2019 The Green Machine Podcast

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
SOULS 04
Jason Croker
Posts: 4288
Joined: January 25, 2005, 1:00 am
Location: Central Coast

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by SOULS 04 » July 23, 2019, 10:55 pm

https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565/g ... to-find-me

No we aren't going to stop at 100. We are just getting started.
THE GREEN MACHINE PODCAST - https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565

User avatar
SOULS 04
Jason Croker
Posts: 4288
Joined: January 25, 2005, 1:00 am
Location: Central Coast

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by SOULS 04 » July 30, 2019, 10:34 pm

Episode 102 - Fan Of The Strip has the green lights and is available on Soundcloud, Itunes, Spotify and Facebook.

https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565/g ... -the-strip
THE GREEN MACHINE PODCAST - https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by gangrenous » July 31, 2019, 6:56 am

Haven’t listened yet, but if you’re fans of the strip enjoy it this year. I expect the rule to be dead by Christmas.

User avatar
SOULS 04
Jason Croker
Posts: 4288
Joined: January 25, 2005, 1:00 am
Location: Central Coast

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by SOULS 04 » August 6, 2019, 10:19 pm

Episode 103 - Is It BJ Time has the green lights. We are available on iTunes, Spotify, Soundcloud and Facebook Live.

https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565/g ... it-bj-time
THE GREEN MACHINE PODCAST - https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 127412
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by greeneyed » August 6, 2019, 10:28 pm

Good ep! Listened to most of it live.
Image

User avatar
SOULS 04
Jason Croker
Posts: 4288
Joined: January 25, 2005, 1:00 am
Location: Central Coast

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by SOULS 04 » August 13, 2019, 10:40 pm

Get ready for a long one. One and a half hours of Green Machine Podcast Goodness. Episode 104 has the green lights. Features the full set of M's as well as the boys from League By The Fireplace.

Available On Itunes, Facebook Live, Soundcloud and Spotify.

https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565/g ... d-sunshine
THE GREEN MACHINE PODCAST - https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565

User avatar
SOULS 04
Jason Croker
Posts: 4288
Joined: January 25, 2005, 1:00 am
Location: Central Coast

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by SOULS 04 » August 20, 2019, 10:58 pm

THE GREEN MACHINE PODCAST - https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565

User avatar
zim
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6926
Joined: July 8, 2015, 3:38 pm
Favourite Player: Past: Brett Mullins
Present: Elliot Whitehead
Location: Sydney

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by zim » August 21, 2019, 9:58 am

It's nice of mike2 to apologize but I believe with previous loading we'll require a pinky.

User avatar
SOULS 04
Jason Croker
Posts: 4288
Joined: January 25, 2005, 1:00 am
Location: Central Coast

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by SOULS 04 » August 27, 2019, 10:34 pm

THE GREEN MACHINE PODCAST - https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 127412
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by greeneyed » August 27, 2019, 10:51 pm

Soulsy... you got the HIA stoppages thing exactly right!
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by gangrenous » August 28, 2019, 8:50 am

Thoughts from the episode. I’m mainly responding where I disagree so it’s a bit negative, but thought it was a really good episode. Loved Matt and Mike firing up over HIA, great to have the contest of opinions. My thoughts:

- Mike 1 did indeed nail the HIA rule discussion. Matt was unable to explain how the duty of care was impacted by the play continuing to a natural stopping point. If the NRL go down due to litigation it will be class action brain injury from collision, not players who had a game continue downfield from them. Agree with Mike that this will be used to destroy the game. I’m sorry Matt but having the referee judge how long a player should stay off makes no sense to me and will not work imo. No way the game needs more grey and refs discretion where they can’t determine how injured/uninjured a player was, nor judge perfectly how many minutes the momentum was worth etc.

- On the penalties. There should be no way a game can get to 26 penalties without a sin bin. The game got out of hand because the ref didn’t use the tools available to him properly.

- Mike 2 I don’t think there was a scrum overturned by the video ref? Don’t think they’re actually allowed to do that any more are they? At least unless they’re asked.

- I hate the idea of refs being demoted to a “**** game”. No NRL game should be considered a demotion. The less loved NRL teams don’t deserve awful refereeing week on week. It’s hurt the Raiders a lot over the years. Having Sutton “demoted” to a game where one of the teams was still fighting for a finals spot as I recall was disgraceful.

