Knights used HIA for Pearce Pec injury

[innsaneink]

Do the knights get deducted the 2 competition points ? Do we get the win instead?

No they will just lose 2

Am I the only one that thinks in these type of cases that if a team losses points (except salary cape breaches) that the other team should get the points?

They would say theyre only punishing the offenders, rather than rewarding their opponents.

However we see cases like Burgess, lays out seizer, Canberra get a piddly penalty while souths opponents the next few weeks gets the advantage.

Nobody cares, you bring things up like this to mainstream media, they either laugh it off or sweep it away as too hard…I guess cause its everyone doing it - its hunky dory, if you cant beat em, join em

 

[innsaneink]

Ive messaged 2KY BSB, 2SM TalkinSport, 2UE Sports Radio & NRL360….maybe one of them will check it out

Good morning boys,
Would you call it a breach of the HIA rule if the Knights had no interchanges left at the 75th minute when Pearce went off with his pec injury...and they claimed it as a head knock?
IF that happened, and IF they played the last four or five minutes with an illegal replacement, then do you think they should be docked the two competition points?
Many keen viewers are saying that in fact did occur.
Thanks.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

Ive messaged 2KY BSB, 2SM TalkinSport, 2UE Sports Radio & NRL360….maybe one of them will check it out

Good morning boys,
Would you call it a breach of the HIA rule if the Knights had no interchanges left at the 75th minute when Pearce went off with his pec injury...and they claimed it as a head knock?
IF that happened, and IF they played the last four or five minutes with an illegal replacement, then do you think they should be docked the two competition points?
Many keen viewers are saying that in fact did occur.
Thanks.

If they acknowledge it at all they will claim Yates was due back on but I am pretty sure was the rule is same players change back on and off.

 

[Demps]

Blatant cheating

 

[Doc_Tiger]

let's not forget we got lucky earlier when ponga wasn't awarded a 7 tackle set and we clearly benefitted immensely from that given we scored a couple of minutes later.
Whilst its fair to bemoan the no call at the end, let's keep some perspective. We really weren't good enough to overcome adversity and we should be if we are to be taken seriously

 

[Snake]

I am sure the trainers at most clubs put an hour a week practicing tapping there heads .. this is a joke and a loop hole. The NRL are trying to do the right thing here but it is being abused by grubby coaches .

 

[innsaneink]

Ive messaged 2KY BSB, 2SM TalkinSport, 2UE Sports Radio & NRL360….maybe one of them will check it out

Good morning boys,
Would you call it a breach of the HIA rule if the Knights had no interchanges left at the 75th minute when Pearce went off with his pec injury...and they claimed it as a head knock?
IF that happened, and IF they played the last four or five minutes with an illegal replacement, then do you think they should be docked the two competition points?
Many keen viewers are saying that in fact did occur.
Thanks.

If they acknowledge it at all they will claim Yates was due back on but I am pretty sure was the rule is same players change back on and off.

How can Yates be 'due back on' if they had no interchanges left?

Do you mean he was off for a HIA as well?

Getting confusing

 

[Tim Sheens]

Ive messaged 2KY BSB, 2SM TalkinSport, 2UE Sports Radio & NRL360….maybe one of them will check it out

Good morning boys,
Would you call it a breach of the HIA rule if the Knights had no interchanges left at the 75th minute when Pearce went off with his pec injury...and they claimed it as a head knock?
IF that happened, and IF they played the last four or five minutes with an illegal replacement, then do you think they should be docked the two competition points?
Many keen viewers are saying that in fact did occur.
Thanks.

If they acknowledge it at all they will claim Yates was due back on but I am pretty sure was the rule is same players change back on and off.

How can Yates be 'due back on' if they had no interchanges left?

Do you mean he was off for a HIA as well?

Getting confusing

He was also off for a HIA to my knowledge.

 

[innsaneink]

Ok cheers

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

Yep former guest got it.

I have been looking around trying to find what the rule is regarding HIA and it isn't outlined in the 'laws and interpretations' document or anywhere else that I can find.

I was always under the impression that when a player went off for a HIA that they had to replace the same play when they came back on, for example:
Taylor replaced by Smith for a HIA and passes after 15 minutes and comes back on the field. Smith comes back off and Taylor goes on.

I will have a closer look at it over games in the next few weeks as it would be good to know the rules around this.

