Perhaps it’s time to consider allowing players that are determined by the independent doctor unfit to return to the field, to be replaced by another player. Have say two players on the bench, not as interchange but there to replace the injured player.
The issue of safety is here to stay so let’s find a compromise rather than risk players health and wellbeing.

Adam, could you please tell me the rule about when the defense can move forward.
Is it when the ball touches the ground? Also, why does the ref stand behind the line of players and not mark the ten at the ten? Hope you can clear it up.

Could that be because he is leaving?

Great analysis of the real issues. Longer term planning is the only way clubs like the Titans and others like my Tigers will ever find any success. Clubs buying players who are off contract and hoping for an instant lift are few and far between. It’s a bit like ‘punt high and follow on’. Also one thing that I have difficulty accepting is ‘doing the same thing and hoping for a different result’. That’s called the definition of madness. You cannot beat the top teams at their game and if you are measuring a Coach’s success perhaps that’s a good place to start.

Agree, but at the very least Hunt jumped early from marker. You don’t see the D/Half tackled like that very often.

Who would want to be a referee? The rule book is there to be interpreted by a professional highly trained expert and adjudicated as per the rules. Interpretation in particular situations comes with the job but rules are rules and should be applied accordingly. Simple, yes? Here is the problem, TV and money. Who is controlling the game? The rules are adjusted and changed because RL is no longer a game but a product and if I’m paying for the product I want it conducted the way that will make me the most money. There is the problem right there. The six again idea is nothing more than making the game more appealing to the audience but with changes made in haste it becomes a lottery and that’s what six again is, a lottery.

If the referees intend to start penalising players this weekend (blocking for their kicker) it is imperative that it is made clear before tonight’s game otherwise it will be just another chip at the NRL’s integrity which is already a disgrace.

(cont) aspect of their operation. Since 2014 the club as a whole has stumbled from poor judgement in regard to player signings and retention, mismanagement to incompetence at a board level and finally a total lack of transparency and honesty with the current coaching issue. As to the sacking of Morris, his number has been marked from the very beginning. Despite all the circumstances his tenure presented he was only ever going to be a fill-in unless success forced their hand to keep him. Unfairly treated perhaps but sport is business and collateral damage inevitable. Hope he finds a home and a role that suits his personality.

It should come as no surprise that the board at Cronulla would handle this situation as poorly as seemingly every as

No doubt there is a big void between teams in the NRL. Tier one Storm, Panthers, Roosters and Souths. Tier two Canberra and Parra. The others are a week to week proposition. So in regard to your article, I would say that there is already a 2nd tier structure happening. The fact is it’s probably more like a three-tier structure. I believe that funding in a first and second division structure would be difficult to support. How about the idea that we play one full round – 15 games – and then play a top 8 and bottom 8 in separate sections. That becomes 22 rounds plus a finals structure where teams in the bottom 8 have something to play for. The draw can be set up over a two-year system meaning home and away games are equal. Even now after 5 rounds, the separation is obvious. As a Dogs, Broncos, Tigers, Newcastle or Cowboys supporter there could at least be some joy. This idea needs some tweaking but worth consideration.

Very well structured article and some pointed responses. As always many points of view right on the money. So in order to accurately assess this issue, we need a clear understanding and definition as to why it is happening. With regard to ‘foul’ play incidents and ‘dog’ acts the punishment should be severe. At least a sin bin or a send off. With your team playing short for a period. That should help reduce the numbers. The punishment should not be one or two weeks but 4,6 or even 8. As to illegal action, the consequence to the player should be consumate to the injured player. The current enforcement policy is simply not sinking in with too many players. I believe one area to address is the multiple defenders in tackles. If a player can not be put on the ground by two defenders, once his progress is stopped the referee calls held and advantage to the ball carrier. I understand that defence is about tying up the ball, so that will require some adjustments to how the other defender applies himself. At least that will completely eliminate the ‘wrestle. I agree, litigation is just around the corner. Unfortunately NRL is reactive and not pro-active.

Many thanks for your praise, Michael.

Your article is accurate up to a point but perhaps you could have painted it with a gentler tone.
I had the pleasure of working with Tommy as his ‘stats’ guy at Wests and had many a quiet beer with him after games once everyone had gone. The image that his playing and coaching days portrayed was far removed from the thoughtful and interesting conversations I enjoyed. When not talking about football Tommy had great insight into the world and the personal issues we face. Lots of laughs and lots of stories. The images you see don’t show his skill as a people manager. He understood the players he had at his disposal and applied himself accordingly. At Wests, we had a young team that needed inspiration and some half time speeches were confronting, to say the least. As the coach for the City/Country game, we had a very handy side (Johns, Johns, Harragon etc) he had the players total attention. Tommy delivered a halftime talk that was perfect. He always knew his audience. So very proud to have had spent some time with such a charming human being.