- Mike 1 I really can’t agree with your dismissal of bad decisions because there’s time to fix it. That play gave them almost half their points! It’s like having an exam where they go “oh there’s a mistake in this question worth 25% so we won’t count it or adjust the marking, but you’re still able to pass because there’s 75/100 marks still available. You can still get over 50 if you’re good enough”. Just because something is still possible, doesn’t make it fair.

- Attributing the end game scenario more to Croker’s miss instead of BJ’s penalty is not fair imo.

- Order of Operations won’t work for NRL because the sequence of events is not as set as cricket. I am a fan of being careful and checking things, I don’t think the extra time is too bad. But even I don’t want to have to check every second of every try (even the obvious ones), because that’s where you’d have to end up.

- Being pedantic, I wouldn’t call BJ being out for 2 weeks “unfortunate”. Implies there was some luck in the circumstances. If we win the next two games there’s no way I want him back for finals.

- Being more pedantic it wasn’t a “Penalty try” it was an “8 point try”

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by gangrenous » August 28, 2019, 8:59 am

- Agree completely with the Viking Clap and Cry Baby stuff, great for rivalries

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 127412
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by greeneyed » August 28, 2019, 10:28 am

That bloke kicked his own girlfriend in an act of domestic violence. If the crowd was giving it to him... he should turn around, having won the game, and say I’m grateful I’m even playing.
Image

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44111
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by The Rickman » August 28, 2019, 10:29 am

God you're a whinger, gangy
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
simo
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8593
Joined: March 12, 2013, 7:50 pm
Favourite Player: Keghead

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by simo » August 28, 2019, 10:38 am

I dont refs fault, but heres 20 mins on how the refs stuffed up a call.
Not “refs faulting” is a ridiculous badge of honour people are trying to wear.
Dont delete this GE

User avatar
Coastalraider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2151
Joined: May 31, 2015, 7:25 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Coastalraider » August 28, 2019, 10:43 am

On the HIA stoppage rule and its effect on Duty Of Care, my thoughts are that its unfortunate that it WILL effect tactics, but is unavoidable.

There was an incident earlier this year (which I think may have created the ruling we are arguing about now) where a player was knocked unconscious and left in the backplay while the match continued. It was a really ugly look fore the game, and in a serious head knock situation the play should be stopped to allow trainers, first aid etc to be administered.

To use an example - lets say we are defending, and one of our boys has a head clash with the attacking player and goes down knocked out. The attacker continues another 10m before being tackled, leaving our boy in back play and in all likelihood not going to be in any immediate danger. Lets say one or two of our boys run over and roll him into recovery while the trainer gets there- we are now 3 players down in our defensive line because all care is being taken to ensure the safety of our player (who is not in immediate danger from the play). Play should be called, because if its NOT stopped, our players may have thought twice about running to help. In this situation creating the environment to prioritise the safety of the player, regardless of impact from the actual playing of the match, takes precedence, and rightly so.

The issue comes in where to draw the line - does a player have to be unconscious? Do they merely have to be wobbly?

The definition has already been set - they need to be at risk of concussion and require an HIA test. Full Stop. It has to be that way for DoC, insurance, perception of care for example.

It is completely open to being taken advantage of, but there really is no other way right now.

User avatar
simo
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8593
Joined: March 12, 2013, 7:50 pm
Favourite Player: Keghead

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by simo » August 28, 2019, 10:47 am

Coastalraider wrote:
August 28, 2019, 10:43 am
On the HIA stoppage rule and its effect on Duty Of Care, my thoughts are that its unfortunate that it WILL effect tactics, but is unavoidable.

There was an incident earlier this year (which I think may have created the ruling we are arguing about now) where a player was knocked unconscious and left in the backplay while the match continued. It was a really ugly look fore the game, and in a serious head knock situation the play should be stopped to allow trainers, first aid etc to be administered.

To use an example - lets say we are defending, and one of our boys has a head clash with the attacking player and goes down knocked out. The attacker continues another 10m before being tackled, leaving our boy in back play and in all likelihood not going to be in any immediate danger. Lets say one or two of our boys run over and roll him into recovery while the trainer gets there- we are now 3 players down in our defensive line because all care is being taken to ensure the safety of our player (who is not in immediate danger from the play). Play should be called, because if its NOT stopped, our players may have thought twice about running to help. In this situation creating the environment to prioritise the safety of the player, regardless of impact from the actual playing of the match, takes precedence, and rightly so.

The issue comes in where to draw the line - does a player have to be unconscious? Do they merely have to be wobbly?

