Rugby league is going back to the 80s

How was Jack Gibson instrumental in destroying the game?

Rupert Murdoch started his media company in Adelaide with the Adelaide news which he inherited from his Dad, Sir Keith Murdoch.

RedB Yes they can,and they rarely do.He(Hall) committed mayhem before and stayed on field. Compare the actual penalty (a few weeks)for the thump on the Weagle's player,compared to D Williams ,and you see my point.

Right - we discussed the headbut given that got reduced to 1 week (after early plea discount and clean record discount),.... ..... now today we see all the NRL players charged over the weekend can get 'off' with early pleas. Including Sowards kick to the head. Nice 'system', shame the AFL copied most of theirs off the NRL!!

CC, Just on not being sent off, the Coach can still drag him for being un-disciplined for giving away too many free kicks. Which Roos did with B Hall a few weeks ago. Redb

MichaleC Yes! and don't know what K Hunt's decision has to do with violence in SOO.Although K.H.will relish not being sent off .

Is there any credence in this Carmichael Hunt story about switching to AFL???? I double checked - it's not April 1st.

Pippinu There have been instances where legal action has been sought due to violence in top grade rugby league The late Steve Rogers had his jaw broken by another player Bugden ,and sought and received damages. Darryl Brohman in a SOO match in the 80s,took legal action against Les Boyd after having his jaw broken and recived damages . That is why I am against punchups,the end result is unknown,abnd worse case could end up fatal.

RedB Nope.Didn't drive on by,just refuelled at the outback gas station on the long sporting journey.it is called timing LOL. You and I agree on the main point,their should have been a tougher penalty.Viva! .My gripe is the sudden "outburst of AFL media know it alls',who have not appeared on the radar in the past,but now appear to know everything there is about rugby league (re penalties and punishment).The very same clowns who are quite accepting of having a Barry Hall stay on the field(and it is within the rules) ,after he king hits a Weagle's player.Then he gets a measly what? 6 or 8 weeks,compared to D Williams who gets 18 weeks for the same thing, playing against the Wests Tigers.He(Hall) had an ordinary track record,but kept coming back for more. I see the irony,which sticks out like the proverbial. One can argue quite rightly the SOO penalty was hopelessly inadequate,and conversely one can argue the lack of a send off rule in AFL sends the wrong message,despite penatlies issued later,after the game is over. I further note,A.D. made the point a year or so ago,he would not comment on other codes,and leave it to their governing bodies.He came out all guns blazing on this issue. And Robert Walls who appears at times to me a tad pompous,stated "league is stuffed".You wonder why NRL people have had their feathers ruffled.Caroline Wilson"how many more hits can this game take"."this will effect the next Tv deal".How about TV ratings being a factor Caroline, FFS.And another fellow by the name of Baum who called Matthew Johns :Andrew Johns and Anthony Watts some other name when he was ripping in to "violent" rugby league.He mentioned the NZ issue with the Sharks,(obviously oblivious of the carlton allegations).What the hell that has to do with SOO is anyone''s guess. To read that the AFL media has no interest in rugby league,they sure as hell are putting that theory to rest. There is constructive criticism(such as yours) and their is criticism just to score points.I remind some of those media types, the punchup is not the norm in SOO matches,but the exception.It was agreed ,certainly so in the early years.

I believe the idea is to elect a panel of 5-7 people. With the game being handed back to the clubs, and I am sure that there will be measure put in place to make sure that the commission gets the right power to make things work. Currently the NRL board has Club powerbrokers on it, and has had that for as long as I can remember, guys like Nick Politis (Roosters), Peter Moore (RIP Bulldogs), Peter Fitz (ex-Parra), as well as ARL (Not elected by the clubs), and News Ltd reps. The idea is to get away from these powers like News Ltd (who really are selling the game to themselves when the rights come around), and the ARL (which old gravy trainers are still milking the game dry) to become one where the code moves forwards, and proper checks and balance (Independent Discipline Tribunal along the lines of what happens in the NFL, like automatic 4 weeks suspension for low range drink driving etc, rather than leaving the punishment up to the club). I think the AFL setup was a little different, as they just didn't have as many fingers in the pie, and this is one of the reasons it is taking so long to even get off the ground, as people just don't want to let go.

D of W, Does that mean each club will have a representative on the Commission? IMO the RL commisson should still be answerable to the clubs to a point but there should not be any dual positions at both the club and on the commission to remain independent. I think it took the AFL Commission a few years to find its feet and slowly pull power off the clubs. It's a difficult to thing to bite the hand that feeds you. Redb

The problem is that the independent commission as the game wants it setup, will be elected by clubs. This can have the effect of clubs dictating certain conditions, which may not be good to for the game at these levels, and make players look at other options like playing overseas for more coin, as that extra money for the top players (via Tests and Origins) is just not available, not to mention the removing of the challenge of testing yourself in representative sides. Similar things happen in AFL that made the AFL version of SoO dissapear, and I could see the same thing happening in Rugby League (not so bad in the Test arena, but still quite possible). As for Michael C, mate I haven't see so many AFL reporters who are clueless about Rugby League, write articles about the sport that project a very negative imagine of it in such a sport period of time. If you can't see that as an AFL loving media, then heaven help you.

