League must look to union to stamp out dangerous tackles

Brilliant. I agree with you but those 'guidelines' have existed for over 100 years. We don't need to look to rugby union on how to deal with this issue. We only need to look at leagues history outside the last 5-10 years.

Ha ha ha jimmmmmmmmmy your so funny ha ha ha ha

Its about giving the ref clear guidelines: - if a player gets whacked in the head send the perpetrator to the bin for a 10 minute break if you are unsure if it was deliberate. Send him off if you are. - if a player gets tackled with force after the pass is out of his hands send the perpetrator to the bin for 10. Not the current guidelines: - you have the power to send a player off in the event of foul play - use it wisely.

MMA, boxing.......bloodsports keep getting attention, keep growing. Combat sport continues to grow in popularity as other contact sports (NFL, the Rugby codes) tone down their level of violence. Only a decade or so ago rugby players were encouraged to "ruck them of the ball" and God help hi if he is on the wrong side of the ruck.....Can't punch anymore in league or union, there are penalties in NFL for overt aggression Yet, we love when Jon Jones punches the tripe out of his opponent and maybe goes up against Brock Lesnar in the future. As things get toned down for the main stream sports, the extreme sports go to the next level.

"NRL should not be mma though it can choose to be but remain a narrow world". Wow, Sleiman is going to give one of us a massive "F" in comprehension. My comment was having a dig at mma and modern society.

I was looking for the usual signs of sarcasm in your response but it did not come until the very end. League should take a few Refs from Union. .??? That is the funniest thing I have read all year. Let's turn league into an unwatchable penalty kicking contest where no one can explain what the hell is going on because the rules are an incomprehensible mishmash. Of course Union players don't complain about decisions . They, like the rest of us have no idea what the hell the decision was all about. In League , it is obvious when the Refs get it wrong so of course we and the players blow up loudly. You have made my day.

"Referees boss Tony Archer admitted Soliola should have been sent off, but on the day it was up to the discretion of referee Matt Cecchin." No, Referees boss Tony Archer said that referee Matt Cecchin, the assistant referee, and the bunker officials made an error in not deciding to send Soliola off as the tackle met the criteria for a send off offence. Nothing "discretionary" about it.

NRL should not be MMA though it can choose to be but remain a narrow world. the Soliola non dismissal occurred "but on the day it was up to the discretion of referee Matt Cecchin." Yet the video ref and assistant got the chop and not Ccechin. I note also that the Sydney Morning herald has in its pages not mentioned the fact that Billy Slater cannot remember the 2 weeks before the incident. There is an oblique reference on the website for the Age article but not in the actual article.

Very good article thanks Bret, I love both codes so can comment objectively, I have never come across a sport ( League ) where the match officials come under such intense scrutiny / abuse on a weekly basis. Ref bashing could officially become an East Coast sport. Whilst the standard of refereeing is not good enough or consistent enough, ref bashing seems ingrained in the game and has been for two decades or more. They are such maligned figures who would want to be an NRL referee. They are by and large not respected by players / coaches and this transcends onto the field with back chat, verbal abuse etc.. Its a two way street though and refs don't help there cause by being too passive with players and referring to them by first name. The ref culture in Rugby is much different as others here have alluded to. The ref in Rugby is the boss and that's it , any backchat and the player is in the bin or his team marched 10 metres. Players are referred to by numbers and only the Captain may be referred to by name or " captain / skipper ". The players are respectful of the ref by and large as they realise the ramifications if protocol is not followed. In regards to foul play, this is dealt with pretty well in Rugby by and large. The rules in League are there to be enforced however it doesn't happen anywhere near enough, until there is a real shift in behavior / attitudes towards refs ( at all levels ) and if standards do not improve considerably there will always be a divide.

G len n Your odviously not familiar with the world's fastest growing sport, MMA. 1 man sitting on another man's chest punching hell out of his face while the crowd goes wild. I think we are heading the other way. The gladiators will be back by popular demand with the crowds calling for a thumbs down more often than not.

I firmly believe that full body contact sports will not exist in the future. NFL, Rugby Union and League.....although I love them and enjoy the physicality of the sports, these games will be considered barbaric in the future. People will look back at history and marvel at how violent we were. Kind of how we look back at gladiator sports and bare knuckle boxing now.

All the refs need is to be unshackled and have use of their own commonsense. Get back to 1 ref, its not a game played in ancient Spartica. Blind Freddy can spot a dozen forward passes from dummy half each game, how many head contacts go even without a penalty, Talk of refs being accountable in a post match pressor is rediculous. Pressure they dont need or deserve. The amount of things that are let go now days point very much in the direction of restricting the refs authority. The Solialo tackie in SL , State league or junior footy would have been a send off all day every day. Get the shackles off.

The non sending off of Soliola will be evidence in 20 years time when this current lot of players are having brain function issues. Slater and every other player in the NRL deserve zero tolerance of these type of tackles. The next issue to be addressed is the concussions on players who get stopped in their tracks by a legitimate 'hit' or a multiple player tackle.

The rules certainly are in place, but the refs at times appear hesitant to enforce them. Soliola should have been dismissed and given 8 weeks, and I would have a rule the affected team gets an extra 2 substitutions,and the offending team gets a replacement player 10 minutes after the send off.If it happens in the last 8 minutes tough. When Jim Comans was running the judiciary ,the suspensions were not taps on the wrist, but full on lengthy holidays. He cleaned up the mess, when we had eye gouging, coat hangers, stiff arms all the grubby stuff. It would only take a couple of months of hammering the careless and deliberate fouls ,to just about be eradicated from the game. Canavan and Jason King (whose appointment i applaud), should get behind a tough no holds barred player protection.That includes late shots on playmakers. This sort of garbage IMO is a result of gang tackling and wrestling.Get rid of wrestling coaches and emphasise the importance of tackling below the waist, sure there will be offloads,biut that applies both ways, and would make the game far more entertaining.Arthur Beetson's offloads a joy to behold.

