Banning the long kick off

[Carlos Parra]

Much discussion about this in the media in recent days. All because of what happened when Moses Suli got in the way of a rampaging JWH (in fact his team mate nudged him into the wrong position whilst attempting the tackle).

Apparently it has been suggested as a way to cut down on head injuries immediately after kick off.

Who knows, JWH might go down in history as the Walter Lindrum of Rugby League.

The NRL seem intent on destroying the spectacle of the game.

[Paddo Colt 61]

Ir's all about Negligence and insurance premiums. I look at it and wonder if it will be around in 50 years time. Gould said last night that the pool of talent is small. The inner city juniors, and juniors at large, are dying. My grandson's Paddo Colts side played a Manly team in their GF. People like to watch it but don't want their kids to play. It is also quite difficult to field a side in the high schools. Modern kids ain't too big on exercise let alone being injured in any way.

What we've got is a lot of Nancy Boys now that the Anzacs have gone. No wonder that the warriors of the Pacific, they who used to paddle long distances to get into mortal combat, even eating their enemy, are so prominent in the game. That level of commitment has to be the future I'm sue you'll agree Carlo.

PS I'll tell ya how bad the talent shortfall is, I got a call from Robbo asking if I had one more game in me. Wanted a Cronk type situation, not doing much but directing the D'n'O.

[ism22]

Much discussion about this in the media in recent days. All because of what happened when Moses Suli got in the way of a rampaging JWH (in fact his team mate nudged him into the wrong position whilst attempting the tackle).

Apparently it has been suggested as a way to cut down on head injuries immediately after kick off.

Who knows, JWH might go down in history as the Walter Lindrum of Rugby League.

The NRL seem intent on destroying the spectacle of the game.

IMO it's a beat-up...

Though I hate it, I reckon the more likely result would be that (similar to jamming in) they'd simply come down hard in players who lash out with uncontrolled swinging arms...etc during kick-offs.

I reckon what they are REALLY doing here is trying to gather evidence that:

1. Players have accepted that THEY have a 'duty of care' not to cause harm to players. The NRL forces everybody to make a verbal confession that they owed the other player a duty of care when they face the weekly tribunal for careless high tackles...etc. Noting that 'duty of care' is legal speak for 'I am responsible for any legal damages they suffer as a result of my conduct'.

2. All harm that has been caused to players is a result of people breaking the rules (which don't allow contact with the head, even if it's a careless accident).

Insurers might be interested in these sorts of details (I dunno). However I reckon all they care about is protecting their butts from litigation, which is a legit cause as I wouldn't wanna see the NRL go broke as a result of litigation.

Junior players? Not really within the NRL's scope if it's a club / high school game that doesn't use their rules or officials (e.g. a club or a school system will wear the risk). However I think injuries are different at this level as players aren't highly tuned war machines... they're kids having a run around in the park.

[Carlos Parra]

IMO it's a beat-up...

Though I hate it, I reckon the more likely result would be that (similar to jamming in) they'd simply come down hard in players who lash out with uncontrolled swinging arms...etc during kick-offs.

I reckon what they are REALLY doing here is trying to gather evidence that:

1. Players have accepted that THEY have a 'duty of care' not to cause harm to players. The NRL forces everybody to make a verbal confession that they owed the other player a duty of care when they face the weekly tribunal for careless high tackles...etc. Noting that 'duty of care' is legal speak for 'I am responsible for any legal damages they suffer as a result of my conduct'.

2. All harm that has been caused to players is a result of people breaking the rules (which don't allow contact with the head, even if it's a careless accident).

Insurers might be interested in these sorts of details (I dunno). However I reckon all they care about is protecting their butts from litigation, which is a legit cause as I wouldn't wanna see the NRL go broke as a result of litigation.

Junior players? Not really within the NRL's scope if it's a club / high school game that doesn't use their rules or officials (e.g. a club or a school system will wear the risk). However I think injuries are different at this level as players aren't highly tuned war machines... they're kids having a run around in the park.

Well thought out.