The definition has already been set - they need to be at risk of concussion and require an HIA test. Full Stop. It has to be that way for DoC, insurance, perception of care for example.

It is completely open to being taken advantage of, but there really is no other way right now.
The issue is that the player was on his feet and already on his way to the sideline. Stopping the game should be reserved to when a player is not able to be moved. If a player is unable to be removed during play and requires the game to stop, duty of care should be that that player is unable to retake the field for the remainder of the game
Dont delete this GE

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44111
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by The Rickman » August 28, 2019, 10:54 am

simo wrote:
August 28, 2019, 10:38 am
I dont refs fault, but heres 20 mins on how the refs stuffed up a call.
Not “refs faulting” is a ridiculous badge of honour people are trying to wear.
God you're a whinger, simo.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 32277
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Wighton, Croker, Hodgson, Cotric
Location: Canberra

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Matt » August 28, 2019, 10:57 am

gangrenous wrote:
August 28, 2019, 8:50 am
Thoughts from the episode. I’m mainly responding where I disagree so it’s a bit negative, but thought it was a really good episode. Loved Matt and Mike firing up over HIA, great to have the contest of opinions. My thoughts:

- Mike 1 did indeed nail the HIA rule discussion. Matt was unable to explain how the duty of care was impacted by the play continuing to a natural stopping point. If the NRL go down due to litigation it will be class action brain injury from collision, not players who had a game continue downfield from them. Agree with Mike that this will be used to destroy the game. I’m sorry Matt but having the referee judge how long a player should stay off makes no sense to me and will not work imo. No way the game needs more grey and refs discretion where they can’t determine how injured/uninjured a player was, nor judge perfectly how many minutes the momentum was worth etc.

- On the penalties. There should be no way a game can get to 26 penalties without a sin bin. The game got out of hand because the ref didn’t use the tools available to him properly.

- Mike 2 I don’t think there was a scrum overturned by the video ref? Don’t think they’re actually allowed to do that any more are they? At least unless they’re asked.

- I hate the idea of refs being demoted to a “**** game”. No NRL game should be considered a demotion. The less loved NRL teams don’t deserve awful refereeing week on week. It’s hurt the Raiders a lot over the years. Having Sutton “demoted” to a game where one of the teams was still fighting for a finals spot as I recall was disgraceful.

- Mike 1 I really can’t agree with your dismissal of bad decisions because there’s time to fix it. That play gave them almost half their points! It’s like having an exam where they go “oh there’s a mistake in this question worth 25% so we won’t count it or adjust the marking, but you’re still able to pass because there’s 75/100 marks still available. You can still get over 50 if you’re good enough”. Just because something is still possible, doesn’t make it fair.

- Attributing the end game scenario more to Croker’s miss instead of BJ’s penalty is not fair imo.

- Order of Operations won’t work for NRL because the sequence of events is not as set as cricket. I am a fan of being careful and checking things, I don’t think the extra time is too bad. But even I don’t want to have to check every second of every try (even the obvious ones), because that’s where you’d have to end up.

- Being pedantic, I wouldn’t call BJ being out for 2 weeks “unfortunate”. Implies there was some luck in the circumstances. If we win the next two games there’s no way I want him back for finals.

- Being more pedantic it wasn’t a “Penalty try” it was an “8 point try”
Gangers,

A tackle is deemed 'a natural stopping point' by the NRL. The reason to stop the game is to remove said player from the action ASAP. As has been mentioned it all comes back to the concussion stuff from the NFL. The reason to remove him ASAP is so that in an absolute worst case senario - ie Phil Hughes - medical people can tend to him immediately. Expediency of action is the key. Yes, 100%, teams abuse this rule, and its almost impossible to stop it (though, Id like to see the doctor review the so called incident during the HIA time, and if they deem it to be frivolous then make it an interchange - I admit, this is probably only going to go against the player 1:100 times, but still). Doesnt mean that the NRL arent doing the right thing by the player, player not game, by doing what they are doing. Stopping the game is a reaction to the society we will in, a 'sue 1st' one, so the reaction is to overreact with a 'cover my butt' policy, hence stop the game. The contentious one on the weekend was stopped due to the doctor asking the trainer to do so. A doctor wanted Boyle removed from the game. I was super pissed at the time, but if a medical pro says stop the game get him off, I can live with that.

