2019 The Green Machine Podcast

[Coastalraider]

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.

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment. Once that definition had been made, a line is crossed.

Fundamentally I completely agree with you, chances of any issues happening once the play has passed he player by are minuscule, but that’s not how today’s culture of **** covering works.

[Coastalraider]

To put it in another way - when I go to Bruce with my old man, every single bloody time he gets checked by security for explosives. And every bloody time he rants at me about how unlikely it is that a 67 year old bloke with grey hair and a raiders jumper would be taking a bomb into a footy match (just to note, he does NOT say bing to the security crew!)

Now every time this happens, I have to try to get the point across that in today’s society, this is simply a fact of life. Rather than moaning every time you get checked, look at the bigger picture - I would happily get checked every time if it reduced the risk of a successful attack at a game I was attending. And the security staff have to make these checks, firstly to try to minimise the risk of an attack, but secondly, it would be a condition of their insurance, and an operational condition of the venue.

Now switch that to our discussion- I’m sure once players and fans stepped back for the emotion, they would be happy to call time while a player who a doctor has determined shows enough warning signs of a head injury to require an assessment gets removed from the field, regardless of the risk that continuing play poses. Because if you only save one, the others were worth waiting for. And just like the security point above, they would be doing it because it is a condition of insurance and witching the operational rules for the sport.

[gangrenous]

I think we can agree that neither of us think you can delay or inhibit medical treatment. We just have different views on what the appropriate intervention is that acceptably minimises the risk.

I can’t buy the litigation angle at all. You accept the risk is minuscule given history with the old rule. If somehow play got back and interfered with the medical treatment despite having processes in place, this would happen to a tiny tiny number of players (hopefully none at all if your process is solid). How much can one person sue for? 30M if they show it was negligent? This is a game with a billion dollar TV contract that I can’t see being brought down by a suit on behalf of less than a handful of players. If the NRL go down it will be because of a class action for something like CTE impacting a significant proportion of players.

[Matt]

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!

Ok. This makes more sense

[The Nickman]

To put it in another way - when I go to Bruce with my old man, every single bloody time he gets checked by security for explosives. And every bloody time he rants at me about how unlikely it is that a 67 year old bloke with grey hair and a raiders jumper would be taking a bomb into a footy match (just to note, he does NOT say bing to the security crew!)

Now every time this happens, I have to try to get the point across that in today’s society, this is simply a fact of life. Rather than moaning every time you get checked, look at the bigger picture - I would happily get checked every time if it reduced the risk of a successful attack at a game I was attending. And the security staff have to make these checks, firstly to try to minimise the risk of an attack, but secondly, it would be a condition of their insurance, and an operational condition of the venue.

Now switch that to our discussion- I’m sure once players and fans stepped back for the emotion, they would be happy to call time while a player who a doctor has determined shows enough warning signs of a head injury to require an assessment gets removed from the field, regardless of the risk that continuing play poses. Because if you only save one, the others were worth waiting for. And just like the security point above, they would be doing it because it is a condition of insurance and witching the operational rules for the sport.

Hahaha I’ve never ONCE been explosive tested walking into Bruce and I’ve been there more than a dozen times!

Your old man must just look dodgy as ****!

[Botman]

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

[The Nickman]

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

I dunno, Alfie Langer seems pretty astute to me when he’s sober

[Botman]

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

I dunno, Alfie Langer seems pretty astute to me when he’s sober

touche'

[Matt]

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

I dunno, Alfie Langer seems pretty astute to me when he’s sober

touche'

Gents, the doctor told the manly trainer to have the game stopped. Pretty sure the doctor can make that call.

[Botman]

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

I dunno, Alfie Langer seems pretty astute to me when he’s sober

touche'

Gents, the doctor told the manly trainer to have the game stopped. Pretty sure the doctor can make that call.

Great, so Im just curious as why it took so long to stop the game? And why, given where the play was, and where Boyle was, is there a need to stop the game in this circumstance? The trainer was with the player, just escort him off as quickly as possible so you can get your replacement on. If the player were in the defensive line, fine. If the play was in vicinity, sure. That's how it went down with Manu in that roosters game.
The doctors reviewed the footage, determined he needed to come off and he was right there in the defensive line, so there was no option but to stop the game... in this instance, there was no need to stop the game. The player was able to be safely removed from the play with minimal risks.

Duty of care is a huge issue and one i am very happy is a major focal point of the code, but there are better ways to do this.

[Matt]

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

I dunno, Alfie Langer seems pretty astute to me when he’s sober

touche'

Gents, the doctor told the manly trainer to have the game stopped. Pretty sure the doctor can make that call.

