LIVE GAME Round 5 "high shot crackdown" discussion *spoilers*

Live Game Discussion
gregjm87 said:
Creates it own problems. What do you do when between the 15 and 25 minute marks every starting front rower has laid down holding their head?
Click to expand...
Well if they have been hit in the head then it should be a HIA. If there hasn't been contact and they are just going for a penalty, move the ball to another player and play on.
 
The game will soon become "Touch Footy".
and even then they'll try and find something.
Like someone said earlier , if they suspect a head high,
then the attacker should come off regardless, for HIA ,
aswell as the defender for 10 in the bin.
 
gregjm87 said:
Creates it own problems. What do you do when between the 15 and 25 minute marks every starting front rower has laid down holding their head?
Click to expand...
Exactly, mentioned the other day that even though I think if you stay down looking for a penalty, you go straight off for a HIA.

The negative side of it is that the smart coaches will have their forwards feigning a head injury and go off for a HIA that they know they will pass and get a free interchange for their side.
 
TigerTone said:
The game will soon become "Touch Footy".
and even then they'll try and find something.
Like someone said earlier , if they suspect a head high,
then the attacker should come off regardless, for HIA ,
aswell as the defender for 10 in the bin.
Click to expand...
Sounds good on the surface of it, but then on the other side of the coin, if the player is faking a head injury and knows they will pass the HIA, it may very well end up being a double or triple whammy for the so called offending team, free interchange for the opposition, penalty and 10 in the bin.
 
There are a lot of moving parts here and lots of good comments and potential solutions above. The NRL is going to have to find a way to sort the milkers from the genuine. I'm also concerned that our game is going to become 'touch' footy.
NRL is a brutal sport and even last night I didn't feel it warranted a send off. IMO only he appeared to try and avoid head contact at speed and both players appear to drop down a bit, a pretty natural reaction.
 
Make of it what you will but, "direct and forceful contact to the head where there are no mitigating factors," does not solve anything.

Still way too open to interpretation and as I have said before all players that are accused of offending will not necessarily be treated or viewed in the same way.
 
Furious1 said:
Well if they have been hit in the head then it should be a HIA. If there hasn't been contact and they are just going for a penalty, move the ball to another player and play on.
Click to expand...
Why should every hit to the head require a hia? You can be hit in the head and be perfectly fine. In fact I'd say more often than not you would be perfectly fine.
No-one stays down for a penalty when there hasn't been any contact. The CNK incident against us, he was clearly staying down for the penalty, also was clearly hit in the head and also clearly not concussed.
 
TigerTone said:
The game will soon become "Touch Footy".
and even then they'll try and find something.
Like someone said earlier , if they suspect a head high,
then the attacker should come off regardless, for HIA ,
aswell as the defender for 10 in the bin.
Click to expand...
The solution is with those that control the game. This is a risk/reward game and there is too much risk invoved in axing players around the legs as it provides a quick play the ball and defenders can't get back in time to set the line. If a legs tackle is made front on declare it a dominat tackle and allow a second player in to control the ruck. If it is dominant to referee decides when beign held down is too long. For cover tackles around the legs no change, must relase and let the game flow.

This simple change would bing back Arthur Beetson style props looking to promote the ball aroudn the body - which has risk but promotes more exciting paly - just what the administrators want!
 
hank37w said:
Make of it what you will but, "direct and forceful contact to the head where there are no mitigating factors," does not solve anything.

Still way too open to interpretation and as I have said before all players that are accused of offending will not necessarily be treated or viewed in the same way.
Click to expand...
A simple interpretation is "the shit team with the whinging coach is winning what do we do"...."sin bin for a tackle I missed 3 plays ago"
 
Straight off for a HIA, if three HIA are needed in a game then it’s classed as a failed HIA. Comes off and sits next week out.
 
Tucker said:
Its round 4. Teams are still working out the kinks.
Both these sides will play finals for mine.
Click to expand...
I have them around the 6th-10th category

Sharks are phonies. They look like world beaters until they vs a real team (see last week)

Don’t get me wrong, I definitely wish we had a team that could consistently make finals like them though
 
old_man_tiger said:
Make it 2. Also could make it 3 over a fortnight leads to a mandatory sit down. Our game has always had cheats but they usually wore 7 or 9 lol (or refs) now every moron wants an Oscar.
Click to expand...
Theoretically but, are they cheats for staying down or are they simply ensuring they receive the penalty they should be entitled to? If they didn't stay down it would be the defending team getting away with foul play and more fodder for the refs are cheats crowd.

I too don't like the look of players staying down but just providing an alternative viewpoint.

Finally there is an existing (but never enforced) rule that could solve this. The rule book says that players are to get to their feet and play the ball without delay. If they stay down and the incident isn't deemed penalty worthy, then they have illegally delayed the play the ball and should be penalized. Whilst in most incidents I maintain they were likely hit in the head and a penalty should be awarded. There only needs to be one or two penalties blown the other way where contact is minor and not penalty sufficient and perhaps it will result in players thinking twice about staying down.
 
hank37w said:
Exactly, mentioned the other day that even though I think if you stay down looking for a penalty, you go straight off for a HIA.

The negative side of it is that the smart coaches will have their forwards feigning a head injury and go off for a HIA that they know they will pass and get a free interchange for their side.
Click to expand...
4 clubs were monitored for doing that now before the crackdown came in
 
gregjm87 said:
Why should every hit to the head require a hia? You can be hit in the head and be perfectly fine. In fact I'd say more often than not you would be perfectly fine.
No-one stays down for a penalty when there hasn't been any contact. The CNK incident against us, he was clearly staying down for the penalty, also was clearly hit in the head and also clearly not concussed.
Click to expand...
CNK wasn't hit in the head, he ran his head into Seyfarth's shoulder and took a dive in an attempt to get a penalty that would give them a shot to win the match. A huge difference. Then the bunker was complicit in the fraud by not taking the obvious mitigating circumstances into account and basically gave the warriors the win.

Sin binning Alex on top of that would have been a travesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 906 (members: 47, guests: 859)
Back
Top