The crackdown & milking penalties

[Tragic Eagle]

The NRL are so dumb. They speed the game up with the sudden change to the rules introducing repeat sets without doing their due diligence thus exposing the players to greater fatigue and it appears more injuries. Then in response instead of admitting they got it wrong they stuff it further by causing an interpretation of rules that sees multiple players in the sin bin and the contest destroyed. Then we have to put up with likes of Kent & Hooper tough talking trying to fly the NRL's Flag. Dumb & Dumber. So the mind set was lets make it more entertaining and then oops we better protect the players.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I love it all ... the drama, the controversy, the suspense and intrigue ... the game has never been more interesting and compelling viewing ...

The dummy spitting, the sooks, the coaches working the angles, the RLPA crying for relevancy ... Lord V'Landy's standing firm in the face of the numbnuts ...

And the refs and bunker again proving no good ideas should go unpunished by incompetence ....

What more do you want from a game ..

Um, football !!!

 

[The Who]

The media doesn't seem to be concerned about 'Crusher' tackles and the milking of penalties.
To me this is the most aberrant part of the sport.
When you hit someone in the head it is pretty obvious. But when a player backs into another then holds his neck it's the opposite. How can the ref/officials tell if there was any force applied, if it did any damage, if it was deliberate or not, if the player is milking?
They can't, yet it is always a penalty, and sometimes a sin-bin.
We are told by 'experts' that high tackles cause brain injury. So where are the studies showing the long-term effects of the so-called 'Crushers'?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

and if they are not purposefully attacking the head than why put them on the sidelines?

It's called 'reckless'.
Not intentional, but you do it knowing it might cause that result anyway.
First cousin of reckless is careless.
In either case you are not fulfilling your duty of care as a defender to avoid forceful contact with head neck area.
Obviously if it looks intentional you'll be punished more severely!
But the reckless and careless ones are what the NRL is trying to rid the game of right now, I can't fault that as a goal.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Wonder how many milked penalties we’ll see tonight ( not that I’m watching it ).

 

[ManEagle]

Wonder how many milked penalties we’ll see tonight ( not that I’m watching it ).

Then you won't see any...

Answered your own question.

 

[davohan123]

Compared to our game last week tonight is fair in no milking of any real penalties

 

[The '47ers]

Robati sinbin was crap though, and decided the game

 

[eagleron]

"Direct, forceful contact with the head or neck should result in at least a penalty and potentially a sin bin or potentially a send-off depending on the seriousness. That goes without saying, I think that's obvious," Annesley said,

"Indirect, forceful contact with the head or neck should at least result in a penalty, a report and a sin bin. And direct or indirect minimal contact should at least be penalised and placed on report.


Clear as.

Ffs

 

[The Who]

Robati sinbin was crap though, and decided the game

Yeah, I tended to agree when I first saw it but the Illawarra guy did leave the field and failed his HIA.
Mind you, I don't reckon many NRL players would have passed their HSC!

 

[frank stokes]

It's called 'reckless'.
Not intentional, but you do it knowing it might cause that result anyway.
First cousin of reckless is careless.
In either case you are not fulfilling your duty of care as a defender to avoid forceful contact with head neck area.
Obviously if it looks intentional you'll be punished more severely!
But the reckless and careless ones are what the NRL is trying to rid the game of right now, I can't fault that as a goal.

Yeah but careless and accidental are bedfellows SER8...

the kid from the Broncos that got binned last night as an example - He came in with another defender either side of him and essentially got 'squeezed' into a tackling position that was too upright and resulted in contact with the head... now that position is determined in the last second of the tackle but the tackle is deemed reckless and the donkeys give up points because of it...

then we see 2 tackles in the next 15 min where the defenders arm is swung OVER the shoulder of the attacker and contacts the chin - this is deemed as not careless, not reckless but accidental and a simple penalty is awarded... we all know that these different outcomes were not determined by some detailed assessment of the English language, they were assessed by 'force'...

now you may say that is good because we don't want guys getting hit hard in the head but if that is what we are trying to get rid of then why does Alvaro nearly get KO'd and the attacker stays on the field? Anytime a forward is hitting it up there is going to be more force because the attacker is running straight at the defensive line - maybe we should ban that so that blokes don't get hurt? Don't laugh, PVL may get a suggestion from a soccer mum that recommends it...

