STEVE TURNER: League urgently needs an extra provision for concussion casualties

We are all passionate about our teams Muzz so I understand your frustration from last Friday. We've all been there :) I'm advocating leaving it as 17 v 17 but if a player is left concussed from foul play (and the player is put on report) then an 18th man can be deployed. But this can only happen after the concussed player has failed 2 x SCAT3 tests on the sideline given by doctors from each club (a 3rd independent doctor would be ideal but not sure they would get that). This means that the scenario you anticipate in Origin is very unlikely. Nate Myles would have to fail the initial SCAT3 when first leaving the field. Then fail the 2nd SCAT3 given 10mins later. This would be very hard to fake. And if he does fail it then having DCE come on as 18th man is fair as Myles was not able to return to the field. The responsibility falls onto the club doctors from both sides to determine if the player should be replaced. It also would take a minimum of 10mins to decide this. So if a team was to attempt to rort the rules by bringing on a fresh player at the end they would need to act out the concussion from the 60min mark leaving enough time for the 18th man to make a difference. Plus they would need to actually suffer a high shot from the opposition. So a LOT needs to fall into place for the scam to pay off. Having this in place means that for instance G Stewart was taken off at the 20min mark. He failed the SCAT3, so at the 30min mark an 18th man would go on the bench. Seems a fair system to me for players who cannot return after foul play. The game is back to 17 v 17. Note this is for concussion only. Injuries are part and parcel of the game so no 18th man for them.

Completely agreed that any player who is concussed should be able to be substituted - and I dont think it should be limited to 18 men at all. If this means squad sizes need to be increased, just do it. A club should never be disadvantaged by doing the right thing and keeping a brain-damaged player off the field.

All good mate - I guess i'm still a little fired up and should move on.I like the banter and welcome it but i guess there's a line.Cheers for the retraction : ) Now - Are you also saying that if a player gets tackled fairly but gets caught in a bad position and blows a knee or ankle then team x is allowed to bring in the 18th man? If so then why don't we make it a 5 man interchange and use them as you would under the current rules that way it won't be exploited.Same would apply for concussion and all other injuries but we would be back to square 1 where it could become 18 v 17 after an illegal high shot early in the game. If you lose a player through an injury that has occurred through fair play or just by accident it is bad luck.A tackle put on report where a player hasn't been able to return to the field however the player on report is later cleared should be then classified an accident and fall under the bad luck category so if the 18th man rule was deployed it would be an unfair advantage. I'm happy for it to be 20 v 20 as long as it's not up to the referee to decide if you can use your extra interchange as they get things wrong all the time.It is clear that referees need less responsibility not more. Hypothetical example - State Of Origin,Game 3 NSW up by 12.DCE is 18th man.Myles milks a head knock penalty and goes off.DCE/18th man permitted to come on and carves us up, we lose the series 2-1.Gallen goes to the judiciary for the high shot on Myles and is cleared.DCE coming on was an unfair advantage.

Apologies Muzz I do enjoy your posts normally but this week they have been a bit over the top. I retract my last paragraph :) On the 18th man can you please explain how a team is gaining an advantage by bringing the number back to 17 v 17 for foul play? Even if the offending player is exonerated at a later date he did knock out a player who was forced to leave the field and not return. You are talking about replacing Greg Inglis with an 18th man and that giving Souths an unfair advantage over the Tigers. Who on earth could Souths replace GI with to gain an unfair advantage?? The person replacing the NRL star will most likely be a NSW Cup player (as they couldn't crack the NRL 17 to begin with). I don't see how bringing the teams back to equal numbers is giving the concussed players team any advantage. If the on-field refs (an video ref) at the time believe the cause of the concussion was accidental then the 18th man is not allowed to be used. The 18th man can only be used if the player is put on report.

@eagleJack, Steves article isn't only about player welfare EJ.He highlights the unfair advantage that he feels the Roosters had when G Stewart left the field and couldn't return.The point i was trying to make and lets forget Fridays game for a minute is - What if the referee gets it's wrong and permits the 18th man to take the field and then in the week that follows the player deemed to have made illegal contact to the head is cleared of any wrong doing therefore the 18th man should not have taken the field. Here is an example where a player left the field after contact to the head and didn't return and the offending player was cleared by the judiciary.If the 18th man rule was in place at that time,the Eels would have gained an unfair advantage. http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/judiciary-clears-bulldog-sam-kasiano-to-face-the-sea-eagles/story-fndujljl-1226429460504 For the record EJ - You and i both know that i am no tr0l as i contribute in the League section of The Roar on a daily basis and have done so for some time.I don't post on any other websites as i have zero interest in them.I would appreciate it if you would retract your last paragraph.