 

[innsaneink]

Cheers chook… I'd be interested to hear what you discover.
Would be impossible to do watching on TV you'd have to be there live

 

[Wagga_Tiger]

Yates was still on the ground when we kicked our penalty goal, there was 16:20 left on the clock at that stage. I thought it was a minimum of 15 minute you had to be off for a HIA could be wrong.

 

[TigerSJ]

This is NRL - nothing will happen at all. Knights deserved to win and there were some poor rulings on both sides in that game so we shouldn't complain, just learn that lesson and get on with being more in the fight to win next week. Effort was the big difference on Saturday - nothing else.

 

[BlackandGoldForever]

well 2 BS penalties led to the Knights 2 fluke trys that got them the win. they got a full set of 6 off a so called late hit (which happens every set of 6_ at that stage were were up 18-10 it changes the entire complextion of the game

thats the problem with the NRL stupid ref choices that completely change the game and turn the game around the NRL is rigged with this, we should have had the ball 7 tackles on the 20 instead knights get another set of 6 at our line, a Benji Try saver then they scored off the next play. and the game turned to them all because of a BS penalty that should not have been given/

then the refs decide to give them another penalty to make the game exciting for the last few mins and that idiot SKD scores a fluke try because our winger doesn't know how to stay on his wing.

it's the only sport where a ref can single handingly change the momentum of a game and swing it.

 

[JD Tiger]

Yates was still on the ground when we kicked our penalty goal, there was 16:20 left on the clock at that stage. I thought it was a minimum of 15 minute you had to be off for a HIA could be wrong.

I think it's 15 minutes of real time they need to sit out, not game time. So if there were stoppages towards the end of the game, that would account for the time discrepancy.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

Cheers chook… I'd be interested to hear what you discover.
Would be impossible to do watching on TV you'd have to be there live

Had a bit of time this morning so dug through a few live game blogs on the internet to find when players went off for a HIA and looked at the NRL site for interchanges in the games and it appears you don't have to replace the same player when you return to the field. There were examples in most games but here is one from the Tigers:

25' Liddle off for HIA and Godinet On
30' Benji off for HIA Chee Kam On
39' Liddle returns after passing HIA with Eisenhuth off
40' Benji returns after passing HIA with Liddle off

So in that example we've used the system to our advantage to give Eisenhuth a rest and make the positional changes due to Liddle's injury.

IMO the NRL should look at this and change the rule to same player on and off each time to limit teams manipulating the system to gain extra interchanges like we have above.

Godinet should have stayed on for Liddle who was cleared of HIA so that becomes an interchange. (you'd just say he fail the HIA and couldn't go back on so it doesn't coast an interchange)
Benji should have come back on for Chee Kam (free interchange)
Eisenhuth should have been replaced by Chee Kam as an actual interchange.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[innsaneink]

Very confusing… Good research chook.

So doesn't have to be 15 mins.... Or maybe there's 5' stoppage time while Benji was off?

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

I think Benji came on at half time so that counts as time. But yeah it’s 15 minutes of real time so if you go off and there is an injury that takes 10minutes to attend to you’d only miss 5 minutes of the game.

 

[Go_You_Good_Things]

In terms of what is actually a head injury or not . . . IIRC when this system was introduced there was always concern that it was open to abuse in exactly the same way that Newy did.
There was a "gentleman's agreement" among the clubs and trainers that no club would rort the system to gain advantage. Like that worked !
End result is we are seeing thigh, ankle and pec injuries all getting that cute little tap on the head.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Ive messaged 2KY BSB, 2SM TalkinSport, 2UE Sports Radio & NRL360….maybe one of them will check it out

If they acknowledge it at all they will claim Yates was due back on but I am pretty sure was the rule is same players change back on and off.

How can Yates be 'due back on' if they had no interchanges left?

Do you mean he was off for a HIA as well?

Getting confusing

He was also off for a HIA to my knowledge.

This is my understanding of it too after watching the replay. It seems they were in fact entitled to a free interchange as Pearce wasn't the HIA leaving the field, Yates was the HIA coming back onto the field.

Agree with KFC as well, the player substituting should be the player to come off. What's to stop players (particularly forwards,) feigning head injuries at times of the game where the coach would be looking to make interchanges. HIA replacement that comes on must be the one that comes off IMO.