Let me get this out of the way at the outset: I 110 per cent back the NRL’s crackdown on head-high tackles.
As a fan of both rugby league and union, I watched the latter gradually make movement in this area some time ago. I still remember a frail, Australian-born former All Black Steve Devine appearing on 60 Minutes and discussing his experience with concussion and what life was like for him following retirement. It was sad and shocking viewing and stories like this and the litigation pressure on the NFL meant that change was soon on the way.
Once it became very clear what the expectations were and what the outcome of high contact was, rugby union got on with the game. That’s not to say that referees didn’t (and still don’t) make bad calls and there aren’t those line-ball decisions with mitigating circumstances that could see the decision go either way. But that’s sport.
Once I became desensitised to the new interpretations in rugby union, I found myself cringing at the countless occasions when a blind eye was turned to high contact in rugby league unless it was an instance of a player’s face being mashed over an opponent’s swinging arm.
All of that said, what has to be understood about the subsequent uproar that followed the crackdown is the dynamic and somewhat turbulent nature of the current landscape. Peter V’landys and his team have only recently embedded new rules that have had the greatest impact on the way the game is played in at least my 37 years of following it.
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
The goal of these new rules is simple: speed and more ball in play that also imposes greater fatigue on players, which is an equation that it was hoped would lead to a more open and free-flowing game. There’s little doubt that after 12 rounds of the 2021 NRL season, this goal has been achieved.
But what’s the bi-product of this? Well, for starters, it’s now a game of momentum. When the wind is in your sails, it’s harder to be stopped and easy to quickly pile on some points. Blowouts and games that are over before halftime are as common as they’ve ever been in the NRL era and you only have to listen to the fan noise to understand this isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Some support the more open style of game despite it leading to more dominant victories, but there’s a fair chunk of us rugby league fans who are turned off.
I could go on listing out the ramifications of the new rule changes, but that’s an article for another day and it’s this point that I’ll draw back to the high-tackle debate. The new interpretation for high contact that came into play over Magic Round has just slammed another nail into the coffin that was known as the contest.
Since the post-COVID return in 2020, the game has continued to produce more and more lopsided results. It’s in this environment that V’landys has decided to unleash another rule interpretation that has the potential to further shift the balance of a game towards a team that’s on top and beyond the grasp of a team that’s trying to stay in the contest.
(Photo by Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
Rugby league is not an easy game to play a man or two down. With 13 players on the field per team, the impact of losing a player is more significant when compared to its tighter 15-a-side cousin that is played on the same sized field. Losing a player in rugby league is tougher than losing a player in rugby union. And in a game that has recently changed its fabric to the benefit of the more dominant team, it’s another shift that makes the contest increasingly rare.
Then we’re being sold the message that this is purely for player safety and looking out for their best interests. That’s undeniable and again, I can’t dispute that a game with less high contact is a safer one. But to reintroduce the earlier rule changes once more, this is also in an environment where we’re actively introducing rules that encourage speed and put players under greater fatigue.
What’s also undeniable (and Sports Science 101) is that greater fatigue equals a greater chance of injury. How does that align with the player safety message? Fatigue also equals a greater chance of poor decision-making such as initiating high contact with an attacking player.
For whatever reason, Paul Kent and James Hooper have been V’landys’ attack dogs in the media and have effectively backed him to the hilt. It was interesting hearing them talking about potential Origin selection on Triple M recently and how the teams would have to reflect the fact that rugby league is now a young man’s game. How exactly does that align with what’s in the best interests of the players?
We have a game where players are as fatigued as ever, which results in an increased likelihood of injury. Meanwhile players are also being phased out of the game earlier because it’s harder to keep up with older legs. Can you understand some of apprehensions that Clint Newton and the RLPA have around V’landys and his ways of working?
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
But I’m not going to end this piece on a negative. I like to think I’m a reasonably positive, up-beat kind of chap and I’d like to introduce some solutions on the back of my long-winded rant – at least when it comes to having our cake and eating it with less high contact and addressing the lopsided encounters that can potentially come with a send-off-riddled game.
What I don’t particularly like about the current system is that someone’s brain fart can have such a deep impact on the team and therefore the result of a game. What I suggest is that if high contact is made, fine – they go. Actually, don’t even bring them back regardless of the severity. It’s high, they hit the showers and have a date with the judiciary the following week to determine exactly how significant their punishment is, but in that game an immediate on-field replacement is made.
The results: the player is immediately ejected, which certainly represents a punishment that will encourage them to go low. The team is inconvenienced with a player removed from their bench but the contest remains 13 on 13 – a level playing field.
This also makes it really clear cut for the referees. There’s no determining whether a high contact is a sin bin or send off, which can also have significant ramifications for the game depending on when the offence occurs. The guilty player is simply removed from the game, but their team isn’t put in the position where they’re significantly disadvantaged and fans aren’t forced to sit through another no-contest.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Particularly as refs are massively flexible on the ten
Cadfael
Roar Guru
No problems with the crackdown on head highs. Had referees put their foot down on this years ago we wouldn't have this problem. No time for the six again rule it should be a penalty, the rule does nothing really. Have a look at it and how many 6 agains are given on the first or second tackle. Another annoying rule change was the one to have a ten metre rule rather than the previous five. It was ten both sides had to be back 5 metres.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I re-watched that game (relatively) recently People get hung up on the 4-2 score line but it was actually a pretty good game despite the lack of tries Anyone who thinks the crackdown is “new” should see the tackle Sigsworth got sent off for ( :shocked: but what if a grand final gets decided by a send off :shocked: ) Eels too good deserved the win…
E-Meter
Roar Rookie
Dot point 3....ha ha love it. That would be great entertainment
E-Meter
Roar Rookie
Appropriate justice was served in 1986. Good clean play from the mighty Eels prevailed.