PVL and his lil sidekick may have 'good intentions' but the road to hell is paved with those and currently the game is hurtling down the highway imo...

 

[The Who]

I'm seeing more players injured from knocking heads with fellow tacklers because there are more gang tackles and fewer one-on-one tackles. Trying to wrap up the ball is forcing tacklers to be upright at the collision. You can't wrap up the ball when you are diving around the legs.
I don't know what the solution is but I do know that the sport was more interesting to watch when players tackled low.

 

[jbb/james]

Its probably time the NRL released a blueprint for what tackles they want in the game. Once there out there the game can provide feedback on what the refs need to do to ensure the reward is there for them to be coached into this style. Currently they are not taking any responsability even though the refs have essentially created this mess by pandering to the press and takinf soft options.The game needs to be in this together and currently they seem hell bent on creating and us v them with a force that has spent there whole lives galvinising against seige mentality . The clubs

Tackling technique is one thing but defensive structures are something else. Getting the man to the ground is secondry to buying time to set the defence for the next play the ball. That is now the game that rule changes and refs interpretaions have created.

Its not just a case of lowering contact . Its completely unprofessional that everyone in the game knows this except the admin, even though they have spent the last 18 months tinkering with these exact interpretations of the rule

There has to be a contest between defence and attack that is longer than 5 minutes.

We only just got rid of the ref evening up the penalties in the second half. Now that blow outs are accepted by the boss as a good thing, they dont bother with that anymore.

 

[frank stokes]

I'm seeing more players injured from knocking heads with fellow tacklers because there are more gang tackles and fewer one-on-one tackles. Trying to wrap up the ball is forcing tacklers to be upright at the collision. You can't wrap up the ball when you are diving around the legs.
I don't know what the solution is but I do know that the sport was more interesting to watch when players tackled low.

there needs to be some sort of reward for a low tackle.... at the moment there is none as:

a. the attacker more-than-likely offloads, and
b. the tackler has to release straight away and another player cannot come in to control the tackled player (flop), and
c. the defender cannot possibly get back to marker quicker than the attacker can play the ball

maybe one-on-one tackles below the waist can be rewarded by forcing the tackled player to wait until the defender has risen to his feet and both markers are in place?? this would allow teams to slow the attack by completing an effective one-on-one legs tackle and therefore make it an attractive play to attempt (at least in certain situations)

 

[manlyfan76]

Players backing into the defenders should not be protected from head highs or crushers, strips or any of the current protections.

 

[davohan123]

Players backing into the defenders should not be protected from head highs or crushers, strips or any of the current protections.

Tonight tigers milked a few penalties..one very small love tap and got a penalty for it.

 

[eagleron]

Tonight tigers milked a few penalties..one very small love tap and got a penalty for it.

That's one aspect of this clampdown that makes my blood boil, players feigning injury until the whistle is blown and then jumping to their feet high fiving their team mates, wtf is wrong with the officials when they see this crap repeatedly and continue to blow up play over trivialities, it's absolute bs

 

[47MVEagle]

Yep, Daine Laurie lying face down motionless until the ref blew a penalty then jumping to his feet with a sh*t-eating grin on his face.

The Fox panel were discussing it & James Graham asked if players such as Laurie tonight should have to leave the field for HIA to stop the acting.

 

[Waz13]

Yep, Daine Laurie lying face down motionless until the ref blew a penalty then jumping to his feet with a sh*t-eating grin on his face.

The Fox panel were discussing it & James Graham asked if players such as Laurie tonight should have to leave the field for HIA to stop the acting.

Dead bloody right Tgey should. You stay down ur off for 15 with a hia