalised to the fullest so Melbourne putting their free interchange to good use was just smart. I don't have an issue if other teams do the same thing and it may make teams think twice before they start trying to maim opposition players.

There's a big issue with it. The penalty is the sin bin, 2 free interchanges completely changes a game.

The second big issue is being able to swap who comes on and off. If Munster needs to go off to be assessed, when he comes back he should be replacing the player who come on for him in the first place.

Why do Welch/Nelson get a free swap when Munster was the person hit?

The rule was never introduced to give teams two free interchanges, it was to prevent a team from being penalized by losing an interchange to a player who was injured from foul play.

 

[BroncsFan]

To me the main thing that isn't really being addressed is that Munster didn't even do the HIA assessment.

I'm pretty sure they have to go out the back and take a formal test where the results are recorded, which can take a few minutes.

Him getting assessed on the sideline for 30secs is effectively the same as the onfield test by a trainer, which 95% of the time the trainer just gives them the tick of approval before the doc yanks them off 2mins later (see Lachlan Lewis).

Yes this one was given by a dr, but he is effectively saying that Munster didn't need a formal HIA assessment after reviewing the footage.

Yet all the indicators suggest that he should've had one.

To me that is breaking an NRL protocol around concussions and they should be hit hard for it... I'm sure many teams over the last couple years have been fined for not doing a HIA on a player despite them displaying the indicators that warrant a mandatory HIA

 

[Morkel]

When I'm not busy I'll be looking at trying to do some more serious analysis beyond just presenting data.

Things like how often props get a "HIA" during their normal interchange period in other games.

Unfortunately the NRL doesn't really provide data in an easy to use way so it's a lot of manual effort.

We now need to correlate those times the Stor, have claimed a HIA, with the amount of time that player had been on the field, and how long they would normally be on before a standard interchange.