Great, so Im just curious as why it took so long to stop the game? And why, given where the play was, and where Boyle was, is there a need to stop the game in this circumstance? The trainer was with the player, just escort him off as quickly as possible so you can get your replacement on. If the player were in the defensive line, fine. If the play was in vicinity, sure. That's how it went down with Manu in that roosters game.
The doctors reviewed the footage, determined he needed to come off and he was right there in the defensive line, so there was no option but to stop the game... in this instance, there was no need to stop the game. The player was able to be safely removed from the play with minimal risks.

Duty of care is a huge issue and one i am very happy is a major focal point of the code, but there are better ways to do this.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/08/26/gra ... -round-23/

Here is the link again. Coverage of the incident starts as 10.23 in the video. Tackle is at 10.28.
Game clock is 60.47 for the tackle.
62.11 trainer approaches touchie.
62.16 high shot on rapa
62.18 Rapa quick tap
62.27 Rapa tackled and game stopped.

Its 1.24mins between the incident, the doc reviewing it, and the trainer telling the touchie.
Its another 16secs before they stop they game so they can drag him from the field.
Boyle is #16 BTW. He makes 2 tackles in that set, and puts the high shot on Rapa.
HE IS NOT IN BACK PLAY.
HE IS NOT LEFT BEHIND.
He has been in several collisions post the head knock.
He does return to the field, after passing the HIA.
Stop ya whinging, they did the right thing by the player.

[greeneyed]

With a different protocol, he could have been removed faster without stopping the game.

As soon as the doctor instructs the player be removed, the trainer goes to the touchie with an HIA card... he’s sent and on takes the player to the sideline. Once removed he can be replaced. They organise interchanges faster!

[Botman]

I dunno, Alfie Langer seems pretty astute to me when he’s sober

touche'

Gents, the doctor told the manly trainer to have the game stopped. Pretty sure the doctor can make that call.

Great, so Im just curious as why it took so long to stop the game? And why, given where the play was, and where Boyle was, is there a need to stop the game in this circumstance? The trainer was with the player, just escort him off as quickly as possible so you can get your replacement on. If the player were in the defensive line, fine. If the play was in vicinity, sure. That's how it went down with Manu in that roosters game.
The doctors reviewed the footage, determined he needed to come off and he was right there in the defensive line, so there was no option but to stop the game... in this instance, there was no need to stop the game. The player was able to be safely removed from the play with minimal risks.

Duty of care is a huge issue and one i am very happy is a major focal point of the code, but there are better ways to do this.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/08/26/gra ... -round-23/

Here is the link again. Coverage of the incident starts as 10.23 in the video. Tackle is at 10.28.
Game clock is 60.47 for the tackle.
62.11 trainer approaches touchie.
62.16 high shot on rapa
62.18 Rapa quick tap
62.27 Rapa tackled and game stopped.

Its 1.24mins between the incident, the doc reviewing it, and the trainer telling the touchie.
Its another 16secs before they stop they game so they can drag him from the field.
Boyle is #16 BTW. He makes 2 tackles in that set, and puts the high shot on Rapa.
HE IS NOT IN BACK PLAY.
HE IS NOT LEFT BEHIND.
He has been in several collisions post the head knock.
He does return to the field, after passing the HIA.
Stop ya whinging, they did the right thing by the player.

Admittedly i didnt realise he caught up and was near enough to play to warrant stopping the game after the break, so that's fair enough, but even that not withstanding. This highlights a bunch of problems with the process that need to be looked at. We know this rule is being exploited by teams on a number of fronts, but even from a player welfare position

How does it take 90 seconds to get the game stopped, and allow a guy to make 3 tackles after he's showed signs of a concussion? That's just not good enough.

If this is such a serious matter, the game should have been stopped right then and there, on tackle 1. But it's not stopped there. A penalty is then awarded, a natural stop in play, and again, the game is not stopped. Play is allowed to continue. That's 2 instances where play absolutely could have and should have been stopped and wasnt. Let alone taking into account the 90 seconds of play the game allowed this guy to play on with symptoms.

This process is a mess, pure and simple. A mess. You can't tell me in 2019 there isnt a better way to manage this?
This absolutely needs to be reassessed in the off season.

[Matt]

touche'

Gents, the doctor told the manly trainer to have the game stopped. Pretty sure the doctor can make that call.

Great, so Im just curious as why it took so long to stop the game? And why, given where the play was, and where Boyle was, is there a need to stop the game in this circumstance? The trainer was with the player, just escort him off as quickly as possible so you can get your replacement on. If the player were in the defensive line, fine. If the play was in vicinity, sure. That's how it went down with Manu in that roosters game.
The doctors reviewed the footage, determined he needed to come off and he was right there in the defensive line, so there was no option but to stop the game... in this instance, there was no need to stop the game. The player was able to be safely removed from the play with minimal risks.

