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

Live Game Discussion
innsaneink said:
He kicked two out on the full....got two arsey line drop outs to bounce 10m the correct way, allowed Dom young to walk past him untouched to score...threw a forward pass to win the game and everyone thinks hes god...LOL
Theyre still talking about him...fkn joke
Click to expand...
That was freakin ridiculous and it happened twice!
 
Furious1 said:
I agree Greg . Most hits to the head aren’t really HIA, but quite often the independent Doc plays their part and calls the player off in case. I believe ( and happy to be corrected) the 15 mins is due to delayed concussion. Therefore, I would assume that if you have been hit in the head enough to lie down and grab your head, you would be strongly considered to be a chance to have concussion or potential for it. Particularly given one of the official observations is grabbing the head or neck.
I’m not trying to be a smart arse here mate and I’m replying with respect as you always do.
I don’t think it’s fair that it comes on the trainers as they will always be under pressure no matter what gets said publicly.
At the end of the day, the ref should be able to referee, without interference from the bunker.
The ref is there to adjudicate according to the rules and is on the field where the contact happens. Almost every tackle involves contact with the melon. Honestly, slow it down and have a look. Something will touch the head. Someone could lie down almost every tackle. Some did start heading that way last night…… backs, like CNK. I’m sure if they knew they would have to go off they might reconsider. Soccer has divers, games a joke. This game has imposters trying to milk penalties too.

At the end of the day, if you lay down you should have to go for a HIA. There’s nothing to stop anyone from being called off for a HIA now, by the trainers if they have been touched on the head at any time.

so essentially by the rules CNK gave an observation of requiring a HIA, because he was laying down, grabbed his face/ head and was slow to his feet, which projects confusion. Classic concussion symptoms.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the reply Furious (as well as the manner in which it was written) and admit this is the most well reasoned argument for compulsory HIA for laying down I have read. I honestly can't really disagree with any point you have made and on your argument could be swayed. Whilst I do conceded that head contact occurs in almost every tackle, for the sake of narrowing this conversation let's limit it to simply forceful contact or initial contact to the head. This will eliminate the incidental contact.

I am however torn on multiple points. For example, I don't have an issue with the bunker being involved to address incidents of foul play that have been missed by the onfield ref because in my opinion it is correcting the mistake of the ref missing the foul, it is not awarding a penalty that isn't justified (noting I am aware at times the reaction may be excessive). However I don't like how it has led to players laying down (or taking dives when obstructed etc) and realise I am happy to accept referee error in other parts of the game, this would just be one more part.

My opinion is that whilst you can typically tell someone is faking a head injury you are right in that they are displaying possible concussion symptoms. Nowadays you probably need to err on the side of caution with such things as well.

Whilst I am swayed by your argument, I however question is this the best way to get rid of the diving? I remain staunch that this will simply lead to fake HIAs to exploit the interchange rule.

So, I ask is there not a better solution?

E.g should we allow a captain's challenge to be used, even though there isn't a break in play? In this scenario the player wouldn't need to fake concussion he could spring to his feet and say he collected me high and challenge for the penalty. This may need some adapting and to be seperate from the current captain's challenge to work but it is just one idea. Surely there are others, rather than settle on the most obvious one that we can already see is open to exploitation.
 
I am still finding it hard to believe the try to level the score that the Panthers bombed in the last 5 mins of their game. Was it the centre who dummied instead of simply passing to his winger to stroll over, and was tackled without passing. Butchered the game for them- absolutely appalling. Teammates must be furious.
 
gregjm87 said:
I appreciate the reply Furious (as well as the manner in which it was written) and admit this is the most well reasoned argument for compulsory HIA for laying down I have read. I honestly can't really disagree with any point you have made and on your argument could be swayed. Whilst I do conceded that head contact occurs in almost every tackle, for the sake of narrowing this conversation let's limit it to simply forceful contact or initial contact to the head. This will eliminate the incidental contact.

I am however torn on multiple points. For example, I don't have an issue with the bunker being involved to address incidents of foul play that have been missed by the onfield ref because in my opinion it is correcting the mistake of the ref missing the foul, it is not awarding a penalty that isn't justified (noting I am aware at times the reaction may be excessive). However I don't like how it has led to players laying down (or taking dives when obstructed etc) and realise I am happy to accept referee error in other parts of the game, this would just be one more part.

My opinion is that whilst you can typically tell someone is faking a head injury you are right in that they are displaying possible concussion symptoms. Nowadays you probably need to err on the side of caution with such things as well.

Whilst I am swayed by your argument, I however question is this the best way to get rid of the diving? I remain staunch that this will simply lead to fake HIAs to exploit the interchange rule.

So, I ask is there not a better solution?

E.g should we allow a captain's challenge to be used, even though there isn't a break in play? In this scenario the player wouldn't need to fake concussion he could spring to his feet and say he collected me high and challenge for the penalty. This may need some adapting and to be seperate from the current captain's challenge to work but it is just one idea. Surely there are others, rather than settle on the most obvious one that we can already see is open to exploitation.
Click to expand...
We see two different scenarios here:

1. Foul play.

2. Diving/faking a head injury to get an exchange.


Dealing with foul play, I think we do need to get the bunker in and as much as possible we need consequinces in that game. Say someone puts a foul shot on Bula or Luai?

We loose a key player, maybe loose the game. It goes to the Judiciary and the grub gets banned for 1-6 weeks (1 if against wests tigers, 6 if against Roosters). ... What good is that?
We have lost our 2 points and now opposing teams get to play grub free for 6 games?

Really it weakens the team more who got the dirty rubbed against them.




Then we have diving/faking.

Lockyer, lamented that league was becoming so physically aggressive. The way he put it is he did not want it to become touch footy, but the contact was extreme and taking the flare out of the game. Particularly he noted fresh players could come on quicker and tackle harder. When those with stamina had to last the 80....

I think we need to solve this a different way. 5m restarts instead of 10.

Players are going to fake a dive no matter what happens. With what HIA is today, we have to trust and accept a player could be seriously rattled but showing no outward sign of injury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 712 (members: 3, guests: 709)
Back
Top