Newton-2 Match Ban

[MrsLam]

All high tackles pose a threat, but that's what I was saying, maybe we were very lucky not to end up with a player injured due to their tackling that night. Ok, so Wilkin went off but once he left the field we were told all he had was possible concussion, nothing was mentioned about his legs until a lot later.

I know you were using 10 as an example, I still think though that introducing a points system leaves the players with a choice of whether they tackle high or not, each player knows they have a certain amount of chances, can you imagine the first few months of the season? There'd be swinging arms everywhere. If the referees just sorted out discipline on a, verbal warning, yellow card, red card system then there might be less foul play. At the moment there's a lot of verbal warnings during any one match and the refs seem scared of bringing out the card. They've got to show who's in charge ona regular basis.

[robjoenz]

All high tackles should be punished one way or another but I think, for example, an elbow to the chin should come with a greater punishment than a passing slap in the face.

Perhaps referees should hand out more yellow and red cards but if they were wrong in giving a card it could cost one team the game so it's swings and roundabouts really.

Another problem is that referees don't always see what has happened, like Newton's high shot, it went unnoticed for two minutes. For these instances we need some sort of post match analysis.

A points system would give the more sly player a limit that they should not exceed. If I use my example again and Fozzard; he would be serving a suspension every other game so his style of play (/Millward's tactics) would certainly need to change thus safeguarding opposition players health.

[MrsLam]

For these instances we need some sort of post match analysis.

Well exactly, the RFl have the power to watch these video replays again and note down any play that they don't like, they should then contact the club and give them some sort of warning and then next time they see it happening it should be dealt with accordingly. Does at least one member of the RFl attend each match? (other than the refs lol)

The thing is, referees can't be wrong if they follow the procedure they are given. If they notice a player lying on and give him a verbal warning once, and then they see it again then the yellow card should come out. That way there's no messing around and players know where they stand. It seems a bit tedious and probably would be for a while but once the players get used to it and know that they are not in charge of the game and have to follow someone elses rules strictly, then we can get on with playing an exciting quick game of rugby league.

[ian.birchall]

Robjoenz/MrsLam, a lot of deep thinking going on here. Perhaps once again the Aussies are in front of us. When watching Sky you often hear talk of a grade 1 offence or a grade 4 offence etc with different punishments and as we saw with Morley last time copping a guilty plea gets you a reduced sentence that starts immediately. Does anybody know what the various grades of offence are in Oz or know where we can look it up?? :eh:

[GeoffN]

robjoenz posted:
You have to look at each tackle on it's own merits (if you can use a positive term in a negative way?!). I think although Saints commited a lot more fouls than us Newton's was probably the worst of the lot. When a high shot knocks a player out it is something serious and a ban acts as a deterent. Can you think of an instance that posed more threat to any player's health on the pitch that night?

As I said using 10 points was just an example but atleast it would be some sort of deterent because as we've both mentioned a lot of small Saint's infringements added up, especially Fozzards goading of Farrell.

Rob, I like the idea of cumulative points (I think they use something similar in soccer?).
Disciplinary actions are not SUPPOSED to take into account the effect on the victim, though, because different players will react in different ways to the same attack. (Not sure this is adhered to in real life though). I think it's a good rule, when applied fairly, because it reduces the amount of "playing dead" we see in other sports, particularly football.

[MrsLam]

Ian I found a page on what the aussies do for punishments, the first link explains all the gradings and the second link is an example of how it works.

http://www.nrl.com.au/about/judiciary.cfm

http://www.nrl.com.au/about/judiciary_pop.html

[ian.birchall]

MrsLam, a very prompt service. Ta.

[MrsLam]

Happy to help

..although I don't work for asda.

[GeoffN]

MrsLam posted:
Ian I found a page on what the aussies do for punishments, the first link explains all the gradings and the second link is an example of how it works.

http://www.nrl.com.au/about/judiciary.cfm

http://www.nrl.com.au/about/judiciary_pop.html

Good system - pity it's too complicated for the RFL to apply.
I would still prefer more offences to be punished during the game though - that way the team affected (by the offence) has the chance to benefit. Can't produce figures to back it up, but my feeling is that there are far less sendings off since the "on report" system was introduced. There would still be the option for further punishment, if deemed appropriate.

[silver surfer]

It's funny you should say you don't work for Asda Mrs. Lam. On the oriental take away counter they sell a product called "Mrs. Lam's barbeque ribs" Perhaps a little culinary side line you have got going to supplement your going away to Uni funds?