If you want to stop players staying down who arent hurt, they/ the team need to be punished for doing so. However, to say 'the refs are incompetent now and they cant handle an extra thing' inst a great argument. If you want to give that responsibility to the 4th/ sideline ref/ time keeper, rather than the on field guy thats fine, and if it means said player has to be dragged to the sideline where that ref is, im ok with that too. As for the time penalty, its no different to a sin bin timer really. If you want to give it a min time, be that on the clock or set of 6, again Im happy to look at that too. Im just trying to suggest something that works perfectly fine in another sport, and that might be adapted as a method to discourage this stuff in the NRL.

As for the bunker review order of operation, yup, the blatantly obvious ones are going to take longer. However, the blatantly obvious ones shouldn't have been sent up anyway. Id argue that most tries arent going to take any longer than they do now. Generally bunker referrals are a close range try, and often from a kick, which means its only been through 2 or 3 sets of hands anyway - How many times have you seen them replay to the kicker catching the ball from the dummyhalf who passed it to them? Its only a split sec to sec further back. The whole idea is to create a repeatable method of removing errors, and creating a transparent and consistent system in a process that shouldn't have any issues but obviously does. BTW, this requires the video ref to have the entire rule book at his disposal rather than the abridged book he has now.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44111
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by The Rickman » August 28, 2019, 11:01 am

God you're a whinger, Matt
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Coastalraider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2151
Joined: May 31, 2015, 7:25 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Coastalraider » August 28, 2019, 11:03 am

simo wrote:
August 28, 2019, 10:47 am
Coastalraider wrote:
August 28, 2019, 10:43 am
On the HIA stoppage rule and its effect on Duty Of Care, my thoughts are that its unfortunate that it WILL effect tactics, but is unavoidable.

There was an incident earlier this year (which I think may have created the ruling we are arguing about now) where a player was knocked unconscious and left in the backplay while the match continued. It was a really ugly look fore the game, and in a serious head knock situation the play should be stopped to allow trainers, first aid etc to be administered.

To use an example - lets say we are defending, and one of our boys has a head clash with the attacking player and goes down knocked out. The attacker continues another 10m before being tackled, leaving our boy in back play and in all likelihood not going to be in any immediate danger. Lets say one or two of our boys run over and roll him into recovery while the trainer gets there- we are now 3 players down in our defensive line because all care is being taken to ensure the safety of our player (who is not in immediate danger from the play). Play should be called, because if its NOT stopped, our players may have thought twice about running to help. In this situation creating the environment to prioritise the safety of the player, regardless of impact from the actual playing of the match, takes precedence, and rightly so.

The issue comes in where to draw the line - does a player have to be unconscious? Do they merely have to be wobbly?

The definition has already been set - they need to be at risk of concussion and require an HIA test. Full Stop. It has to be that way for DoC, insurance, perception of care for example.

It is completely open to being taken advantage of, but there really is no other way right now.
The issue is that the player was on his feet and already on his way to the sideline. Stopping the game should be reserved to when a player is not able to be moved. If a player is unable to be removed during play and requires the game to stop, duty of care should be that that player is unable to retake the field for the remainder of the game
It wasnt even the same play! I get your point, I really do, and that would be my preference in a perfect situation. But a player can get up, start walking to the sideline and go down again. A player doesn't have to be swallowing his tongue to need assistance from team mates or trainers. To use the case on the weekend as an example, a trained doctor, whose responsibility it is to judge the requirement for a head assessment made the call that he had the potential for a concussion, and required that assessment. To me in the modern world, that means everything stops until he is off the field of play and out of any kind of danger from the match.

And heres a HUGE reason why it is now the only way to go - insurance. Matt made the great point that if the NRL had a legal case go against them like the NFL had, they would be toast financially. Now I dont for a second think that they aren't insured via their liability policy for risks such as this, but in the last decade with the examples of the NFL, insurers would be putting some HUGE conditions around duty of care for head injuries, as the consequences in contact sports are more visible and studied than ever before. Lets say someone is in back play , an intercept is thrown and that injured player gets re-hit. Unlikely, but possible. If that player ends up with a long term head injury, the insurance company would fight tooth and nail to NOT pay that insurance out, as they could argue that the referees did not follow through on duty of care, and stop the game once a medical professional had identified an initial injury. The continuation of the play resulted in further injury - guess who's at fault here. And that is why as soon as a trainer calls for an HIA play stops.

