Todd Greenberg, you are freaking kidding, right!?
You’ve handed out $350,000 in fines for clubs not taking concussion protocols seriously with the words, “our message is clear… we are not going to allow player safety to be put at risk through breaches of the concussion rules.”
That’s great Todd. But one big problem: I think your organisation hasn’t done enough to make the clubs prioritising the protection of their possibly concussed players anything but a punishment.
While the clubs are expected to adhere strictly to the rules, there have been zero mitigation measures put in place by NRL HQ, apart from handing out unprecedented fines of course.
The beatings will continue until morale improves…
Apart from the free interchange for taking a possibly concussed player from the field, the concussion protocol directly punishes the clubs that follow it.
When a club loses a player from the rotation, it seriously hurts their chances of winning.
People argue that ten minutes in the bin is too harsh a punishment for repeated infringers, and the referees obviously agree as less than one per cent of the penalties they award result in the bin being used.
Yet NRL HQ will give out massive fines for clubs for not instantaneously removing a player to check for concussion.
It is an illogical standpoint. Hypocritical even.
If Greenberg is serious about protecting the welfare of players as a priority, he’s got to put measures in place that mean that clubs who take possibly concussed players – who want to play on – off the field aren’t put at a major disadvantage for doing so.
There are two straightforward things Greenberg can do immediately.
He must allow the use of the 18th man to replace players lost to concussion, and he must support and embolden his referees to send players off when they have caused those concussions through reckless or intentional acts.
Allowing the 18th man to replace a player who cannot return to the field due to concussion is a no-brainer.
The Brendan Elliot concussion is a clear example of why.
Having watched the incident a number of times I’m in no doubt Elliot was clearly concussed and had to be taken off the field. And because of that, a fine is valid.
But do you actually think that the Knights would have even thought of keeping him on the field if they’d been able to bring on a replacement? I think not.
And that is the whole point of the protocols: for clubs to take concussion seriously because it is the right thing for the player and their long-term welfare. The NRL has a responsibility for that attitude being realised. Along with the stick of fines, the easing of the pain via an emergency replacement will definitely help achieve this.
When questioned about the Elliot incident, Nathan Brown raised a very good point.
“… if Brendan Elliott does have to leave the field because of that, and then the player does get suspended, who gets the benefit out of it?”
The Knights lost Elliot, the game and $150,000.
Hymel Hunt received a grade two reckless tackle charge for the swinging arm that effectively took Elliot out in the 28th minute of the Knights-Rabbitohs game. Hunt will miss four games with an early guilty plea, not risking a possible six games by fighting it.
However, the Bunnies took the two points against the Knights. Tonight against the Roosters, the Rabbitohs will field 17 players, and cop no fine.
In ex-top referee Bill Harrigan’s opinion, four weeks for Hunt was too little, “They’re lucky they gave that as reckless because I saw it as intentional.”
Here is my question: if Hunt’s swinging arm was judged to be worthy of a six-week ban and George Burgess’ elbow to Mitch Barnett’s head worthy of a three-week ban, why on earth were neither sent off?
Greenberg and Archer must empower and embolden their referees to send players off. This will drastically help to get clubs to prioritise the concussion protocol.
The last person sent off in the NRL was David Shillington for headbutting Aaron Woods in Round 22 of season 2015 – ironically on advice from the video referee. Before that, it was Kane Snowden in 2013 for a shoulder charge that broke Cowboy Ray Thompson’s jaw. That’s just two send offs in four full seasons.
Since the introduction of the on-field report system in the mid-2000s, we’ve seen many players stay on the field who have subsequently received big suspensions that confirmed that their crime was blatant enough to warrant being dismissed immediately. Think Greg Inglis on Dean Young in July 2012.
Inglis’ feet left the ground and he hit Young in the head with his forearm. Young left the ground on the medicab in a neck brace. Inglis, conversely, left the ground at full time with his victorious Rabbitohs.
However, as we know, the referees are terrified to use even the sin bin lest they be hung out to dry like Bill Harrigan was in 2002 by Graham Annesley, when pressure brought to bear by the Eels and members of the media outweighed the NRL’s imperative to back up their official.
Given this environment, sending a player off requires foolhardy courage. So the refs put the player on report instead.
As a result, players (and their teams) who cause damage to their opponents through reckless or intentional actions aren’t being punished during that match. Rather, the team whose player gets taken out are. And then the NRL throws in a massive fine for good measure.
Let’s not forget that Hymel Hunt’s forearm to the head of Brendan Elliot caused the concussion that has triggered all the fuss.
We could see Hunt’s hit clearly on the video replay, from eight high definition angles in super slo-mo. And there were two full minutes to review that footage as Elliot lay prone on the turf.
However, neither referee David Munro or Chris Sutton requested video ref Jared Maxwell review it for a possible send off. Nor did Jared Maxwell – who is able to intervene in the case of foul play – use his power to recommend a send-off.
Their non-action in this incident suggests they are too scared to enforce the rules. The judiciary has just handed down a penalty consistent with a heinous crime and they used the very same footage that was at the referees’ disposal to do it.