DOW - please stop griping about AFL loving media. It weakens and demeans your position.

DogsofWar, Just on the representative games. What hold does the ARL currently have on club players at the moment? Or better put what mechanism exists in the current system that frees up player for origin and International games that could still not be tweaked by having an independent commission? Redb

The NRL can have an independent commission, and it is in the works but just having some resistance from guys who have been riding the gravy train for way too long. But the big problem is, that unlike AFL, we have multiple levels to our code, so you don't want the independent commission elected by clubs, to run the Australian team or the SoO series, so there still will be a difference in how incidents at a representative level are treated, compared to normal week to week NRL games. These sorts of incidents are rare in the game, but the AFL loving media are trying to use it as an example of how this must occur every week in League, and getting on there high horses saying it doesn't happen in AFL, when it does, just in a different manner, and not as easy to see as most are off the ball incidents which are not captured on the TV screens, while in League, the TV shows all the play very well, so it is much harder to miss.

Crosscoder, I agreed with you and you just drove on by :-) I do understand the difference between the ARL and NRL and I think that at the very heart of the matter is a lack of an independent commission that exists like in the AFL. The commentary from AFL scribes,etc is not a reflection that rugby league is a bad game it is that the administrators failed to act. The AFL governing body is not loved by most Aussie Rules fans and the media but their intention is for what is good for the games future (on and off the field). They don't always get it right but the intention is right minded. Thus it stands out like dogs balls to us when the ARL clearly allowed the events to go un-punished. It's not good for RL's image, not good for the example its set to juniors of all codes around the country. We are on the same page, many RL noses out of joint because the AFL governing body and some AFL journos have commented, I can understand it creates a Us v Them situation, but clearly you agree with the basic premise of their points. And you should it is the right stance. Redb

Crosscoder good points again. The question of sin binning in the AFL rarely comes up - and I can understand those from outside the code wondering why not - it's a reasonable question. I understand the main argument - that the player (and his team) should receive the punishment there and then and the opposition receive an immediate benefit. But these are the counter arguments, as I understand them: 1. Umpires officiate the game - they do not act as judge and jury - that's for the tribunal to do. 2. Aussie rules has the most players on a field of any code (18 a piece), so many outside the game naturally assume that one missing from one side is not big deal. But the different dynamics of the game make it a big deal at the elite level. If a team is down one man for 15 minutes, they are going to lose the game - once a team has an automatic loose man - they are impossible to stop (I'm talking at the elite level - it's a bit different in amateur and underage comps). So there is the counter-argument that sending someone off for half a quarter effectively kills the game - not really a good look either. I have a memore from around the mid 70s, in the days when we only had a 19th and 20th man (and no interchange), of my team, the Bullies, playing Essendon. We were both bottom half of the ladder, and the game had been relatively even till three quarter time, but Essendon had to play with 17 men in the final quarter. The bullies kicked 12 goals in that final quarter and romped the game in!! And let me tell you, it's might rare for any team to kick more than ten goals in a quarter.

RedB Read my posts,I hardly applauded the act.My purpose is to watch football,not fights.I would have preferred both players get 1-2 weeks each for bringing the game into disrepute.I have to abide by the decision. I however find AFL media people who have seemingly come out of the woodwork(some I have never hjeard of),and freely stating their views on the subject,when their knowledge of rl appears miniscule,suddenly become experts on violence within the game and the rules of the game. Treating it as though it(punchups)were was the rule rather than the exception. The NRL media in Sydney,hardly went into a spin ,when Nick Riewoldt with his crook shoulder,received numerous low act cheap shots on his shoulder. The players were sent from the field,to the sin bin,and a penalty ensued.Hardly a good look for Steve Price who has an excellent record . The whole media mob in Sydney,have been airing the dirty linen over the SOO issue,fors and againsts.It has hardly been pushed under the carpet .Where have you been? I will quote from the NRL's official magazine from Nigel Wall the editor" "Now State of Origin 111 will go down as an embarrassing low point when it comes to Blues and Maroons administrators ,sticking their heads in the sand". Please note the players in the Tigers/Cowboys match were given 10 minutes in the sin bin,and a penalty given.Then one was given a week by the judiciary.They were partially punished at the time,not waiting till the match finished (because we don't send players from the field). You still don't get the NRL/ARL run separate comps.The ARL the SOO and the NRL is own comp.

Spot on Crosscoder. cheers Redb

Pippinu. That was Greg McCallum,and he needs a good kick up the backside,suggesting it is OK provided it is one on one ,and the players involved accept involvement.Then he said it is not condoned.Warren Ryan was right,it doesn't send the right message,it is not acceptable today. Again I stress the need for one controlling body.What is set in stone for NRL must also apply to SOO,and that involved acts off violence.