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44111
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by The Rickman » August 28, 2019, 11:05 am

God you're a whinger, *checks notes*, Coastal
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 32277
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Wighton, Croker, Hodgson, Cotric
Location: Canberra

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Matt » August 28, 2019, 11:06 am

The Rickman wrote:
August 28, 2019, 11:01 am
God you're a whinger, Matt
:roflmao :roflmao :roflmao

User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 32277
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Wighton, Croker, Hodgson, Cotric
Location: Canberra

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Matt » August 28, 2019, 11:09 am

Coastalraider wrote:
August 28, 2019, 11:03 am
simo wrote:
August 28, 2019, 10:47 am
Coastalraider wrote:
August 28, 2019, 10:43 am
On the HIA stoppage rule and its effect on Duty Of Care, my thoughts are that its unfortunate that it WILL effect tactics, but is unavoidable.

There was an incident earlier this year (which I think may have created the ruling we are arguing about now) where a player was knocked unconscious and left in the backplay while the match continued. It was a really ugly look fore the game, and in a serious head knock situation the play should be stopped to allow trainers, first aid etc to be administered.

To use an example - lets say we are defending, and one of our boys has a head clash with the attacking player and goes down knocked out. The attacker continues another 10m before being tackled, leaving our boy in back play and in all likelihood not going to be in any immediate danger. Lets say one or two of our boys run over and roll him into recovery while the trainer gets there- we are now 3 players down in our defensive line because all care is being taken to ensure the safety of our player (who is not in immediate danger from the play). Play should be called, because if its NOT stopped, our players may have thought twice about running to help. In this situation creating the environment to prioritise the safety of the player, regardless of impact from the actual playing of the match, takes precedence, and rightly so.

The issue comes in where to draw the line - does a player have to be unconscious? Do they merely have to be wobbly?

The definition has already been set - they need to be at risk of concussion and require an HIA test. Full Stop. It has to be that way for DoC, insurance, perception of care for example.

It is completely open to being taken advantage of, but there really is no other way right now.
The issue is that the player was on his feet and already on his way to the sideline. Stopping the game should be reserved to when a player is not able to be moved. If a player is unable to be removed during play and requires the game to stop, duty of care should be that that player is unable to retake the field for the remainder of the game
It wasnt even the same play! I get your point, I really do, and that would be my preference in a perfect situation. But a player can get up, start walking to the sideline and go down again. A player doesn't have to be swallowing his tongue to need assistance from team mates or trainers. To use the case on the weekend as an example, a trained doctor, whose responsibility it is to judge the requirement for a head assessment made the call that he had the potential for a concussion, and required that assessment. To me in the modern world, that means everything stops until he is off the field of play and out of any kind of danger from the match.

And heres a HUGE reason why it is now the only way to go - insurance. Matt made the great point that if the NRL had a legal case go against them like the NFL had, they would be toast financially. Now I dont for a second think that they aren't insured via their liability policy for risks such as this, but in the last decade with the examples of the NFL, insurers would be putting some HUGE conditions around duty of care for head injuries, as the consequences in contact sports are more visible and studied than ever before. Lets say someone is in back play , an intercept is thrown and that injured player gets re-hit. Unlikely, but possible. If that player ends up with a long term head injury, the insurance company would fight tooth and nail to NOT pay that insurance out, as they could argue that the referees did not follow through on duty of care, and stop the game once a medical professional had identified an initial injury. The continuation of the play resulted in further injury - guess who's at fault here. And that is why as soon as a trainer calls for an HIA play stops.
You have said it better than I CR. Well done

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 127412
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by greeneyed » August 28, 2019, 11:11 am

The Rickman wrote:
August 28, 2019, 11:01 am
God you're a whinger, Matt
You whinge about whinging which is even worse. It is punishing!
Image

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44111
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by The Rickman » August 28, 2019, 11:15 am

greeneyed wrote:
August 28, 2019, 11:11 am
The Rickman wrote:
August 28, 2019, 11:01 am
God you're a whinger, Matt
You whinge about whinging which is even worse. It is punishing!
God you're a punish, Fergus
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Coastalraider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2151
Joined: May 31, 2015, 7:25 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Coastalraider » August 28, 2019, 11:19 am

Matt wrote:
August 28, 2019, 11:09 am
Coastalraider wrote:
August 28, 2019, 11:03 am
simo wrote:
August 28, 2019, 10:47 am
Coastalraider wrote:
August 28, 2019, 10:43 am
On the HIA stoppage rule and its effect on Duty Of Care, my thoughts are that its unfortunate that it WILL effect tactics, but is unavoidable.

