The NRL should be congratulated for its recent crackdown on clubs for concussion breaches, but the record $350,000 fines only treated the symptoms of the disease – and not the cause.
Concussion, we all know, is caused by blows to the head. It is an injury to the brain and long-term effects can be serious.
While it is important for players to leave the field after they have received a head knock to assess whether they have been concussed, all reasonable measures should be taken to minimise the incidence of concussion in the first place.
The starting point for reducing concussion should be lowering the acceptable point of contact in the tackle from the chest to the waist.
Under NRL rules, a tackler cannot make contact with the head or neck of an opponent “intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.”
Unlike rugby union where defenders are always held responsible for head-high tackles no matter the circumstances, rugby league players continually get away with high shots which are deemed accidental.
How many times do we see defenders make first contact with the chest or shoulder and then the arm deflects onto the attacking player’s head. Sorry about that, didn’t mean it, is hardly an excuse.
A hit in the head is a hit in the head whether it was intended or not and has the same potential to cause concussion and subsequent health issues.
You could follow rugby union’s example and penalise accidental contact with the head, but accidents happen. How do you deter someone from doing something that was not deliberate in the first place?
The answer, in part, is lowering the acceptable point of contact to the waist, which would help to eliminate head knocks caused by deflections of the arm off the upper body.
A rule change such as this would no doubt have a significant effect on the shape of the game, but potentially for the better.
The reason players tackle high is to prevent the attacker from passing the ball and to slow down the play-the-ball.
There is little doubt that if players were compelled to tackle no higher than the waist, then attackers would have much more opportunity to off-load the ball.
Okay, eliminating around the chest tackles may take away some of the gladiatorial combat from the game, but surely, getting rid of negative tactics designed to slow down the play would be a good thing. More off-loads would create more continuity and attacking play. Ultimately, is that not what the fans come to see?
If a sporting administrator had an opportunity to enhance the game as a spectacle and improve player welfare at the same time with a single law change, he or she would be crazy not to consider it.
Player welfare must be one of the main priorities of rugby league officials. Rugby league is a tough game, but it does not need to be thuggish.
It is in the NRL’s own self-interest to tackle the concussion issue head-on so to speak. Just Look at what has happened in the NFL in the US with legal action taken by former players.
That is not to say the NRL is not taking the issue seriously within the existing rules of the game, but clearly more can be done.
There are a lot of things the NRL can do to help to reduce the incidence of concussion and many of them have been widely discussed.
There is a push for the introduction of independent doctors at matches as occurs in other body contact sports such as rugby union. And there is a proposal to have an 18th player on the reserves bench to cover concussed players.
All of these suggestions have merit, but once again they treat the symptoms of the disease and not the cause, which is knocks to the head.
The best way to minimise the incidence of concussion in rugby league is to keep the defensive armoury as far away as possible from the head, which must be a no-go area for defenders whether intentional or not.
A better game and a safer game. Anyone who uses their head, will see those twin objectives are not incompatible.
Simoc
Guest
I reckon they need to ban lifting tackles. There is no need for them.
Jacko
Guest
ZOZZZZZA I wonder which code will still be around in 20 years if rugby changes rules to reduce concussion and league doesn't. Both codes, and AFL, will need to redress this issue. I do see you as a person who cant follow chess
Yoda
Guest
Well then Sozza when players start court proceedings against the nrl for their duty of care I want to hear your bull s£)t comment
Oingo Boingo
Guest
Is that an attempted insult?
Kramer
Guest
What level of either game did you play Zozza? It seems in my opinion those who talk about toughness etc usually were the ones who ran away from the ball...i bet your'e no different! Anyone who plays either code at high level gets my respect..
Jacko
Guest
Firstly lets be clear...The NRL has done ZERO about concussion. Handing out fines is doing nothing , yet they then believe they are acting in the players interest. If thats what they want then do something to stop the concussions. Law suits will follow and then the Sport will be forced to act far more harshly than if they act now. If you believe the NRL acted correctly in applying fines then show me one club who accepted those fines and show me one rule change that will stop concussion in the future. Secondly Rugby union has taken steps to eliminate high tackles by placing the onus on the players. And punishing any contact with the head. Is that fair? I dont care really provided it reduces concussion injuries and the rulings are consistant Thirdly. There seems to be a lot of people on here that dont want to take this issue seriously, and altho reducing tackles to below the waist seems rediculas we do need to make some sort of effort to reduce these injuries which have massive long term affects on ex players. Maybe these articles start conversations like...did you see the silly article saying tackle below the waist? yeah I did and thats dumb but something has to change...Lets hope
Craig
Guest
This has to be a gee up.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Ha!
