Round 10 Discussion (Magic Round)

[Dexter]

I never had a problem with stopping head shots. I have a huge problem with punishment for a guy standing still who has someone slide into him and faceplant on the defenders sternum. That's bullshit and that fuckwit Kent can shut the **** up. What happens when a tackler goes low, say knee height and the attacker falls face first into the tacklers shoulder, less than a metre from the ground? Is that a sendoff? Not if common sense prevails.

We will have to wait and see when it happens. I agree players like Tedesco who drop late and get hit need to take some responsibility but in the case of the parra one that guy lined him up and took advantage of the opportunity. The cowboys one was a joke though. The defenders will have to be super careful and try to pull away

 

[Big Pete]

We can all agree that the way it was introduced was a farce and right now it appears to be the straw that broke the camel's back. They brought in this six again on short notice and the majority of teams are still struggling to adapt to that and now they've introduced another rule that punishes teams heavily.

I do think we're going to see the NRL ease up on it. For whatever reason they chose Magic Round to make a statement and as a result there were a couple of line-ball decisions that were punished far too heavily and there were a couple like the Felise Kaufusi tackle on Corey Norman that should have been penalised.

I think eventually you'll see a more common sense approach and ultimately it will be something a lot of fans have wanted for awhile. How often have we as fans complained about a player committing an awful tackle and serving a six week suspension only to receive next to no compensation? At least now they've drawn a line in the sand and a tackle like a Paul Momirovski's will result in a 10 minute sin bin.

I like the suggestion that a legs tackle should result in a dominant call. This again goes back to the heart of the issue where players and fans would have been more responsive towards the rules had there been some care and consideration put forward instead of it being dumped on the players a few days out from what should have been a show piece round of the competition.

So tackles like the Papalii, Ese'ese, Fuimaono etc. will all be punished and that's fair enough. However hopefully we see less incidents like the Tevita Pangai Jr, Chad Townsend and Lachlan Burr which really put a dampener on all of those contests.

 

[Midean]

Like Tallis said, time to start coaching players to faceplant into the tacklers chest.

You fucking know Storm and Roosters will be doing it, and the only way to keep up is if all the teams start doing it, just like the HIA loophole.

And like others have mentioned, how the **** are you supposed to stop the Dave Fifitas and TPJ's from offloading if you cant hit them above the waist.

Take this nonsense elsewhere.

 

[Galah]

Like Tallis said, time to start coaching players to faceplant into the tacklers chest.

You fucking know Storm and Roosters will be doing it, and the only way to keep up is if all the teams start doing it, just like the HIA loophole.

And like others have mentioned, how the **** are you supposed to stop the Dave Fifitas and TPJ's from offloading if you cant hit them above the waist.

Take this nonsense elsewhere.

Tedesco is way ahead of you

 

[Dexter]

I like the suggestion that a legs tackle should result in a dominant call. This again goes back to the heart of the issue where players and fans would have been more responsive towards the rules had there been some care and consideration put forward instead of it being dumped on the players a few days out from what should have been a show piece round of the competition.

There really isn't a need to introduce a dominant call for a legs tackle. All they have to do is the same as they are doing for the high tackle rule and actually enforce an existing rule of the game.

A player has to get to his feet and play the ball with his foot. That will slow the play the ball.

Interpretations that Harrigan bought in have led us down this path of rule changes and fixing unintended outcomes with more tweaks.

 

[Big Pete]

There really isn't a need to introduce a dominant call for a legs tackle. All they have to do is the same as they are doing for the high tackle rule and actually enforce an existing rule of the game.

A player has to get to his feet and play the ball with his foot. That will slow the play the ball.

Interpretations that Harrigan bought in have led us down this path of rule changes and fixing unintended outcomes with more tweaks.

That will help but in a lot of cases the player with the ball will find their front allowing them to play the ball before the defence is set.

The issue with going down my proposed route is that it would slow the game down but it maybe the compromise the game needs after this crackdown.

 

[Sproj]

That will help but in a lot of cases the player with the ball will find their front allowing them to play the ball before the defence is set.

