As funny as it is because it Leeds, its a ridiculous decision.
The disciplinary review process is not fit for purpose and is too worried about possible lawsuits than actually doing what is right for the game. It's a contact sport and the game is very fast. Contact to the head will occur, that doesn't mean every tackle is a bannable offence. The clubs and the RFL really need to sort this out in the off season. I'm dreading us possibly getting to the final and a few of our players being banned for it. It would be a nightmare. Why as fans should you have to worry about this? Apply some common sense!
Originally Posted by Despondent Dave
Joke. It was a penalty for a high tackle nothing more. No swinging arm, closed fist or intent. The disciplinary panel isn’t fit for purpose. You know it’s getting ridiculous when opposition fans are up in arms about a Leeds player getting banned.
Forwards win games. The backs decide by how much.
Man alive, I have just seen the 'incident' on Facebook. I'm actually speechless. I know the disciplinary side of the game has been an absolute joke this season, but that is an absolutely horrendous decision! They really need to sort it out because it is fast becoming a farce.
The problem this season, players are being banned for accidental contact. With the speed and nature of the game, accidental contact with the head will occur. That doesn’t mean it warrants a ban.
This policy needs a rethink during the off season because it’s gone beyond a joke.
I won’t be alone in becoming disillusioned at paying good money and not seeing the best players because they’re banned because of an overzealous disciplinary panel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Rimmer, who is resigning later this year, is wondering why he receives so much abuse!
These decisions are here to stay, none of us like it but the RFL had to do this. The legal action taken by ex players is why this is happening, I'm not judging the merits of that case, but it was always going to generate a reaction from the RFL
Sent from my SM-F711B using Tapatalk
Wish I could say i'm shocked.
But im not.
This one has probably wound me up more than any of the ridiculous bans Saints have received this season. There's always those simpy, sycophantic fans who quote 'direct contact to the head' over and over like it's a mantra they've had chanted at them for several years in a brain washing camp in the Middle East.
The reasoning that they have to hand out these stupid, ludicrous bans because of the insurance issues are just as annoying. Brain injury in RL largely comes from reptition, from reinjuring the brain before it's had time to heal. Banning Martin for two games because he completely accidentally lightly touches a players head doesn't do that, it doesn't come close.
You reduce the risk of brain injury in rugby league by three things:
1 - Reducing the number of games. No player should be playing more than 25 games a season in total.
2 - Increase the length of the mandatory bans following head knocks. When a serious head impact is seen, the player needs to be scanned prior to playing again, or a 14 day rest.
3 - By removing the 6 again rule. The rule is one of the main causes of bans in the modern game. It massively increases fatigue, which leads to poor technique.
Banning players for next to nothing as we've seen all season will do nothing. Incidental collisions and impacts will still happen in a contact sport, even if you said players couldn't tackle above the knees, you'd still see broken noses and head clashes. You see head clashes all the time in tag rugby. Banning players for accidental contact will do absolutely nothing.
The RL need to clarify the changes they've made to make the sport safer. I, like a lot on here, grew up watching RL 30 years ago. You'd seen players like Kevin Ward, James Graham and Kelvin Skerett get knocked clean out. The crowd would roar when they got to their feet, roar even louder when they shoved the physio away and ran back into the line. We'd go mad with excitement when they took the next run in or made the next tackle. We'd shout 'wheyyyyy' when an opposition player did the same and ended up walking like a drunk. Players of that era, even up to 10 years ago, would be encouraged to 'shake it off', they'd get smelling salts and be slapped on the back when they got on with it. Players would have obvious concussion symptoms and play the next game and be applauded for it by the coaching staff. That is why there is now unfortunately brain injuries surfacing in former players.
The emphasis for preventing it should be on the things I've mentioned. Fewer games, less fatigued players and even more stringent checks off the field.
There are two things here. The first is all the issues outlined by Saddened - great post. The second it that there is an appeals process as set out in the RL rules. Just because a player and club take advantage of that process and fail, it shouldn't be deemed as frivolous and warranting an extra game ban. Appeals should simply be heard and the original ban stands or is reduced but not increased.
So I don’t have an issue with the “frivolous” bit. Basically every court in the land has a process to put off unnecessary and inflammatory suits, normally it’s covering the cost of legal fees for the defendant, but the judge has plenty of tools at their disposal for anything they deem frivolous. The one exception being of course America but slap suits are a massive problem as a consequence… but that’s what you get in a dystopian hellscape I suppose.
Leeds still had a responsibility to go in and present a compelling case about what was wrong with the original charge. Presenting video of similar examples that weren’t punished, demonstrating that no amount of carefulness could have avoided contact etc. What appears to have happened is Leeds have gone in and just said “we don’t like that this is a ban” - which is frivolous. It was the same with Newman - just saying you don’t like it doesn’t constitute a defence.
The thing that makes it frustrating is everything out of Saddeneds post. It should have been a slam dunk for Leeds with any amount of due process. It was never ban worthy, but Leeds had to prove it
Only just seen the incident. The disciplinary really is just a lottery.