A well-balanced piece btw, but in my opinion, the NRL has allowed TV to hijack the sport and it seems that nothing else matters except rating etc.
Let’s briefly address this injury issue. I agree that it’s too early to arrive at a definitive conclusion and I note several very good suggestions (obvious only to Roar contributors), but my two cents on the subject is if the speed of the game is considered vital for ‘entertainment purposes than let’s not only have an 18th man but a 19th and 20th and unlimited. If your total squad is 30 and given quality decreases after about 20, there would be a natural reluctance to expand past say 20 so using more than say 20 would be unlikely but available if necessary. This would solve the injury issue such as the injury crisis like Cronulla and Canberra.

Stats for Mitchell ? Didn’t seem that way to me. Anyway, give me Papenhuyzen every day.
Perhaps it’s because we like our fullback taking some tough runs.
LM has plenty to offer but best suited to the centres.

A fair summary of the game and in particular Souths. Without wishing to get on the ‘bag LM’ wagon, I cannot agree with your ‘putting in excellent performances’ comment. Yes he did score a very good try and yes he had a few nice touches but as too his effort in taking some heat off the forwards, he was not sighted until a half-hearted run from dummy half lat in the game. It is obvious that he has plenty to offer but as a fullback, he is miles behind Papenhuyzen, Teddy and Gutherson. I wonder what his tiring forwards think when he just hangs around.
Put him back in left centre and let him have 3 or 4 runs, score a few tries and bludge out wide. Same result for the team.

Loving your articles. As a lifetime Tigers fan, I’m a little disappointed that more players from the 1969 team were not listed. 1969 grand final, indeed the season and the Balmain and Souths history is a great story. I appreciate that not every player can be named but for mine, there is a very glaring omission. Keith ‘Chicka’ Outten was in many ways the hero. In the final series, he was given the task of closing out Dennis Pittard. Pittard, despite playing in a star-studded team was at the peak of his game and Keith completely shut him out which greatly contributed to the win. Many other tactics, of course, made it possible to win against the odds.

Absolutely correct Nat. Still waiting for the next Lewis or Johns to emerge.

Interesting take on referee’s credibility. I have a few issues with several areas of the application of some rules and the interaction with the players. First of all, why do referees have to know and use the names of the players? IMO that only creates familiarity which in turn distorts the authority of the referee. I have no issue with addressing the captain by name but every player? Surely there are more important on-field issues to deal with? Secondly, why does the referee – when marking the ten – stand behind the players. Isn’t he where the ten is? No wonder when we see the overhead the player defensive line looks like a ‘dogs’ breakfast’. The call should simply be ” I’m the ten, get with me”. I will leave it at that because there is a whole article – probably several articles- discussing rules and interpretations. In regard to your specific point about terminology, I agree that hearing an extended explanation would add some credibility particularly in regard to the “six again’ because other than the obvious infringement it’s difficult to understand the reason for the call. Also on that point I believe a penalty inside the 20 should be an option.

Good point ‘soapit’. Given that we have a ‘Captain’s Challenge’ it is rather obvious that the penalty option is a no brainer.

I agree about Norman. When I watch him play, he only seems to get interested when it’s the 5th tackle so he can kick the ball. That is generally his contribution. Yes, he did play origin but that won’t happen again.

Good read Barry. I remember when the bunker was introduced and thought “that will correct bad decisions” but how wrong could I be. Your article expressed my current thoughts about the bunker and I agree that this is not how Rugby League was intended to be controlled. We have had enough time to access the benefits and the result is clearly a fail. Scoring acrobatic tries in the corner is the one single benefit, although if we give linesmen back their intended purpose we could drop the bunker’s only real use. Multi slow-motion replays should also be dropped. Let’s watch the game in real-time and stop over analysing every incident. My solution would be to have one referee, two in-goal judges and two linesmen. Drop the bunker and let us debate decisions without any other reference. That use to be fun over a few beers after the game.

Interesting take Nat. Fighting with any weapon is a major issue. Given the amount of reported violence in the media, I can’t quite support your point about “not fully appreciating the damage.”
Learning self-defence is fine if it is applied with an intention to not use it. Thanks for your response.

Yes, I agree that all football codes have done well to control on-field violence. My article was intended as a broader statement of violence against the backdrop of sport. I appreciate your comments.

“Who knows..” Nobody knows, unfortunately. We should be thankful that these incidents don’t happen often in sport. I’m glad that you also survived your one and only fight. We have that in common. Thanks for the feedback, Adam.