The issue with going down my proposed route is that it would slow the game down but it maybe the compromise the game needs after this crackdown.

It definitely needs a compromise somewhere because currently it is almost impossible to defend if you aren't a very good team.

 

[Wolfie]

These rule changes are making the game unwatchable imo. Ones the momentum turns with these 6 agains and now these sin binnings its pretty much game over for whichever teams suffered with it first. I'm losing my love for the game.

 

[Dexter]

That will help but in a lot of cases the player with the ball will find their front allowing them to play the ball before the defence is set.

The issue with going down my proposed route is that it would slow the game down but it maybe the compromise the game needs after this crackdown.

It will be interesting how it develops but for mine actually policing the play the ball by making the players touch it with the foot should be done this year.

Any dominant call for a legs tackle is giving the refs another thing to interpret, therefor another grey area.
I also think making the try scoring team kick off will come in as early as next year. They have to find a way to break up big possession flows which result in blow outs.

 

[theshed]

One thing that I haven’t seen addressed in all this is, statistically who is more at risk of concussion - the attacker or the defender?

I don’t know but if I had to guess I’d say far more players cop serious head knocks when defending.

By so heavily penalising accidental head contact (which should be penalised but not to this extent)you are forcing the Mitch Moses and Aden Reynolds of the game to make waist tackles on guys like Klemmer who comes charging in with his knees up. Sounds even more dangerous to me.

 

[BroncsFan]

I have done a complete about face on the enforcement of head shots. It's the new normal, the coaches and players have to accept it and change, we fans have to get used to it.
If it means more legs tackles it probably means better ball movement and more expansive styles of play.
The consistency of how it's enforced will be the difficult part for us fans because it will be like the 6 again rule and it will cost some teams more than others.

The worst thing is we are playing the two best teams at pushing through the ruck right when they decide to make a stance on high tackles.

Roosters and Storm roll everything straight through the middle and already have lightning fast play the balls.

If we change to legs tackles this weekend we are odds on for 40, 50 or 60 point scorelines

 

[Dexter]

One thing that I haven’t seen addressed in all this is, statistically who is more at risk of concussion - the attacker or the defender?

I don’t know but if I had to guess I’d say far more players cop serious head knocks when defending.

By so heavily penalising accidental head contact (which should be penalised but not to this extent)you are forcing the Mitch Moses and Aden Reynolds of the game to make waist tackles on guys like Klemmer who comes charging in with his knees up. Sounds even more dangerous to me.

They can still tackle at shoulder height .
The NRL are trying to stop the "accidental" high shots which happen too often.
Too many players push the boundaries and aim to hit the shoulder first and ricochet into the head. It's similar to the era when bouncing off the ball first caused some horrible head knocks but went unpenalised. Players like Mario Fenech were experts at it .
The fact is they won't stop all head knocks but they are not claiming they will just trying to stop the avoidable contact because that is their duty if care.
The court cases are coming, that's a fact, the NRL are positioning themselves for future litigation.

 

[Morkel]

It will be interesting how it develops but for mine actually policing the play the ball by making the players touch it with the foot should be done this year.

Any dominant call for a legs tackle is giving the refs another thing to interpret, therefor another grey area.
I also think making the try scoring team kick off will come in as early as next year. They have to find a way to break up big possession flows which result in blow outs.

We were always taught that we had to plant the ball, stationary, and then roll it back with your foot. Rolling it back with the hand was an error. Stepping over and not using your foot was an error. If this was enforced it would bring a lot of this hectic mayhem out of the game. Not just a crackdown that lasts long enough for the Roosters and Storm to have a tantrum, but, you know, forever.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

We were always taught that we had to plant the ball, stationary, and then roll it back with your foot. Rolling it back with the hand was an error. Stepping over and not using your foot was an error. If this was enforced it would bring a lot of this hectic mayhem out of the game. Not just a crackdown that lasts long enough for the Roosters and Storm to have a tantrum, but, you know, forever.

And play the ball on the mark.