Spud-053
Guest
Are we all getting a little pretenses about head knocks, due to tackles in our codes of football. If we keep on dumb-ing down the rules of our different codes of football, we all well as may start playing hop scotch. Every player knows full well getting concussion or completely knocked out is a possibility from time to time.......I am not saying it is a good feeling to be concussed as I myself experienced this when I was 15 spent three days in hospital ....Doctor told my Mum that I was never to play football again (He hated Aussie Rules Football, he would tell parents even if you had a scratch the same thing) but I was out there on the Sunday after it happened and thankfully had no side effects since. I also realize some players are not as fortunate and leave the game early or later suffer side effects from there unfortunate time playing the particular game that we all have loved............ It is not the tackles that need to be stopped but first better training on how to tackle and for those that are tackled to better protect themselves once they are caught in a tackle...... secondly clubs have to be bound by there clubs Doctor's on how a player is after a heavy tackle that may lead to concussion then or at a delayed time..........it should not be left up to coaching staff having any input in anyway for the player to return to the playing field.........Competitions and Clubs to give the Doctors absolute Control in these circumstances.
Deano70
Guest
A fair percentage of head knocks are from accidental knees and hips on defenders, then there's your defender on defender knocks. Th
Hoy
Roar Guru
What about the knocking out of tacklers? It would be interesting to see data about how many tacklers are konked out tackling low vs high...
DogsOfWar
Roar Rookie
I don't get why everybody is attacking the messenger. Really it comes down to the NRL being responsible for players welfare. I don't agree with the premise that is being proposed. But there are ways to combat this like Rugby Union is doing by penalising players properly for high tackles by sending them to the bin. Not putting them on report so they get a punishment later. Other things to consider is that players who are concussed should have the ability to be replaced by an 18th man. But by electing to do this, then you must consider the player who goes off should automatically sit out the next week. It would stop a lot of the abuse of this sort of system.
Bugs
Guest
Are we watching the same footage Will? High, yes. Late, no - he still was moving / had momentum despite two guys hanging off him. Shoulder? No way. Edwards is on his way down, due mainly to the two Storm players who have slowed him down, but also partially due to him ducking his head. His head hits closer to Solomona's hip than his shoulder! I think the damage is done by the forearm which is tucked in - Edwards head hits that. I'm not even certain it should have been a penalty - yes it was high, but only because he was falling. And before anyone says he should have got out of the road of the falling head so as to not scone him in the melon, think about if that happened a couple of metres from the try line at the other end of the field and he was stopping a try. Are you asking that he step out of the road and let Edwards fall onto the tryline?
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
The vast majority of concussions are a result of bad timing or bad positioning .by a tackler. Shoulder charges another possible concussion culprit have been banned and are heavily penalised.Punching is banned, now it's slap and tickle. Abuse of the concussion rule is heavily penalised financially. High tackles are either penalised on the spot or referred to the judiciary. The author of the article with due respect has spent little time on ten overall situation and just touched the peripherals. The system is not perfect but is being acted upon.
Will Sinclair
Roar Guru
It's pretty clear after the weekend that the NRL doesn't take concussion seriously. You only had to watch the response to Joel Edwards being knocked out cold by a high shoulder charge from Nelson Asofa-Solomona late in the first half of the Tigers v Storm. It was referred to the Bunker, who saw the whole thing in slow motion - the hit was late, high and used the shoulder - and the Bunker waved it through with barely a whisper. Not only was Asofa-Solomona not sent off (which he should have been), or sent to the sin bin (which he DEFINITELY should have been) or penalised (which would have been a soft punishment)... but he was awarded a try! The mind boggles.
Christov
Guest
Let's just have a powerplay for penalties and be done with it. When you cause a penalty the infringing player if 'off' for two attacking sets of the opposing team. For bigger penalties (fighting, professional fouls and the like) send them off or in the bin. That will stop teams giving away penalties close to the line. **Note - if another penalty occurs it will be 13 vs 11. I think the maximum to be off would be 3.** I think this is more reasonable and serious that just tackling around the waist.
rl
Guest
stealing money - I bought the Rocky Elsom biography and I want my money back!!!
Albo
Guest
Spot on Simon G ! High tackles are rarely featured in the concussion stats of recent times, as the high shots have been outlawed with serious penalties ( eg Hymel Hunt recently). Most concussions are happening through tacklers putting their heads on the wrong spot when trying to tackle below the waist !!!
Johnno
Guest
exactly, a good shoulder charge is a skill set when beautifully executed, and it's a contest for possession.
morley101
Guest
Expert ? Expert of what ?