I think some appeals deserve getting extra but this was never a ban in the first place. Just a question, are clubs now allowed to use video evidence in appeals. IIRC clubs were not alllowed to cite earlier cases to the disciplinary before sentencing or during an appeal.
An excellent post. You have, however, missed one important aspect in the reduction of brain trauma, namely the action that the RFL can take to minimise the occurrence of head knocks, accidental or otherwise. In any law suit claiming that the RFL failed to show due diligence, it will serve little purpose to demonstrate what actions the authorities took post-incident if nothing has been done in an to attempt to reduce those incidents in the first place. By penalising players, both on and subsequently off the field, where direct contact has been made to the head, the RFL will be deemed to have taken action that necessitates players to alter their techniques so that head contact is significantly reduced. Rugby union has followed a similar course, albeit in a more draconian fashion, with an initial, significant rise in red cards and bans. In the main, players have adapted and are now keeping the tackles well below chest height.
In the incident involving Martin, it may well have been unintentional but contact was clearly to Mellor’s head and caused a nose bleed. In my view, it was obviously a penalty; I also think that type of contact needs to be deferred to the Disciplinary Committee if the RFL seriously wishes to eradicate/minimise such contact and make players alter their approach. Where I think it wrong for accidental contact through bad technique, however, is that I believe a fine rather than ban should be imposed. As far as the appeal is concerned, under the current grading system and in the absence of any new evidence to suggest the MRP got it wrong, the appeal can only be considered frivolous.
But that is where the statement falls down for me. How can banning a player for an accidental head knock reduce the occurrence of head knocks? It just means a different player plays instead of Rhyse Martin, and a lower standard player who reduces the quality of the game. Martin will concentrate on not getting banned, but I'm sure almost all players do that anyway. "I promise boss, I'm not going to accidentally touch someone intentionally".
I'm all for common sense and more significant bans when players genuinely do something reckless or dangerous, but this was neither of those things. You genuinely don't see many, if any, genuine head shots these days. The best approach would be to come down hard on genuinely dangerous and high impact head shots, for example in that instance had he swung forward and clattered him in the head, then yeah ban him for 5-6 games. In professional sport, with the speed, size and power of the athletes as they are, players being tackled and falling into you or changing direction at the last moment, these things will happen. When you add fatigue into the mix, it's impossible to avoid. Ban the dangerous ones for longer and stop this insane lottery of players being missing for no reason for innocuous challenges.
I get that - but focussing on this one incident is to ignore the fact that the game HAS been massively cleaned up already. Incidents of bad head shots and punching etc are tiny compared to where they were pre-crackdown and when they happen (eg Tetavano) they are dealt with pretty severely, with vastly improved protocols around head knocks etc. The game is already absolutely miles away from the game that the players bringing the legal action played and enormous progress has been made to make it a safer game to play without wondering what foul play is coming your way.
I just don't think banning players for like Martin for tackles like this is going to make the game safer but I accept there are two sides to it. Maybe there should be scope for more than one caution for a player on relatively inoccuous Grade A incidents before we start looking at bans.
I agree that bans are inappropriate for accidental contact with the head hence my suggestion of fines. Nevertheless, I think that too frequently there is such contact because of poor technique - the link below to me shows that Martin’s right arm was targeting around Mellor’s neck rather than the ball and, as such, there is a degree of recklessness about it. If you read the minutes of the MRP meetings, there are regular references to head contact where the tackler’s arm has initially hit the shoulder or ball. Yes that implies that head contact was unintentional but surely it also demonstrates poor technique that could lead to head trauma. I feel that if the RFL do nothing to attempt to reduce the likelihood of such contact they are leaving themselves open to litigation. Obviously, the RFU is facing a similar risk but has attacked the issue more aggressively - indeed, even head to head contact is penalised wherever the tackler has not made any attempt to lower his body before making the tackle. In so doing, the RFU has indicated that tackling techniques need to change with the point of contact really needing to be below the chest. Clearly this has implications for the basic nature of the game but they have done this to promote player safety by reducing the likelihood of head contact and thereby minimising the chances of lawsuits. I can’t see Rugby league getting away with a much less stringent approach.
https://youtu.be/0RtbjBL1oM8?t=1958
I have no issue with penalising head to head contact, just like the penalty against Martin is fine.
I'd get frustrated if we started banning players for head to contact and if Martin's is a one match ban it's hard not to see a situation where there are 5 or 6 bans a game. I'll bet I could watch through that Leeds game and find other tackles that made contact with the head but without the player staying down (not saying he cheated) or busting a nose. Why is their technique any less dangerous? If that is a ban there have been countless tackles with equally poor technique every week that have been treated differently.
Perhaps it's just the inevitable sanitisation of the game I'm concerned about - and the inevitable act of players staying down to get penalties and bans - and I appreciate that's easy to say when you're not the one playing it.
I think this is a fundamental point. If players are forced to tackle lower to improve safety and it results in more offloads I don't think that can do the game any harm as a spectacle. (Though it grieves (though hardly surprises) me to say that RU seem to have gone about the job more efficiently)