Further, while Maxwell did point out that George Burgess threw an elbow at Mitch Barnett’s head – an instant send off if substantiated – Munro only put Burgess on report and in the bin for it.
Read that again.
They had a minimum of eight high definition angles to check if he connected or not. Eight! But they still didn’t take action.
To rub salt into the Knight’s gaping wounds, in the 70th minute of the game Munro sin-binned their captain for saying “You’ve just cost us the game.”
Trent Hodkinson was right, Munro did cost them the game. But it wasn’t as a result of the call for an iffy scrum in the 70th.
It was because he didn’t send either Burgess or Hunt off when he had the clear knowledge that incidents had occurred, the ability and duty to have them reviewed, and the obligation to send both players off when their crimes were clearly established during this process – which both would have been.
If Munro sends them off you can bet your backside that two things occur:
1. The Knights rightly win the game
2. Brendan Elliot comes straight off the field
It now seems as though we have a group of referees who are too hesitant to uphold the laws of the game that protect players from the very acts that cause concussion. And by not sending players off in such circumstances they actually reward the culprits.
If players who perpetrate reckless or intentional acts start getting sent off, there is a very good chance that players will have to modify their techniques and the instances will reduce markedly.
I believe NRL HQ has not unequivocally backed its whistle blowers absolute authority over games for a long time now. The referees are subsequently worried for their ongoing positions. They don’t sin bin or send off. They put it on report instead.
The referees are going to get stuff wrong. We know that. However, the NRL must back their referees so that they can be indisputably and fearlessly in charge of every match.
Then – and only then – can NRL HQ righteously and sanctimoniously hand out fines for clubs not following the concussion protocols.
Get with the freaking program Todd.
Lidcombe Oval
Guest
Time the NRL look at teams having squads for game - more than the 17 they have now - 13 run on and 7 or so reserves with 8 interchanges - players who fail HIA's and or sustain injuries preventing them returning to the field can then be replaced by one of the reserves that is if player welfare is paramount. 18th player will make no difference if say 2 players fail the HIA - teams will still be one player short. Extending the 17 to say 20 covers players failing the HIA and or those sustaining game ending injuries thus preventing players having to play on risking more serious consequences to their health as a result.
The Barry
Roar Guru
You can keep saying "you missed my point" all you like. But the point that you have made multiple times - and the only one I'm commenting on - is that someone without medical training is unable to determine if a player needs to leave the field for a HIA. And it's wrong. 100% wrong. You raised the point of Tony Ayoub's medical experience - but it's irrelevant. Once Elliott went down it doesn't matter if the most talented doctor in the world goes out to him, the protocol is that the player needs to leave the field to be assessed for concussion. I've objectively pointed out where I think your understanding of the concussion protocols is lacking. If there's some other point you're trying to make then re-state it and pull me up on where I've misinterpreted. Don't just hide behind "you don't understand" time and again.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Nope, you don't understand. Your reply goes on to prove that. Quick hint for you - read my comment for what it actually says, not what you want it to say. But please feel free to keep missing the point...
Sava
Guest
I thought that tackling around the head was a penalty . I dont think that there is a tackle made in Rugby League games now that one or two tacklers are not trying to choke or attacking the head of the tackled player . It is obvious that with the amount of players leaving the field with suspected concussion,that this is happening and it is time the ARL told the Refs to stop this brutal play . Ban all tackles above the chest. Sava
AA
Guest
All well and good except how is a multi-game suspension fair to the team they are against? The Roosters got the benefit of it last night but what about the Knights? They lost a player and ultimately lost to a team that didn't deserve to win. As a coach, if I know that my player won't be sent off for an elbow to the head but the Storm can't replace Cam Smith from the 28th minute on, you bet that I'll be sending my worst front rower on with an elbow cocked at the hooker or half backs head. It would be like hitting the I-Win button and there is nothing in the rules to deter this. Teams that play 4 forwards on the bench have always got an expendable player. The Broncs, roosters, cowboys have all proved this over the last 2 seasons. A 6-week suspension costs a team nothing. How do you solve that? I say send them off.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Why is this being moderated for hours?
Hoy
Roar Guru
I have said for ages that the NRL and it's fans are to blame for the Refs not enforcing binnings. In rugby, the refs have respect of the players. I don't think you would ever hear a professional rugby captain say to a ref: "You've just lost us the game." In the NRL there are commentators who advocate against referees giving penalties... saying it makes the game boring.. "let it flow" they say. It's madness. If a player breaks the rules, and it is a binnable offense, he should be binned. I can't tell you how many times over the last few years I have seen deliberate cheating in the NRL that would be a card in rugby, and it ends up only being a penalty in league.... I am talking about people making breaks into the back field, and when tackled, they get held down etc. It has to be really bad for a bloke to be given 10 off, and even then, there are howls of indignation about it. Even in the Broncs Cowboys game, when the Broncs scored a try, there was a deliberate action by a cowboys player in the lead up, but because the try was scored... what? The ref thinks it was all OK, it evened out in the end? It just can't be like that. I agree, the NRL has made the rod for it's back on this, and refs should be binning more often. The NRL, and the fans are the reason it isn't happening.