 

[Sproj]

We were always taught that we had to plant the ball, stationary, and then roll it back with your foot. Rolling it back with the hand was an error. Stepping over and not using your foot was an error. If this was enforced it would bring a lot of this hectic mayhem out of the game. Not just a crackdown that lasts long enough for the Roosters and Storm to have a tantrum, but, you know, forever.

And play the ball on the mark.

Yeah but that was back when rugby league was rugby league.

 

[BroncsFan]

They can still tackle at shoulder height .
The NRL are trying to stop the "accidental" high shots which happen too often.
Too many players push the boundaries and aim to hit the shoulder first and ricochet into the head. It's similar to the era when bouncing off the ball first caused some horrible head knocks but went unpenalised. Players like Mario Fenech were experts at it .
The fact is they won't stop all head knocks but they are not claiming they will just trying to stop the avoidable contact because that is their duty if care.
The court cases are coming, that's a fact, the NRL are positioning themselves for future litigation.

The Papalii one being a perfect example of what they're trying to rule out of the game.

His aim is the top of the ball with his shoulder, which is fine, but if you miss your mark you're going to be slapped down hard... and I think that is fair enough. I think Sua's was similar and some others over the weekend. If your shoulder comes in contact with their head (excluding whiplash) then you should expect to be sitting down for 10mins.

I have massive issues with Burr's being a sin bin though. Fine with it being a penalty, but shouldn't be on report and absolutely should not have been a sin bin.

Under the new rules I think the only ones the ref should put on report are the ones they intend to sin bin or send off.

The Munster free interchange shenanigans means anything on report is a free interchange for the team's middle rotation.

If they're going to lower the standard of what goes on report it completely shits in the face of trying to bring fatigue back into the game and it becomes a total lottery on free interchanges ie. another thing for the ref to apply inconsistently, but will have a major bearing/ manipulation on the game.

We had 4 players put on report that's effectively 4 free interchanges for the opposition... yet only one of the players put on report was serious enough that they're missing a week and even then Riki is only suspended because they ramped up the penalties on crushers.

However if the foul play is deemed significant enough for a sin bin or send off then the other team should rightly get a free interchange as an added deterrent. The lessening of what constitutes a sin binning means the serious high shots and reportable offences are unlikely to be missed anyway.

Under this kind of interpretation neither TPJ or Chad's tackles would be deemed significant enough to warrant going on report (as they didn't go to the bin) and therefore the game wouldnt have been stopped to charge and penalise either team. The MRC can pick up any missed tackles later on.

 

[Sproj]

The Papalii one being a perfect example of what they're trying to rule out of the game.

His aim is the top of the ball with his shoulder, which is fine, but if you miss your mark you're going to be slapped down hard... and I think that is fair enough. I think Sua's was similar and some others over the weekend. If your shoulder comes in contact with their head (excluding whiplash) then you should expect to be sitting down for 10mins.

I have massive issues with Burr's being a sin bin though. Fine with it being a penalty, but shouldn't be on report and absolutely should not have been a sin bin.

Under the new rules I think the only ones the ref should put on report are the ones they intend to sin bin or send off.

The Munster free interchange shenanigans means anything on report is a free interchange for the team's middle rotation.

If they're going to lower the standard of what goes on report it completely shits in the face of trying to bring fatigue back into the game and it becomes a total lottery on free interchanges ie. another thing for the ref to apply inconsistently, but will have a major bearing/ manipulation on the game.

We had 4 players put on report that's effectively 4 free interchanges for the opposition... yet only one of the players put on report was serious enough that they're missing a week and even then Riki is only suspended because they ramped up the penalties on crushers.

However if the foul play is deemed significant enough for a sin bin or send off then the other team should rightly get a free interchange as an added deterrent. The lessening of what constitutes a sin binning means the serious high shots and reportable offences are unlikely to be missed anyway.

Under this kind of interpretation neither TPJ or Chad's tackles would be deemed significant enough to warrant going on report (as they didn't go to the bin) and therefore the game wouldnt have been stopped to charge and penalise either team. The MRC can pick up any missed tackles later on.

It is an absolute disgrace.

 

[Foordy]