What better time to change the rules

Absolutely.
stopping it at the next stoppage is fine, but not in the middle of play.
I dont know how a ref is supposed to decide whether someone needs a dr or not, and injuries are unfortunate but they certainly shouldnt stop play unless the injured person is in immediate danger.

Probably true. Would hate to see a Doctors' duty of care get compromised by a concern they'll cop a fine, but these days it's all a trade off. What's right, vs what's seen to be right.

And you can make the case precisely in the opposition direction. No winning here.

Ridiculous application of this new rule in QCup, Easts v Mackay today.

Carlin Anderson, returning a kick from his own line and copped a high shot in the tackle. Ball spilled out and play continued with him on the ground 5m away. Opposition player signals to the trainer to get out there. Play continues.

If a bloke is on the ground, ball close by and the opposition can identify hes in a world of hurt but the rule doesnt allow for play to stop, its a fucked rule.

i can see it being a rule that's good in theory, shit in practice, fair enough for limb injuries but i can tell it'll will take no time at all for play to continue around a possibly concussed player, which will be a disaster, i can endure a bit of gamesmanship to ensure that we're not endangering the livelihood of players, and if it's that much of a problem, just make a rule that players that cause injury stoppages must be interchanged.

ryno_ wrote:Ridiculous application of this new rule in QCup, Easts v Mackay today.

Carlin Anderson, returning a kick from his own line and copped a high shot in the tackle. Ball spilled out and play continued with him on the ground 5m away. Opposition player signals to the trainer to get out there. Play continues.

If a bloke is on the ground, ball close by and the opposition can identify hes in a world of hurt but the rule doesnt allow for play to stop, its a fucked rule.

if the ball is 5m away (and assuming play would continue to get further away) why should play stop?
The trainer gets out there to give treatment/assess, the play continues unless it becomes dangerous.

Play stops when its kicked out or there is a penalty or something.

Pieman wrote:

if the ball is 5m away (and assuming play would continue to get further away) why should play stop?
The trainer gets out there to give treatment/assess, the play continues unless it becomes dangerous.

Play stops when its kicked out or there is a penalty or something.

Because if you have blokes fighting over a loose ball while someone is lying on the ground, defenseless and concussed just next-door, that is already a dangerous situation. It's not like a bloke has gone down with cramp on the other side of the field, it was literally in the tackle where he got belted. How much closer does he need to be then "the last ball carrier" for his proximity to set an alarm off?

You are assuming that play would get further away. Why? Whats to stop play being directed back at the injured player? What's to stop a support player running a line directly through the injured player? And if play does direct back towards him, in the space it takes an elite athlete to cover 5m the ref is meant to blow the whistle and the players all slow down to a stop? And if the ball is only 5m away, how is a trainer meant to get to him in time from the sideline to assess the injury in time to tell the ref?

I swear, you wont be happy until some bloke who is unconscious gets kicked in the head by someone else on the field.

i'm personally a bit reluctant towards the rule too but i will says its another example of clubs/coaches pushing the game to something that we shouldn't have to get to but them getting the ref to stop play when it clearly wasn't necessary if it suited their team was getting a bit ridiculous and forced the NRL's hand somewhat.

but i think the NRL still need to side with the safety concerns more so then worrying about the flow of the game, just hopefully it atleast ends the trainers stopping the clock for non serious issues like cramps/corks etc

I'm fine with the rule, but 5m is barely a pass, 10m needs to be applied

ryno_ wrote:

Because if you have blokes fighting over a loose ball while someone is lying on the ground, defenseless and concussed just next-door, that is already a dangerous situation. It's not like a bloke has gone down with cramp on the other side of the field, it was literally in the tackle where he got belted. How much closer does he need to be then "the last ball carrier" for his proximity to set an alarm off?

You are assuming that play would get further away. Why? Whats to stop play being directed back at the injured player? What's to stop a support player running a line directly through the injured player? And if play does direct back towards him, in the space it takes an elite athlete to cover 5m the ref is meant to blow the whistle and the players all slow down to a stop? And if the ball is only 5m away, how is a trainer meant to get to him in time from the sideline to assess the injury in time to tell the ref?