Have an extra man on the bench and have 8 interchanges and 4 subs a game (or whatever number you like). Interchanges can come on and off, but once you sub a player he is off for good.

Agree since the interchange came into being has anyone else noticed how much bigger the players have become,don't need endurance as they can go off and have a rest. Just a thought.

Just add an 18th man to each team who can be used same as any reserve IE 5 reserves, but at the same time reduce the number of interchanges by 2. This covers the concussion concern of a team being unfairly undermanned and also nullifies any concerns of the concussion rule being scammed. With the extra reserve, players should be fresher and we shouldn't need the same number of interchanges.

Teams already have 4 players to use for injuries in games. It is only 80 minutes a game. How many more extras do they want? 5? 10? 20? Never seen a team unable to keep 13 out there on the field. Manly did ok last week. 4 is plenty.

Was the player who concussed GI put on report? I didn't see the incident. But if he was then it is only fair that the Rabbitohs should have got an extra player put on the bench so the game was still 17 v 17. This is about player welfare Muzz. The concussion rules are very strict with players being assessed by both clubs doctors before getting the green light to take the field again. If they are concussed from foul play then an 18th man should be available. Otherwise we will see top players potentially being taken out early knowing that they will be down to 16 men for the match. If you can't have a mature conversation about it then there are plenty of other websites for you to tr0ll.

to stop rorting of the rule just have an NRL appointed doctor judge concussions (which should be the case anyway)

Because the suggestion from Steve is about player safety not fairness in regards to foul play. It isn't fair for the team with momentum to stop play when a guy is injured in back play but some of us give a damn about the human beings playing the game.

Few thoughts on this: If you are worried about the team offended against running around a man down, then the game needs to re-jig the report system. Refs are too keen to report, and I noticed on the weekend... what is the difference between head highs not reported, and reported ones? There were some tackles where blokes got coathangered and the tackler wasn't put on report, because why? He got up and put his hands up saying sorry? It was an accident? The tackled player got up quickly after being coathangered? Reporting on the field does nothing to deter anyone I don't think. Although I could be wrong... But have numbers of reportable incidences gone down over the years? Next train of thought... I think if your team goes a man down due to illegal play... tough bickies. That is harsh, but it is a game of footy. What does the 18th man do for weeks on end when nothing happens? I think they should reduce the bench. Then the game really gets tough, and we would have blokes too tired to swing arms all game long. They would be happy just making tackles. Then we will get back to what the game should be like. People seem to be tiring of the fast paced one off hit ups and dummy half runners. That might be a generalisation, and maybe people aren't tired of it, but people are tired of rule changes aren't they? Make players tire out, and the bench becomes a tactical weapon... and then creative players come into their own after a softening up period during the first half. Just my two cents...

So you argument is that injuries are so prevalent (with 1/3 of all available players being unavailable) that we shouldn't have something to cover injuries.

So if a player falls forward or slips like GI did against the Tigers and is concussed by accidental contact to the head,how is it fair that Souths then get an extra interchange when no action is taken by the judiciary or are you saying that these rules should only apply for the NRLs 2014 teachers pet team Manly? Did you hear Sterlo say i can't see anything wrong with that disallowed Roosters try and Ray Warren say on many occasions "that should of been a penalty"?

The problem this story is talking about is a failure of referees to use the send off rule. That would fix the problem. In NFL a player can be ejected from the game but the team on the field stays with 11. In NRL if a player is illegally knocked out and can't come back the player that did it should not be allowed back in the game either. Let them still have 13 players on the field but have to do it with three on the bench same as the injured player's team.

its simple - if a guy is knocked out, then the guy who did it goes to the sheds with the guy knocked out.

I think the solution would be that if the injured player had to leave and not return to the game and the offending player goes on report then the referees are confirming foul play was committed and the player should be sent off with allowing him to be replaced. Both teams now down to 17 men. In this instance JWH to the bin and Stewart off for concussion, it leaves the teams on a level playing field. Roosters use up an interchange while manly get a free one due to the injury. While this may be open to gamesmanship it is less so than someone taking another player out in a big game to create an advantage.

Still whinging I see Muzz. Atleast it is good to see your players taking responsibility for the loss. If a player is put on report and the concussed player is deemed not well enough to return to the field, then it makes perfect sense to have a replacement available. Regardless of what happens at the judiciary later, the refs and video refs deemed it foul play at the time, so it is a fair result. Why should one team play with only 16 after foul play? The concussion rules are so stringent now that we will be seeing more of it occurring. As an example JWH will know he can hit someone high, knock him out so he won't return, and only be put on report. Instant advantage for his team. The current rules favour the offending team too much

How bout the poor bloke who's 18th man every week! -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.