Rob9
Roar Guru
“I am not convinced there is wide spread dissatisfaction with the new rules. This place is a bit like twitter.” – really? This sure goes well beyond twitter. I don’t remember such a divisive issue as PVL’s constant, radical and abrupt rule changes hitting the game since the Super League war. It’s dominating discussion at literally every level of the game and clearly has players offside too. I don’t remember the RLPA being as prominent and outspoken on an issue as they have been recently. You know it’s a big one when they’re starting to make noise. If there isn’t some sort of changes/amendments to come then it says more about PVL’s leadership than it does about the size of the issue- and not good things.
Rellum
Roar Guru
If you read my original article you will see I did predict teams would still hold down as I stated clearly that repeated infringements, I do outline what that means, and should result in a sin bin. You have not pointed out something that wasn't predicted. That was before the head high crack down but teams trying to break rules to their advantage is the catalyst for bringing in the new rules and no one thought that would go away. The momentum thing no one I saw predicted that and to be honest the way they have structured the rules is not what I would do. That took away rewards for skills like finding touch. That was always a momentum breaker in the past and it should be now. I am pretty sure few would be complaining if the games were closer and I am not convinced there is wide spread dissatisfaction with the new rules. This place is a bit like twitter. But the old rules did make it absurdly easier for poor teams to stay in games due to all the stoppages. WE will have short term pain for long term gain. What I find funny is seeing people who don't like the new rules because of the fatigue and player welfare but then complain about the game stopping for head high shots.
Greg
Roar Pro
I amongst many others pointed out that we would see teams deliberately holding down early in sets. Plenty of others threw up the "it will turn to touch football" line. Which, whilst over the top, does highlight the issues of momentum and points through sheer possession rather than creativity. Noone actually suggested blow outs would occur as a result but it was always the likely result from the momentum issue. Plenty quickly noted after seeing the rules in 2020 that halting momentum was an issue with many such suggestions like scorers kick -off to combat this, and predicted this would become worse with the expanded 2021 rulings. Whilst you yourself in a follow up article noted that deliberate offsides would be likely under the initial iteration of the rule, and correctly pointed out that it would need be adapted to include offsides. Now im not saying the rule changes definitely cant eventually produce a better game. You frequently outline the need for players to change body shape to match the rules and perhaps this will happen and the game will be for the better. I however remain skeptical this will happen at all and am certain it could never have produced positive results in the short term as it was introduced so hastily, without time for players and coaches to adapt both physically and to build rosters that suit.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
It makes a lot of sense to me because the player sent off would be given a long suspension. We have seen grand finals where a player has been taken out of the game and the offender wasn't even penalised. If there was a harsh penalty the player would be stupid to follow the coach's direction to take out a good opponent.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I find the blowouts dull and boring and switch over to the AFL to get a better contest. Of course I would stay if it was the Dragons scoring the tries.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The changes suggested still penalise the high tackler. It doesn't kill the contest like a send off and the restart rule do. Who wants the resulting blowouts?
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Great post Rob9. I should've read this earlier but I replied at 7:18pm.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I like the idea of replacing the sent off player but when I complained about the harshness of a send off for a high shot there was a passel of posters saying they deserved to play against a 12 man team as compensation. They thought that because their good player was injured and put out of the game but replaced by the 18th man it was only fair that they get an easy win against a 12 man team. It is another contributing factor to more blowouts that have come with the ridiculous restart rule. They should be penalised and the team can have a breather while the kicker kicks for touch or for goal. I'd also like to see the try revert to three points because the four point try had the effect of devaluing the penalty leading to more holding down. Teams with a good defence loved it when the attacking team opted to go for the try rather than taking the two points. This encouraged and rewarded players holding the man down.
Boss
Guest
V'Landys needs to be moved on. Just another suit, glory hunter, drinking his own bath water way too often.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Just to point out, that article of mine suggested six agains for offsides as well as ruck infringements. As pointed out in the article, offsides where the obvious answer to give away penalties if ruck penalties were taken away and no one pointed out the supposed flaws you mention.
Rellum
Roar Guru
How do you qualify a wrestle?
Greg
Roar Pro
Why not just use the sinbin for wrestling in the first instance? Would that not have achieved the desired result without the additional problems 6 again has caused.
Greg
Roar Pro
I understand your point but i feel you are inadvertantly demonstrating the biggest problem with the current administration. That they introduce rules without consultation or fully comsidering the consequences. The first i heard of the 6 again rule was when Rellum sugested it in an article here well before it was introduced into the NRL. Many commenters were quick to point out the faults in it (offsides and deliberate early set hold downs), which quickly became a reality as you pointed out. If these rules were given further consideration these faults could have been addressed before they happened. Instead we got further rule changes without consideration and are now struggling with their faults. I agree with getting tough on high contact. I dont really agree with the majority of reasons put forth for it eg mums, new fans and to a lesser extent even litigation but it was none the less overdue. But again the implementation without consideration and consultation is wrong.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
I promised myself never to watch that dross again only to break that promise last night. It’s a train wreck compulsion. For once i was glad i did, Lara Pitt was excellent, she made Kent and Hooper look like a pair of temperamental 10 year olds having a hissy fit. She argued a case whilst those two mental midgets just spat out stupid talking points
Rob9
Roar Guru
Do you watched NFL? I don’t necessarily agree with your point on rugby but it effectively supports the solution suggested in the article.