Exclusive: Super League players across several clubs have held tentative talks about the possibility of launching strike action.
Super League players are discussing the possibility of strike action following a controversial start to the season. Rugby League Live can reveal players across a number of clubs have held initial conversations to gauge an appetite for such a movement, with players disillusioned by developments relating to the new tackle laws and subsequent punishments.
Several players have contacted Rugby League Live confirming such conversations are taking place, and while those discussions are currently speculative, there is an appetite among players to explore interest in strike action.
It comes after just one game week under which the new head contact laws have come into effect. Thirteen cards, of which four were red, were issued during the six Super League games. However, the main issue among players Rugby League Live has spoken to is the subsequent disciplinary action that has been issued by the Match Review Panel. Nine players have been suspended while another three are heading to a tribunal. All three players can expect a minimum four-match ban if found guilty.
It's an area of annoyance felt by coaches too. Sources have claimed that in a recent meeting with Super League coaches, they were reassured that the anticipated increase in cards issued during games would not result in a hike in either the quantity or severity of suspensions imposed. But after seeing the charges issued after round one, many believe their initial fears have been realised.
One Super League player, who didn't wish to be named, told us: "Yesterday's disciplinary was the straw that broke the camel's back. Players are fed up with people at the RFL saying we have been consulted on things. We haven't, we've been told. A few players have spoken out publicly already and there have been conversations going on last night and this morning."
It comes a day after Alex Walmsley, the St Helens and England international, published an article expressing his concerns about the new tackle laws and lack of a strong player's union. This was followed up by a post from Luke Yates, the Huddersfield Giants forward, who asked for clarification on the disciplinary process after Harry Smith avoided a suspension for a tip tackle, as well as his team-mate Adam Keighran. However, Yates received a three-match ban.
Should players decide to push forward with strike action, they would likely need to go through the GMB Union and it would not happen immediately.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... e-28667136
Super League players discuss strike action as disciplinary outrage over head contacts continues
-
josie andrews
- Posts: 35788
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
- Location: Wigan
- Contact:
Super League players discuss strike action as disciplinary outrage over head contacts continues
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
-
josie andrews
- Posts: 35788
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:17 pm
- Location: Wigan
- Contact:
Re: Super League players discuss strike action as disciplinary outrage over head contacts continues
Hull FC coach Tony Smith delivers passionate plea on severe Match Review Panel 'punishments'
The opening round saw 13 cards, 16 charges, and 3 tribunals.
Hull FC head coach Tony Smith believes Super League's players were punished too severely by the Match Review Panel this week and has delivered a passionate response after the competition's controversial opening round. In total, 13 cards were handed out across six fixtures, nine yellow and four red, with 16 charges received upon review.
Of those charges, nine resulted in bans, with three more going to tribunals. Smith, meanwhile, saw three of his Hull FC players banned, but he is focused on the game-wide issue and has shared his concern with the severity of the punishments handed out across the board, with players challenged to alter tackle techniques that have been used for around 20 years in one off-season.
Declaring that all coaches and clubs are behind making the game safer, Smith is calling for some perspective on the whole as Super League cracks down on head-high contacts with both cards and severe suspensions. He believes the current volume would see clubs field reserve-grade teams in no time at all, and he has listed better ways to get the message across. Speaking at Hull FC's pre-match press conference, the concern was there to see.
"We're changing within our sport," Smith said. "Everybody understands that we need to change our tackling methods and styles, and our sport demands that, and our insurers demand that. Things have to change to make our game safer. I think we're all in agreement there. It's just the best way of doing that in a reasonable manner and causing as little disruption as possible to a sport that we love and are proud of. We need to keep it that way. We understand that we're not going to get it all right straight away and there's an acceptance of that.
"I think there's a nervousness within our sport about how quickly we can do that through cards and suspensions. Sin-bins and send-offs can change the outcomes of games, particularly in rugby league. They shouldn't be underestimated, so to then add a number of matches on top of that, we're worried. We're worried that we're going to have reserve-grade teams play each other, which means our superstars are all sitting in the stands serving suspensions.
"We're doing our best to try and alter some of the methods, but how severely do we want to treat our players? We need to look at how we're going with it. We're talking—and to put some of this in perspective—about changing our techniques, but some of these young men have been tackling the same way all their career. To then ask them to change quickly and then to get it to happen so quickly is tough, and we're nervous
We understand the changes; it's the severity of them. I think the phrase used is not to go from 0-100 too quickly. We need to get the right ways and methods in place without losing half our competition and our star players and changing the outcome of seasons for teams and clubs. It shouldn't come to that, and we don't need to come to that. I think we need some big, grown-up discussions and some debates about the severity of the punishments. That's the big concern.
I don't think too many people would argue about the use of punishments at the right levels. That's what it's more about—not whether something should be punished or not, just the reasonable amount of punishment. They'll tell you about the statistics showing the biggest change in behaviour is suspension, and I'm not sure about that. I think the biggest change is the influence of coaches on their players and the outcomes of games. That's how you change behaviour.
