The Concussion Rule

[hobbo]

James graham has been KO'd twice tonight and continues to play ….
If this is we're we are heading with concussions the dogs should be fined
Just like inglis was knocked out last week , he'll play tomorrow
Then again Inglis wouldn't have much grey matter to get concussed just like graham
Different rules for different clubs !

 

[GoldXR50Leroy]

I reckon that a player of Friend's ability could have pulled out of the tackle and when the camera panned to him he looked pretty pleased with his efforts, I mentioned in a previous post that I was disappointed that Friend didn't come in for some extra attention from our tacklers.

 

[Demonborger]

Imo Friend did it on purpose… Souths tried it too last week.

In a grandfinal all you need to do is kick or knee the head of the opposition key player (but make sure you are looking at the ball and not his head when you do it). They will go off with a concussion and you will win the match.

 

[Marshall_magic]

I have not seen the last 50 minutes of the game (I had to head out after half an hour, frankly I don't particularly want to watch it based on what I know), but I feel that the NRL need something between on report and a send off. Since they won't bring the bin in for foul play, maybe if a tackle is not quite worthy of a send off they can have a refs call where they can order a player who commits foul play to be subbed off (costing an interchange) and replaced, but the offending player may not return for the remainder of the game. JWH tackle on Stewart last night is an example of a play where this would be applicable. Manly lose Stewart, have a 3 man bench for 75 minutes and have their interchanges messed up, so why don't the Roosters get the same penalty?

 

[pHyR3]

we just seem to be far more concerned about player safety than other teams i guess.

NRL needs to come down hard on it but also provide an 18th man only for concussions.

having 10 man benches is stupid and it will lead to an even slower game as players can be far more big rather than fit. Like kasiano, pritchard etc.

 

[Juro]

Definitely need to strengthen the disincentives for teams targetting key opposition players. At the moment, it is far too easy to 'accidentally' hit a guy in the head, forcing him from the game.

 

[system]

Imo Friend did it on purpose… Souths tried it too last week.

In a grandfinal all you need to do is kick or knee the head of the opposition key player (but make sure you are looking at the ball and not his head when you do it). They will go off with a concussion and you will win the match.

Agree it's more than coincidence that Teddy was head high tackled last week and this week kneed in the head… He is being targeted

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[tigertye]

There was a few ideas I think I floated around somewhere on this forum regarding concussions/injuries caused from foul play a while back.

I understand the need to maintain player safety, but with the current rules the only advantage is a free interchange. How is that an advantage? It isn't. If a key player goes down and is replaced with a bench player who may not be as good, there is no advantage. If the team picked consists of a 4 forwards on the bench, and a fullback goes down, many positions may need to be reshuffled to cover for the injured player (perfect example happened on the weekend in the Tigers game) and again, no advantage. If the penalised player who caused the injury is not sent for 10 or sent off, no advantage. If they are put on report, the advantage would only then be to the team/teams playing them over the next week/weeks. Once again absolutely no advantage to the team who has to deal with an injured player (short term or long).

So here's my ideas…

IDEA 1\. Both teams select a starting 17\. They also have an extra 3 reserves that they can use if an injury is caused due to foul play, these players would be selected from reserve grade/20's but would also have to play for their reserve grade/20's side that week to be eligible and to maintain match fitness. One forward, one outside back and one halves/utility.

I would also change the way the grading works with misconduct. If a player is forced to miss the next 3 weeks due to injury caused, the player who injured them is unavailable to play for the next 3 times they play that team (regardless whether they change clubs) **plus one game**. Therefore, giving the advantage to the team in which the injured player plays for. So basically the grading depends on how injured the player was. If the injured player is ok to play the following week a simple one game suspension is put in place for the next time the two clubs play for misconduct causing injury. If the particular injured player is signed to another team, the advantage stays with the club they previously for.

IDEA 2\. Both teams have a 17 man squad.
Eg. Sam Burgess knocks out Braith Anasta, he is placed on report and Anasta is forced to leave the field with concussion. Burgess would then have to go off the field until Anasta was cleared to play. If he is unfit to come back, Burgess also cannot return to the field. This then evens up the amount of reserves and players and an equal disadvantage is now in place. We are also given the advantage of a free interchange and Burgess's side has one taken away.

The suspension works exactly the same as in IDEA 1, so if Braith misses 4 games, Burgess misses 5 in total. Four for the injury and one for misconduct. All served over the next 5 Souths vs Tigers games.