Duty of care is a huge issue and one i am very happy is a major focal point of the code, but there are better ways to do this.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/08/26/gra ... -round-23/

Here is the link again. Coverage of the incident starts as 10.23 in the video. Tackle is at 10.28.
Game clock is 60.47 for the tackle.
62.11 trainer approaches touchie.
62.16 high shot on rapa
62.18 Rapa quick tap
62.27 Rapa tackled and game stopped.

Its 1.24mins between the incident, the doc reviewing it, and the trainer telling the touchie.
Its another 16secs before they stop they game so they can drag him from the field.
Boyle is #16 BTW. He makes 2 tackles in that set, and puts the high shot on Rapa.
HE IS NOT IN BACK PLAY.
HE IS NOT LEFT BEHIND.
He has been in several collisions post the head knock.
He does return to the field, after passing the HIA.
Stop ya whinging, they did the right thing by the player.

Admittedly i didnt realise he caught up and was near enough to play to warrant stopping the game after the break, so that's fair enough, but even that not withstanding. This highlights a bunch of problems with the process that need to be looked at. We know this rule is being exploited by teams on a number of fronts, but even from a player welfare position

How does it take 90 seconds to get the game stopped, and allow a guy to make 3 tackles after he's showed signs of a concussion? That's just not good enough.

If this is such a serious matter, the game should have been stopped right then and there, on tackle 1. But it's not stopped there. A penalty is then awarded, a natural stop in play, and again, the game is not stopped. Play is allowed to continue. That's 2 instances where play absolutely could have and should have been stopped and wasnt. Let alone taking into account the 90 seconds of play the game allowed this guy to play on with symptoms.

This process is a mess, pure and simple. A mess. You can't tell me in 2019 there isnt a better way to manage this?
This absolutely needs to be reassessed in the off season.

IMO, if the refs saw him stumble out of the original tackle, they should have stopped it there. Ive seen them do that before.

However, if they have missed, and I assume they did, as they didnt stop play, it took 90secs to:
1. get the doc to the little review tent
2. rewind to the correct footage
3. look at it
4. tell the trainer to stop play
5. trainer to tell touchie
6. ref to actually stop play

Im not sure how to speed this process up, but yes, I dont think its good enough.

[Botman]

They managed to do all that pretty quickly, Matt. And the trainer informed the touch judge, and the game was allowed to continue past 2 more stoppages before the game is stopped
If the touchie enters the field and stops the game when he/she is told, the game is stopped on tackle 1, the man is moved on and none of this controversy ever occurs. When he/she is told, why arent we just walking onto the field and stopping it then and there? that's the responsibility. At the very least the quick tap should not have allowed to be taken. You could argue maybe the touch judge cant convey that to the Head ref in time for the play before, but no such allowances can be made for the quick tap.


Frankly, the doctor should have a direct channel to the official and once they determine it, should communicate directly with the head official via his headset to say "Stop the game, #X for team Y needs to be removed"... why are we sending this message from a doctor to a trainer, from a trainer to a touchie, from a touchie to the head official? It's 2019!

[Matt]

They managed to do all that pretty quickly, Matt. And the trainer informed the touch judge, and the game was allowed to continue past 2 more stoppages before the game is stopped
If the touchie enters the field and stops the game when he/she is told, the game is stopped on tackle 1, the man is moved on and none of this controversy ever occurs.

Frankly, the doctor should have a direct channel to the official and once they determine it, should communicate directly with the head official via his headset to say "Stop the game, #X for team Y needs to be removed"... why are we sending this message from a doctor to a trainer, from a trainer to a touchie, from a touchie to the head official?

Fair call. Direct link makes sense.

[Matt]

You are right, BTW, if they call Rapa back, no one says boo about it.
Well... except complain about not getting a quick tap and Sezer only gaining 5m from the kick to touch.

[The Nickman]

Why is Matt discussing this same topic with as many different people as he can over as many different threads as possible??

Giving it the ol' Billy Walker treatment here.

[Coastalraider]

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

The play was called off because the team doctor informed the trainer that an HIA was required, the trainer didnt make the call.

[Coastalraider]

They managed to do all that pretty quickly, Matt. And the trainer informed the touch judge, and the game was allowed to continue past 2 more stoppages before the game is stopped
If the touchie enters the field and stops the game when he/she is told, the game is stopped on tackle 1, the man is moved on and none of this controversy ever occurs.

Frankly, the doctor should have a direct channel to the official and once they determine it, should communicate directly with the head official via his headset to say "Stop the game, #X for team Y needs to be removed"... why are we sending this message from a doctor to a trainer, from a trainer to a touchie, from a touchie to the head official?