Dimethoate
Guest
Me thinks that if a HIA is used and the player is seen fit to return to the field then the player who replaced him must come off. This will reduce the manipulation of the free interchanges to stop the HIA being used as part of the regular forward rotation.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I understood perfectly. Continual comments from you that no one can assess whether a player has concussion other than a doctor. That's true but ultimately irrelevant in this matter. If a player demonstrates any of the specific signs of potential concussion, there is no on field medical assessment required, the trainer has no choice but to remove the player from the field. You don't need to be a doctor to recognise these signs and even the most qualified doctor in the world has no scope in the process to make an on field assessment instead of bringing the player off. So chiping at people about their lack of medical qualifications shows that you don't know or don't understand the protocols that are in place. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with these before you comment.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Where did I say I didn't like the article? All I did was point out the inconsistent nature of his arguments. As I've said elsewhere I'm not a fan of sending players off. I would prefer multi-game suspensions. I also don't like the reduction in penalty if the player chooses to challenge the penalty. If something is deemed worthy of a (for example) six week suspension, you shouldn't be able to get that reduced by not challenging the decision. The other thing that this article doesn't get into is the deliberate vs accidental... I'm betting that if penalties for deliberate actions that lead to players getting concussion there will be a rise in players claiming their actions were accidental/careless. To the recipient, it's doesn't really matter does it - they're still concussed.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
TB - you either haven't read my comments properly or you haven't understood them. Maybe do so before commenting next time... TG - 1 & 2 - I'm not a fan of sending players off. Punish them appropriately with multi-game suspensions would seem a better solution to me. 3 - it's worth exploring further. There are a number of obvious problems that will need to be addressed of course though.
Fix the scrums
Guest
Have 2 independent doctors at each game. Both would have to agree if player was okay to resume playing. They would be responsible for decisions, not some club doctor or trainer. The NRL can afford it and it should be done asap. The clubs have shown that they cannot be trusted to control this issue.
The Barry
Roar Guru
That's a really interesting idea. Coaches would have absolutely no one to blame if they loaded up their eight man bench with 6-8 forwards. Aside from the concussion issue it could add another dimension to games. A team is behind by 16 with 20 to go and loads their team up with their attacking players off the bench. There's a few variations that could be considered...eight bench players, eight substitutions but you can only use a maximum of four or six players. Four fresh reserves, four backing up.
Ian
Guest
Its not only the send off and sin bin refs are scared to use. They are also unwilling to persist with penalizing teams who stand offside all game or slow the rucks down all game. These would have more impact on games than send offs. Re send offs, I'd like them to start with the premise that any forceful head contact is a sin bin rising to send off if reckless or deliberate. That would include not only high tackles but also swinging arms, dropping forearm on tackled players and facials.
Ian
Guest
Why not let teams carry an 8 man, or even unlimited, bench, but still with maximum 8 interchanges? They can change 1 player 8 times up to 8 players once each, or anything in between. Basically lets teams carry reserves for most positions if they want, some of whom would only be used in emergencies.
Griffo
Guest
On the Rapana pass, my initial reaction was it was forward but then again I am a Cowboys supporter so I have bias. I have seen far worse ones than that so I was surprised it got called. In terms of wanting to get consistency in calls I understand that this is something that fans want to see, however in the case of an infringement occurring, any kind of infringement, no matter what type or how close it was to not being an infringemnet, if the referee (or touch judge) sees it then the referee must call it.
The Barry
Roar Guru
It's a good point about Ayoub Jeremy but once Elliott is down the assessment should take place off the field. Problem with the rules at the moment is that the Knights get a reward for replacing Mata'utia (free interchange) which is necessary for a forward. When teams lose a back there's more incentive to try and keep him out on the field.
The Barry
Roar Guru
That wasn't aimed at you Chris, it was aimed at Christo's series of comments. I've got no problem with anyone having a different opinion but what he was writing about the conscussion laws was just plain incorrect. There are no two ways about it. The symptoms that require an immediate concussion test are fairly clearly identified by the NRL and include falling to the ground without protecting oneself, loss of consciousness, lying on the ground prone and stumbling. If any of those symptoms are displayed the player has to leave the field for a HIA regardless of whether he is concussed or not. It doesn't take any medical training to be able to identify the signs. It is irrelevant whether the player is actually concussed or not. This is the process because even a fully qualified doctor can't make a reasonable judgement of concussion performing an on field assessment on the run. Christo's ongoing comments about medical qualifications demonstrated zero understanding of the NRL's protocols. I'm sorry if you thought my comments were directed towards you.
Alan
Guest
While agreeing with your article Tim (great read btw) my comment is a completely gratuitous shot. That photo of Greenberg looks for all the world like he'd fail a HIA.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
Meh, I'm lead to believe CTE is as likely caused by the general impact of tackles as one-off teammates elbows. Can't address that.