I hope coaches and coaching staff aren't telling their players to intentionally hurt other teams key players, but I strongly believe idea 2 would help teams who lose players due to misconduct and illegal play and give them the advantage. Players and coaches would also be more cautious about certain tactics that they may be using as any significant mistake would cost their team. The rules as they stand give absolutely near zero advantage to the team with an injured player from foul play.

 

[happy_tiger]

Look the NRL had to make this call the players health and safety must be paramount

Look what has occurred in the NFL with the brain damage issues

The NFL offered 880 million as compensation and the judge told them to come back with a better offer

Imagine what would happen if something similar happened in the NRL

The NRL has to do something if players are off due to an illegal hit which stops them playing because of the concussion rule

We need an 18th man or if it is deemed that the concussed player cannot return and the player hit was placed on report that player automatically must also sit the rest of the game out

I reckon teams are already picking players who will get worse case 1 week suspensions to put illegal hits on opposing players (particularly match winners )

You can't penalise the side that has done nothing wrong and then give the advantage to the side who has performed an illegal act Its madness (but this is the NRL we are talking about )

The scariest thing is SOO is round the corner , imagine what will happen then Clubs will go nuts if their players are ruled out because of actions during SOO when they get no benefits from

 

[tiga4eva]

Note; James Graham in tonight's game.

Tigers are playing under different rules.

Exactly. Graham was staggering twice in that game and Will Hopoate earlier in the season but their teams left them on. Manly and Wests Tigers appear to be following protocol but it seems no one is policing those who don't.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[jctiger]

Note; James Graham in tonight's game.

Tigers are playing under different rules.

Exactly. Graham was staggering twice in that game and Will Hopoate earlier in the season but their teams left them on. Manly and Wests Tigers appear to be following protocol but it seems no one is policing those who don't.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

The NRL have stated that they will be looking at the Bulldogs Doctors report regarding J.Graham. If they have gone against proper procedure heavy fines or even loss of competition points can be imposed …..............................................................................But, as if that will happen !

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[MightyMaggy]

I think the NRL hierarchy have lost the plot, totally. I assume the concussion rule was brought in to "protect" the players in the long term from brain damage, as a result of attacks to the head. If this is the case, they are attacking the problem from the wrong end in my opinion.
While some cases may come from "accidents" like Tedesco's last week, the majority come from attacks on the players head!
Tedesco received three head-high tackles in the game against Souths, but the NRL rated two as not worth citing the offender and the other was down-graded to a 1 week penalty. If the NRL take this low-level action to head-highs, then players will continue to treat head-high tackles as minor infractions. If the NRL take sterner action and it achieves a reduction in the incidence of head-high tackles, WOULDN'T THIS REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONCUSSION?

 

[diedpretty]

**Hey Potter let's take out Foram and Cherry Evans next week in the first 5 mins, that will leave them down to 15 men and their 2 best players out.**

sounds like a good idea??? yep this concussion rule is really working.. the NRL have to do something about it. it's all well and good to say its for the players welfare and comparing it to the NFL. but the NFL have 53 man rosters they can replace a player easy… in NRL you can't look at Inglis last week, your pretty much no chance to win a game when one of your key men are knocked out for the rest of the game.

It only works if that team follows the NRL rule - some teams i,e, Us, Canberra are following to the letter of the law while others are ignoring it. Teams like Canterbury and Brisbane are never going to end up with no one on the bench - the NRL needs to grow some balls on this issue and stand down players who were obviously concussed and didn't come off. They also need a neutral doctor at every game to assess on the field and follow up assessment in dressing room.

 

[sideline_eye]

I think the NRL hierarchy have lost the plot, totally. I assume the concussion rule was brought in to "protect" the players in the long term from brain damage, as a result of attacks to the head. If this is the case, they are attacking the problem from the wrong end in my opinion.
While some cases may come from "accidents" like Tedesco's last week, the majority come from attacks on the players head!
Tedesco received three head-high tackles in the game against Souths, but the NRL rated two as not worth citing the offender and the other was down-graded to a 1 week penalty. If the NRL take this low-level action to head-highs, then players will continue to treat head-high tackles as minor infractions. If the NRL take sterner action and it achieves a reduction in the incidence of head-high tackles, WOULDN'T THIS REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONCUSSION?

Absolutely!