I swear, you wont be happy until some bloke who is unconscious gets kicked in the head by someone else on the field.

Common sense says that players won't jump on an unconscious player fighting for the ball or trying to run it or tackle someone. The ref doesn't need to stop a game for that to happen. I am yet to see it happen. Have you seen it in a professional game of RL? I'll answer it for you, No you haven't.
I have seen play stopped unnecessarily a heap of times though, and seen it necessarily stopped.

I said assuming play keeps going away - why would they stop play? If play is going towards the player with the head injury then yes it should stop. If play is going away from the player, then no they shouldn't be stopping play until its an actual break in play.

And no, Ill be happy when they stop unnecessarily stopping play.
It would be horrible if someone is on the ground with a head injury and they are hurt by continuing play.

surmo13 wrote:i can see it being a rule that's good in theory, shit in practice, fair enough for limb injuries but i can tell it'll will take no time at all for play to continue around a possibly concussed player, which will be a disaster, i can endure a bit of gamesmanship to ensure that we're not endangering the livelihood of players, and if it's that much of a problem, just make a rule that players that cause injury stoppages must be interchanged.

This is what they should have done.

Krump wrote:
This is what they should have done.

Yeah I think something along these lines might work too - but it also stops the game for even longer which is what they are trying to avoid.
You would think that Player x with the 'cramp' might think twice if it meant he was going to be subbed tho, which might reduce the number of stoppage incidents. They tried to do this with head knocks "anyone who looks like they cop a head knock goes off", most of the time it happens, sometimes it doesnt.

Again, I dont think its that big of a deal - Ive never seen a concussed player get hurt by another player under the current rules and I dont think changing them to what they are now will have much of an effect.

You need to allow for a worst case scenario though I would have thought. Most of the go slow crap is in the last 5 minutes when teams don't have any interchanges left, they'd get up if they knew they had to go off and defend with 12 men.

https://www.facebook.com/nrlphysio/posts/1049896295212893

This was the one that Ryno mentioned. I think the new rule was implemented perfectly, there was no reason what so ever for play to stop immediately. The player wasn't in immediate further danger after the initial hit.

I don't think that you blokes are giving the players enough credit, they aren't going to e.g. dive on someone with a serious head injury.

Pieman wrote:https://www.facebook.com/nrlphysio/posts/1049896295212893

This was the one that Ryno mentioned. I think the new rule was implemented perfectly, there was no reason what so ever for play to stop immediately. The player wasn't in immediate further danger after the initial hit. 

I don't think that you blokes are giving the players enough credit, they aren't going to e.g. dive on someone with a serious head injury.

Not giving them enough credit? It could happen accidentally I suppose but if you look at some of the other shit they do to each other I wouldn’t even be shocked. I’d rather someone diving on me when I’m concussed than a crusher at any time.

Pieman wrote:https://www.facebook.com/nrlphysio/posts/1049896295212893

This was the one that Ryno mentioned. I think the new rule was implemented perfectly, there was no reason what so ever for play to stop immediately. The player wasn't in immediate further danger after the initial hit.

I don't think that you blokes are giving the players enough credit, they aren't going to e.g. dive on someone with a serious head injury.

That clip highlights the issue with waiting for a trainer's assessment before calling time. It should have been called as soon as there was a player down and the ball nearby. By the time the trainer had gotten there, it was too late. What if the loose ball had come back towards the injured player? What if an Easts player in support on the inside didnt see Carlin and ran over him?

Yeah, players would never do anything brain dead to put an opposition injured player in more danger. Just as Justin Poore and Steve Price.

some people need a bit of perspective, at the end of the day, rugby league is a game, can't believe some people are fine with endangering livelihoods so as not to be inconvenienced for a minute of their time

I'm not 100% sure of the new rule but does the ref use his discretion to make a call or does he have to wait for the trainer to make the call?

If it is up to the ref, then I have no problem with the rule (in fact I could even like it) and the example Ryno showed was more just a ref error in judgement.