There was an incident earlier this year (which I think may have created the ruling we are arguing about now) where a player was knocked unconscious and left in the backplay while the match continued. It was a really ugly look fore the game, and in a serious head knock situation the play should be stopped to allow trainers, first aid etc to be administered.

To use an example - lets say we are defending, and one of our boys has a head clash with the attacking player and goes down knocked out. The attacker continues another 10m before being tackled, leaving our boy in back play and in all likelihood not going to be in any immediate danger. Lets say one or two of our boys run over and roll him into recovery while the trainer gets there- we are now 3 players down in our defensive line because all care is being taken to ensure the safety of our player (who is not in immediate danger from the play). Play should be called, because if its NOT stopped, our players may have thought twice about running to help. In this situation creating the environment to prioritise the safety of the player, regardless of impact from the actual playing of the match, takes precedence, and rightly so.

The issue comes in where to draw the line - does a player have to be unconscious? Do they merely have to be wobbly?

The definition has already been set - they need to be at risk of concussion and require an HIA test. Full Stop. It has to be that way for DoC, insurance, perception of care for example.

It is completely open to being taken advantage of, but there really is no other way right now.
The issue is that the player was on his feet and already on his way to the sideline. Stopping the game should be reserved to when a player is not able to be moved. If a player is unable to be removed during play and requires the game to stop, duty of care should be that that player is unable to retake the field for the remainder of the game
It wasnt even the same play! I get your point, I really do, and that would be my preference in a perfect situation. But a player can get up, start walking to the sideline and go down again. A player doesn't have to be swallowing his tongue to need assistance from team mates or trainers. To use the case on the weekend as an example, a trained doctor, whose responsibility it is to judge the requirement for a head assessment made the call that he had the potential for a concussion, and required that assessment. To me in the modern world, that means everything stops until he is off the field of play and out of any kind of danger from the match.

And heres a HUGE reason why it is now the only way to go - insurance. Matt made the great point that if the NRL had a legal case go against them like the NFL had, they would be toast financially. Now I dont for a second think that they aren't insured via their liability policy for risks such as this, but in the last decade with the examples of the NFL, insurers would be putting some HUGE conditions around duty of care for head injuries, as the consequences in contact sports are more visible and studied than ever before. Lets say someone is in back play , an intercept is thrown and that injured player gets re-hit. Unlikely, but possible. If that player ends up with a long term head injury, the insurance company would fight tooth and nail to NOT pay that insurance out, as they could argue that the referees did not follow through on duty of care, and stop the game once a medical professional had identified an initial injury. The continuation of the play resulted in further injury - guess who's at fault here. And that is why as soon as a trainer calls for an HIA play stops.
You have said it better than I CR. Well done
Mare I wasnt doing it live into a mic!

User avatar
Coastalraider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2151
Joined: May 31, 2015, 7:25 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Coastalraider » August 28, 2019, 11:19 am

The Rickman wrote:
August 28, 2019, 11:05 am
God you're a whinger, *checks notes*, Coastal
I feel like I've finally made it :roflmao

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by gangrenous » August 28, 2019, 6:15 pm

Matt you’re still not actually addressing the crux of the argument. No one is suggesting that the player should be unable to be treated or removed from the game.

The play has continued down field. There is no risk to the player at this point and he can be treated.

Like I said if the NRL is getting sued it’s going to be class action for being a collision sport. CTE isn’t impacted by the game continuing downfield to my knowledge. If there were multiple cases of players unable to be appropriately treated or escorted from the field safely under the old rule you’d have a case. As far as I’m aware the old rule worked fine.

It’s an easy fix anyway. Have an independent NRL rep who runs out to incidents with trainer. If it’s a case like a broken leg where he isn’t going to be able to be moved safely before play returns then he or she stops the game. They also have a whistle to stop the game immediately if there is a change of possession and play looks to return faster than anticipated.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by gangrenous » August 28, 2019, 6:19 pm

On the option for ref decided timeouts. It’s not that there’s too much for the refs to consider, it’s that I don’t trust NRL officials to be able to fairly and transparently rule on how long the player should be off for.

“Oh that Broncos player looks like he’s okay and milking let’s say he stays off for 10 mins. That Raiders player looks legit hurt he can come straight back.”

There’s nothing concrete they can point to to make decisions like that. You said yourself they’re not doctors. Fans would absolutely hate arbitrary sanctions that can have no black and white rulings even in the rule book.

