medlocke wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:34 am
Make it so an HIA means the end of the game for the player, maybe that will stop some of the St Helens and a few other players cheating
The problem with doing that Meds is, players will be more likely to not stay down (job done you may say), however this will then leave the game open for players to say they were discouraged by the rules/coaches to stay down if they received a bang to the head and really should have had an assessment done, the rules are there to protect players (and the game) from any future back lash.
I would just get rid of the reviews by the VR, if the referee/TJ did not see anything to warrant a review then leave it at that, it then gets reviewed by the MRP and they see if there should be any further actions taken, there will be cries that the next team will benefit etc. but if the referee during the game didn't think it was that bad and therefore not reviewed then it couldn't have been that bad in the first place.
medlocke wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:34 am
Make it so an HIA means the end of the game for the player, maybe that will stop some of the St Helens and a few other players cheating
The problem with doing that Meds is, players will be more likely to not stay down (job done you may say), however this will then leave the game open for players to say they were discouraged by the rules/coaches to stay down if they received a bang to the head and really should have had an assessment done, the rules are there to protect players (and the game) from any future back lash.
I would just get rid of the reviews by the VR, if the referee/TJ did not see anything to warrant a review then leave it at that, it then gets reviewed by the MRP and they see if there should be any further actions taken, there will be cries that the next team will benefit etc. but if the referee during the game didn't think it was that bad and therefore not reviewed then it couldn't have been that bad in the first place.
Spot on.
The video referee shouldn’t be there to re referee or referee the game. They are there to support the referee when needed.
If the referees and touch judges miss something, it clearly wasn’t obvious and is just one of them things, so leave it up to the MRP after the game.
Simple.
The issue you have though is the movement towards player safety and head injuries. An argument could be made to say if you have a video ref then you should use them. If a player has done something that warrants a sin bin or red card then it doesn’t matter who picks it up…
Football has gone through a similar thing we’re there was too much reliance on video referees and they’ve tried to reduce the number of times they get involved to keep the game flowing and put the power in the referees hands.
medlocke wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:34 am
Make it so an HIA means the end of the game for the player, maybe that will stop some of the St Helens and a few other players cheating
The problem with doing that Meds is, players will be more likely to not stay down (job done you may say), however this will then leave the game open for players to say they were discouraged by the rules/coaches to stay down if they received a bang to the head and really should have had an assessment done, the rules are there to protect players (and the game) from any future back lash.
I would just get rid of the reviews by the VR, if the referee/TJ did not see anything to warrant a review then leave it at that, it then gets reviewed by the MRP and they see if there should be any further actions taken, there will be cries that the next team will benefit etc. but if the referee during the game didn't think it was that bad and therefore not reviewed then it couldn't have been that bad in the first place.
The video referee shouldn’t be there to re referee or referee the game. They are there to support the referee when needed.
So why have them in the first place? Only to judge on trys and nothing else?
How will "captain's challenge" work without the video referee reviewing the on-field decision? Or are you saying they can review knock ons but not foul play that has been missed?
This has the potential to further bring the credibility of the game into question from those watching from outside the sport, that an incident of foul play can be ignored and not ruled on during a game, but you can question and review if a player was offside!
Mike wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 5:36 pm
Don't use green cards - just make it mandatory that if a player stays down because of head contact and receives medical assitance from the physios - then they have to go off for a HIA.
So are you allowing a free interchange with that? Otherwise the team that has been subject to foul play will be penalised the same as the offending team!
And if you grant a free interchange, it won't stop players staying down. It's currently a "no win" situation.
Make sin bins 20 minutes and then you can have HIA
Yes, HIAs are free substitutions unless you don't come back on already as I understand it. That's to encourage teams to use them.
No team gets "free" substitutions unless a team loses 3 players to HIA then the 18th man comes into play
As I stated
team that has been subject to foul play will be penalised the same as the offending team!
How is mandatorily sending players off for a HIA going to be "fair" for the non-offending team when both teams would be down to 12 even if you want to argue it is only for a few minutes?
If all HIA's are going to see players be mandatorily taken off, then the sin bin time should be increased pro-rata - do you agree?
Mike wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 10:15 pm
Surely you mean its currently a "no lose" situation?
That depends on how you are looking at the rules. From a fans perspective or the governing bodies
So are you allowing a free interchange with that? Otherwise the team that has been subject to foul play will be penalised the same as the offending team!
And if you grant a free interchange, it won't stop players staying down. It's currently a "no win" situation.
Make sin bins 20 minutes and then you can have HIA
Yes, HIAs are free substitutions unless you don't come back on already as I understand it. That's to encourage teams to use them.
No team gets "free" substitutions unless a team loses 3 players to HIA then the 18th man comes into play
As I stated
team that has been subject to foul play will be penalised the same as the offending team!
How is mandatorily sending players off for a HIA going to be "fair" for the non-offending team when both teams would be down to 12 even if you want to argue it is only for a few minutes?
If all HIA's are going to see players be mandatorily taken off, then the sin bin time should be increased pro-rata - do you agree?
Mike wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2024 10:15 pm
Surely you mean its currently a "no lose" situation?
That depends on how you are looking at the rules. From a fans perspective or the governing bodies
I thought you could replace the player whilst they were off for a HIA and it only counts as a sub if they don't come back. I don't recall players going off for HIA resulting in the team being down to 12. Maybe they are and I missed it. Or maybe they used their subs every time?
The 18th player only comes in if players fail their HIA and can't return not if they go for one.
That was my understanding anyway. If a HIA costs you 2 of your 12 subs (1 to replace the player and 1 more to bring them back in) then that should be changed straight away - it's crazy. Talk about motivation to keep a dazed player on the field. I'm sure that would be the basis of future law suits about protecting players.
Id say thats the rule that should be changed this season straight away!
Oh I just saw you quoted an article about a green card, not a HIA. The green card is for the scenario where the red thinks the player has basically faked an injury to delay the game. This is explicitly a sanction not a player safety measure. I'm sure HIA does not require subs to be used or teams to be down to 12 men. But a green card does.
The problem with doing that Meds is, players will be more likely to not stay down (job done you may say), however this will then leave the game open for players to say they were discouraged by the rules/coaches to stay down if they received a bang to the head and really should have had an assessment done, the rules are there to protect players (and the game) from any future back lash.
I would just get rid of the reviews by the VR, if the referee/TJ did not see anything to warrant a review then leave it at that, it then gets reviewed by the MRP and they see if there should be any further actions taken, there will be cries that the next team will benefit etc. but if the referee during the game didn't think it was that bad and therefore not reviewed then it couldn't have been that bad in the first place.
The video referee shouldn’t be there to re referee or referee the game. They are there to support the referee when needed.
So why have them in the first place? Only to judge on trys and nothing else?
How will "captain's challenge" work without the video referee reviewing the on-field decision? Or are you saying they can review knock ons but not foul play that has been missed?
This has the potential to further bring the credibility of the game into question from those watching from outside the sport, that an incident of foul play can be ignored and not ruled on during a game, but you can question and review if a player was offside!
The more times the video referee is used the more the game gets slowed down.
It’s a balancing act they need to get right.
At the minute it feels like the video ref is too involved and relied on. The rules, apparently, are changed based on player safety and entertainment but seem to be at odds with each other.
If you actually read my whole post I did mention the point about ignoring foul play.