Fair call. Direct link makes sense.

Yep, good point, a direct link would be great.

I fully agree the process needs to be cleaned up, my point has always been to try and explain why the game is stopped in the first place, regardless of where the player in question is positioned. The process of how this happens is a mess, independent doctors at each game would limit the amount of scope teams have to manipulate the process. Direct links from Doctor to Ref would be ideal.

I actually believe that some changes will be coming - the Roosters game really highlighted how the process can be taken advantage of, and other teams will be jumping on that tactic to break up flow of the game in the future.

[Botman]

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

The play was called off because the team doctor informed the trainer that an HIA was required, the trainer didnt make the call.

And to my point above, when you say "you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment", i say well thats exactly what happened because this process is a mess. And it has created an unnecessary minor controversy for a fan base, and more importantly put a player at risk for further head injuries, and for what? So a doctor, trainer, touchie and head official can play Chinese whispers... it's not like the officials have headsets that a doctor could go DIRECTLY to when that decision has been made

[Matt]

Why is Matt discussing this same topic with as many different people as he can over as many different threads as possible??

Giving it the ol' Billy Walker treatment here.

Im just lucky I guess

[The Nickman]

Why is Matt discussing this same topic with as many different people as he can over as many different threads as possible??

Giving it the ol' Billy Walker treatment here.

Im just lucky I guess

WE 5H0ULD bE DROpPING JOEY L3iLUA nOW!!!1!!11!!!

[Coastalraider]

In today’s litigious environment, you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment

Just one thing... I dont know who Manly's trainer is, but i know ours is Brett White and he sure as **** isnt a **** medical professional
I suspect there isnt an on field trainer in the league who is in fact a medical professional

The play was called off because the team doctor informed the trainer that an HIA was required, the trainer didnt make the call.

And to my point above, when you say "you can’t continue play once a medical professional has said a player needs a head injury assessment", i say well thats exactly what happened because this process is a mess. And it has created an unnecessary minor controversy for a fan base, and more importantly put a player at risk for further head injuries, and for what? So a doctor, trainer, touchie and head official can play Chinese whispers... it's not like the officials have headsets that a doctor could go DIRECTLY to when that decision has been made

Totally agree, the process is a mess and open to teams taking advantage of it. But its the process thats at fault, not the rational behind stopping play.

[SOULS 04]

Wow this is the most interest i have seen in this thread ever. we must have said something controversial. i was honestly thinking about stopping posting in this thread as i though no one was using it to access the pod. Will def keep posting after this spirited debate.

Episode 107 - To The Duxton is available now at
https://soundcloud.com/user-792269565/g ... the-duxton

[zim]

I would never listen if it wasn't posted here.

[gangrenous]

You can’t obstruct in your own in goal. The Croker break cannot ever be obstruction.

[greeneyed]

You can’t obstruct in your own in goal. The Croker break cannot ever be obstruction.

I couldn’t find the rule that says that.

[The Nickman]

You can’t obstruct in your own in goal. The Croker break cannot ever be obstruction.

I couldn’t find the rule that says that.

I've never known that rule either, but I guess it makes sense. I know you can't be offside in your own in goal, but the obstruction one was new to me.

And either way, you can't expect the players in the heat of the moment to remember every rule, I'll bet my bottom dollar Croker didn't know it.

[-TW-]

It's not a rule as far as I interpret them.

If it was bad enough offence by the defensive team, the offensive team gets a penalty 10m out

Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

It's not a rule as far as I interpret them.

If it was bad enough offence by the defensive team, the offensive team gets a penalty 10m out

Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk

That's what I thought too. I reckon the commentators just got it wrong, and got mixed up with "you can't be offside in your own in-goal".

Otherwise, why wouldn't you coach your team to actively run obstruction plays when somebody picks it up in their in-goal?

[Matt]

You can’t obstruct in your own in goal. The Croker break cannot ever be obstruction.

You cant be offside in your own in goal, not sure about obstruction

[gangrenous]

Hmmm, yep I’m going to retract my statement. Doesn’t look like it is in the rules.

I think you can make a case for most not to be. If the player is stationary or moving backwards then surely they’re entitled to take that position to move into a supporting position for a pass from the runner.

[greeneyed]

Hmmm, yep I’m going to retract my statement. Doesn’t look like it is in the rules.

I think you can make a case for most not to be. If the player is stationary or moving backwards then surely they’re entitled to take that position to move into a supporting position for a pass from the runner.

I don't think there was any obstruction anyway. Croker was simply joking that he slowed down deliberately to avoid the replay on an obstruction call. He's fast over short distances, but he's never been that fast over long distances. I suspect the knee injuries have affected the speed too.

[bonehead]

nobody was obstructed, he wrong footed the chaser