That’s why it would never work.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by gangrenous » August 28, 2019, 6:25 pm

Matt wrote:However, the blatantly obvious ones shouldn't have been sent up anyway.
Order of operations doesn’t solve the problem then because on the weekend the ref obviously considered the offside to be blatantly obvious as he didn’t ask it to be checked.

It only solves it then if you send every try. There can be no blatantly obvious ones because the problem you’re solving is the ref not asking for things to be checked.

The current system generally works in this respect. The ref just should have asked for onside to be checked giving how unlikely the intercept was to be legal.

User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 32277
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Wighton, Croker, Hodgson, Cotric
Location: Canberra

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Matt » August 28, 2019, 9:30 pm

gangrenous wrote:
August 28, 2019, 6:15 pm
Matt you’re still not actually addressing the crux of the argument. No one is suggesting that the player should be unable to be treated or removed from the game.

The play has continued down field. There is no risk to the player at this point and he can be treated.

Like I said if the NRL is getting sued it’s going to be class action for being a collision sport. CTE isn’t impacted by the game continuing downfield to my knowledge. If there were multiple cases of players unable to be appropriately treated or escorted from the field safely under the old rule you’d have a case. As far as I’m aware the old rule worked fine.

It’s an easy fix anyway. Have an independent NRL rep who runs out to incidents with trainer. If it’s a case like a broken leg where he isn’t going to be able to be moved safely before play returns then he or she stops the game. They also have a whistle to stop the game immediately if there is a change of possession and play looks to return faster than anticipated.
Boyle wasn't left behind. He got up and stumbled back into the defensive line. Which is where the trainer removed him from. The only part he was left behind for, was Rapa taking off in the 1st place, and half Boyles team mates were left behind too.

The problem you have is, most recognised HIAs are players stumbling back into the defensive line. Because it's the most obvious side effect. Which means the player is putting themselves back in harm's way by trying to get there for his mates, admirable as it is. They are rarely left behind.

I like the independent medico part though.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 127412
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by greeneyed » August 28, 2019, 9:35 pm

It is easy to just have the touch judge say yes... go on the field and escort the player off, if he is capable of running/walking to the nearest touch line. The medicab can go pick him up if need be. The play should not and must not stop, unless the player is incapable of walking ,off, otherwise clubs will cheat. As soon as the player leaves the field, a new player can come on. It’s easy, it’s safe, it doesn’t unnecessarily stop the play. It doesn’t endanger anyone’s safety.
Image

User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 32277
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Wighton, Croker, Hodgson, Cotric
Location: Canberra

Re: 2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by Matt » August 28, 2019, 9:36 pm

gangrenous wrote:
August 28, 2019, 6:25 pm
Matt wrote:However, the blatantly obvious ones shouldn't have been sent up anyway.
Order of operations doesn’t solve the problem then because on the weekend the ref obviously considered the offside to be blatantly obvious as he didn’t ask it to be checked.

It only solves it then if you send every try. There can be no blatantly obvious ones because the problem you’re solving is the ref not asking for things to be checked.

The current system generally works in this respect. The ref just should have asked for onside to be checked giving how unlikely the intercept was to be legal.
That's where u r wrong .
1. The Bunker doesn't have the authority to use the entire rulebook. BTW, dumbest thing ever!

2. They are supposed to check what the on field guy says - the onfield ref didn't ask about onside, so they didn't check. Which is also what Annessly said.

3. They don't have an order of operation in the bunker now. It's all done on the fly. He'll... They only started checking onside for kicks this yr, coz they got so many wrong last yr. They need a checklist coz they are that bad at looking at it.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

2019 The Green Machine Podcast

Post by gangrenous » August 28, 2019, 10:00 pm

Matt wrote: Boyle wasn't left behind. He got up and stumbled back into the defensive line. Which is where the trainer removed him from. The only part he was left behind for, was Rapa taking off in the 1st place, and half Boyles team mates were left behind too.
That changes things a bit. I didn’t realise Boyle kept up with the play?

The second response on OOO. I think you might have misunderstood my point. Because I don’t see how the three points relate to what I said. I agree this issue was the ref not asking. My point is the only way OOO fixes that is if they always check everything no matter what the ref asks. Which then means you need to do it for every try. Because if refs really did understand what was obvious and not needing to be checked then you don’t have a problem in the first place!

Post Reply