There are some players who are serial head high tacklers, and I do believe that a Yellow/red card system needs to be introduced. Yellow card for the first head high tackle, red card for the 2nd tackle. That is the only way to change the way you will get rid of head high tackles. Head high tackles/wrestling tactics are more prevelant in today's game then in the 70's & 80's (yes there were some really bad 1's back then, but the offenders were punished, some with record suspensions). Wrestling tackles/high tackles , 3 in a tackle, will only then change and we will see some great ankle tackles like Coote, Mortimer etc.

Billy didnt play the next week and there is doubt he will play this week.... Do you even know whay you are talking about?

My two cents: I'd like to see only the captain allowed to speak to the referee, and the referee speak to the captain only by his name, all other players are referred to by the number on their back or their position on the field. In/at the play the ball, the foot must be used and the defending team are not allowed to move forward until the hooker has picked up the ball to run or pass. Once an attacking player is on the ground, refs use a "countdown" call to reduce wrestling on the ground, could also be used if a player is left standing to reduce people being wrestled to the ground after 'held' is called: "Held! Completed! Movement 3-2-1" then a penalty if there are still players in the ruck. Incidental/accidental high shots (slipping up, grabbing around the neck on the ground, coming over the shoulder and hitting the head) warning first and then penalty. Careless high shots first infringement for the team = warning, second team infringement = sin bin.

I think the league rules could use some tinkering, but the main thing is to apply the current rules correctly. This comes down to the refs and their leadership. The one thing that League can learn from Union is that Union consistently treats the referees with respect and correspondingly, the referees command respect. There is general acceptance of referees rulings with players typically not rushing up to scream at the ref or touch judge. There are no first names or nicknames used etc, it is "sir/ref" and "number 7" etc. As a result of this, the players seem to accept the referees decisions well, if a high tackle gets a yellow or red card, the player typically nods, understands and leaves, no fuss, no tantrums. For great examples, watch footage of Nigel Owens dealing with players. In League the opposite seems to be becoming the trend. Player scream at refs and touch judges, they argue decisions and suffer no repercussions. if there is a sin bin, the player and his captain argue and ultimately the player walks veeeeeery slowly off the field holding up the game, giving his players time to regroup. The refs seem to want to be the player's friends instead of commanding the game, using nicknames and first names routinely (even for no-name players on debut get this treatment as if it is rehearsed). The League is now in danger of treating the refs like in soccer. If League takes anything from Union, perhaps it should take a few refs? An exchange program perhaps? professional development? coaching sessions from Nigel Owens?

I have been saying this for years. The red/yellow card tolerance levels in Union I think are set perfectly. If its reportable – it’s a yellow a minimum. TB is correct in saying that we already have the tools, they are exactly the same tools as Union has. But its more than that. Union has built its penalty system around a low tolerance for poor behaviour. This includes repeat offences (particularly close to your own try line), fighting/wrestling, and language towards the referee. The NRL has been trying to move towards this approach for a while, banning the punch/shoulder charge, but it has been reticent to fully move towards this approach. Hence you have the Papalli, Soliolo instances, but also you have repeat penalties on your try line, and you have a poor attitude towards officials (including before, during and after matches). The question of why we have this difference, I personally believe, is the more important question. Not necessarily the black and white laws of the game. There is something that prevents the NRL from having the same ‘tolerance’ levels and that’s what we should be discussing, not the laws of the game. Because those laws are already there. I call this difference the “Channel 9 effect”. Whenever I ever watch a match where the sin bin has been used, and its shown on Channel 9, watch the half time report or the end of game report. Without fail, either Andrew Johns, Brad Fitler, Phil Gould and to a lessor extent Darren Lockyer will say the exactly same thing. They will mention “how big of advantage X team will have when Y team is a man down”. Peter Sterling often does it as well, but tends to focus on the analytics of the game, and how teams should play with or against 12 players. In most instances, the John’s/Gould’s/Fitler’s/Lockyer’s will concentrate on the penalty itself often debating the fairness of this approach, usually advocating that team Y will be ‘too disadvantaged’ because they are a man down. Now I hate this argument – but the funny thing is – they are exactly right! I have mentioned many times, I would advocate its for this very reason the NRL should be using the sin bin/send off more rather than less. If you want to get the rubbish out of the NRL, start penalising foul play. Whatever it is! Start penalising teams and if it’s such a disadvantage, teams will stop doing it! However, the debate is too often side tracked towards this reference to the team that is being penalised “a man down”. This is where the “Channel 9” effect becomes most frustrating. Because it usually starts a discussion about how to fix it, and 5 minute sin bins, power plays, penalty tries etc are suggested. And ultimately, the debate is shifted towards the rights of the team who have transgressed rather to the team who is the victim of the transgression. The discussion is bogged down, that for intents and purposes, that has nothing to do with acting in the best interests of the victimised team. That’s where the NRL lets itself down. In a round-a-bout way, its condoning foul play by too often focusing on the offender, not the victim. And nothing will change until NRL places a larger focus on the teams who are the victims of foul play.

What are you on about?