On that note, I heard Graham Annesley talking on some radio station over the weekend and surprisingly.....I was actually pleasantly surprised.

No agenda's, no instructions, no crackdowns......just told the ref's to call what is front of them.
Stay out of the game, unless the players take the piss and then penalise them.

Wow. So simple but finally someone in charge is using their brains.

yes, the ref can still stop it at his discretion.

In that example, it was implemented perfectly. Good on the ref. If the ball goes back towards the player - its pretty fucking simple - they call the play up. In that clip - it wasn't too late at all, stopping the game wasn't needed so it didn't stop. The trainer got there as quick as he could while play continued well away from the injured player.

I don't know why you would mention Price/Poore, that has nothing to do with these situations. Play was already stopped. Literally nothing to do with any situations we are talking about.

Injuries are unfortunate, but they are part of the game. Again, I have NEVER seen players dive for a ball etc on top of an unconscious or concussed player. Ever. So why you guys are assuming that players will do it now all of a sudden is odd. Give the players more credit, they are more likely to stand next to someone who is fucked up and protect him (similarly to what happened in the vid) than jump on someone to get the ball.

Pieman wrote:yes, the ref can still stop it at his discretion.

In that example, it was implemented perfectly. Good on the ref. If the ball goes back towards the player - its pretty fucking simple - they call the play up. In that clip - it wasn't too late at all, stopping the game wasn't needed so it didn't stop. The trainer got there as quick as he could while play continued well away from the injured player.

If the ball goes back to the player, from that far away, by the time the ref puts the whistle near their mouth, its too late. The game is too fast and the injured player would already be in danger.

Pieman wrote:
I don't know why you would mention Price/Poore, that has nothing to do with these situations. Play was already stopped. Literally nothing to do with any situations we are talking about.

Injuries are unfortunate, but they are part of the game. Again, I have NEVER seen players dive for a ball etc on top of an unconscious or concussed player. Ever. So why you guys are assuming that players will do it now all of a sudden is odd. Give the players more credit, they are more likely to stand next to someone who is fucked up and protect him (similarly to what happened in the vid) than jump on someone to get the ball.

Nobody is trying to eliminate injuries or make the game less gladitorial. Just maybe when theres a bloke who doesnt know what day it is and a live ball 5m away, maybe the welfare of the injured player comes above some ridiculous right to play ball sports next to his body.

After the rape filled offseason (and frankly, last 5 years) we've had, the argument of "give footy players more credit, they aren't as dumb as you think" its a pretty wild hill to die on, but you do you.

Pieman wrote:yes, the ref can still stop it at his discretion.

In that example, it was implemented perfectly. Good on the ref. If the ball goes back towards the player - its pretty fucking simple - they call the play up. In that clip - it wasn't too late at all, stopping the game wasn't needed so it didn't stop. The trainer got there as quick as he could while play continued well away from the injured player.

I don't know why you would mention Price/Poore, that has nothing to do with these situations. Play was already stopped. Literally nothing to do with any situations we are talking about.

Injuries are unfortunate, but they are part of the game. Again, I have NEVER seen players dive for a ball etc on top of an unconscious or concussed player. Ever. So why you guys are assuming that players will do it now all of a sudden is odd. Give the players more credit, they are more likely to stand next to someone who is fucked up and protect him (similarly to what happened in the vid) than jump on someone to get the ball.

Firstly, I fully appreciate that based on your limited Rugby League knowledge, you wouldn't have watched many actual games of footy....but surely you have seen players come into contact with an injured/unconscious player??

Anyway, as I said and based on the ref having the opportunity to apply common sense rather than adopting a black and white formula, I actually don't mind the rule.

I probably would have called the play in that QCup example when it spilled backwards and it was clear he'd been knocked out; but fair enough the ref may not have seen it as clearly and all's well that ends well - noting this isn't a completely risk free aspect of the game, nor can it be made to be (nor the entire game for that matter).

The true test for the NRL will be when the inevitable poor judgement call be a ref happens and the temptation arises to try and fix it with a black and white formula for the refs to unrealistically follow.