"Some scientists will have done some obscure piece of work to say you've got to suspend players, but we want our players on the field for eighty minutes—we know that during an eighty-minute period, you can concede two or three tries and the outcomes of games can go, bang, done. You get send-offs, and this isn't in response to what happened to us the other day—our first was self-inflicted, and that's enough to change a game—just one, and we'd already had a sin bin for a high tackle; that was nearly enough, and then to get a third one, but it isn't about that.
"It's about how we're going to take our game forward while having our best players on the park while we buy into reducing the number of head injuries to players. This is what it's all about—protecting them—and we're all on it. We're all in agreement, except for how severe we're going to go with all of this too soon. It's about being reasonable about it. Hopefully, we'll get to a point where we're being just that
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... th-9112231
The opening round saw 13 cards, 16 charges, and 3 tribunals.
Hull FC head coach Tony Smith believes Super League's players were punished too severely by the Match Review Panel this week and has delivered a passionate response after the competition's controversial opening round. In total, 13 cards were handed out across six fixtures, nine yellow and four red, with 16 charges received upon review.
Of those charges, nine resulted in bans, with three more going to tribunals. Smith, meanwhile, saw three of his Hull FC players banned, but he is focused on the game-wide issue and has shared his concern with the severity of the punishments handed out across the board, with players challenged to alter tackle techniques that have been used for around 20 years in one off-season.
Declaring that all coaches and clubs are behind making the game safer, Smith is calling for some perspective on the whole as Super League cracks down on head-high contacts with both cards and severe suspensions. He believes the current volume would see clubs field reserve-grade teams in no time at all, and he has listed better ways to get the message across. Speaking at Hull FC's pre-match press conference, the concern was there to see.
"We're changing within our sport," Smith said. "Everybody understands that we need to change our tackling methods and styles, and our sport demands that, and our insurers demand that. Things have to change to make our game safer. I think we're all in agreement there. It's just the best way of doing that in a reasonable manner and causing as little disruption as possible to a sport that we love and are proud of. We need to keep it that way. We understand that we're not going to get it all right straight away and there's an acceptance of that.
"I think there's a nervousness within our sport about how quickly we can do that through cards and suspensions. Sin-bins and send-offs can change the outcomes of games, particularly in rugby league. They shouldn't be underestimated, so to then add a number of matches on top of that, we're worried. We're worried that we're going to have reserve-grade teams play each other, which means our superstars are all sitting in the stands serving suspensions.
"We're doing our best to try and alter some of the methods, but how severely do we want to treat our players? We need to look at how we're going with it. We're talking—and to put some of this in perspective—about changing our techniques, but some of these young men have been tackling the same way all their career. To then ask them to change quickly and then to get it to happen so quickly is tough, and we're nervous
We understand the changes; it's the severity of them. I think the phrase used is not to go from 0-100 too quickly. We need to get the right ways and methods in place without losing half our competition and our star players and changing the outcome of seasons for teams and clubs. It shouldn't come to that, and we don't need to come to that. I think we need some big, grown-up discussions and some debates about the severity of the punishments. That's the big concern.
I don't think too many people would argue about the use of punishments at the right levels. That's what it's more about—not whether something should be punished or not, just the reasonable amount of punishment. They'll tell you about the statistics showing the biggest change in behaviour is suspension, and I'm not sure about that. I think the biggest change is the influence of coaches on their players and the outcomes of games. That's how you change behaviour.
"Some scientists will have done some obscure piece of work to say you've got to suspend players, but we want our players on the field for eighty minutes—we know that during an eighty-minute period, you can concede two or three tries and the outcomes of games can go, bang, done. You get send-offs, and this isn't in response to what happened to us the other day—our first was self-inflicted, and that's enough to change a game—just one, and we'd already had a sin bin for a high tackle; that was nearly enough, and then to get a third one, but it isn't about that.
"It's about how we're going to take our game forward while having our best players on the park while we buy into reducing the number of head injuries to players. This is what it's all about—protecting them—and we're all on it. We're all in agreement, except for how severe we're going to go with all of this too soon. It's about being reasonable about it. Hopefully, we'll get to a point where we're being just that
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... th-9112231
Anyone can support a team when it is winning, that takes no courage.
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
But to stand behind a team, to defend a team when it is down and really needs you,
that takes a lot of courage. #18thMan
-
the pieman
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 5:34 pm
Re: Super League players discuss strike action as disciplinary outrage over head contacts continues
Unfortunately, out of all Tony Smith said, this is the only relevant piece and we are dictated to by them
i've posted previously that i had an argument at work with an assessor, but lost badly. It was his (insuring companies way) or the highway. Change how we worked or they wouldnt insure us, and there was no movement in it
so in all likelihood (and given the former players also suing) the insurers of professional RL have probably said, remove all hits / contact / impact on the head or we wont insure you (they've probably already increased premiums by 100% at this point), so the game has no option to make the changes we are seeing
RU is in a similar boat, and accidental head clashes being sent off
How we keep our players on the pitch for 80 minutes week in week out is going to be a challenge