The 18 th Man

[Dexter]

There is some talk about introducing an 18 th man for players being injured by a reportable offence such as Moi Moi on Friday night.

I think the logic is there but I'm not convinced by a long shot. It's the type of rule that could change quickly away from what it was intended to be.

What happens if there is a second similar injury, do we then start having a 19th man or do you sit more than 1 on the bench to cover whoever needs replacing.

It was discussed on NRlxtra last night and all of the panel were in favour, some want it introduced this year.

 

[The Brizz]

I want one of two things to happen.

If your player is fouled by an illegal play that is put on report (all of these should go up stairs for double checking prior to a decision being made) and the victim is deemed unable to continue by a neutral doctor (so no conflicts of interest can occur) I want either.

1.The 18th man is able to come in as a direct replacement and no interchange is registered. I would not limit this to before any certain time or anything because if you hurt an opponent to the point of them not being able to continue your team should be punished not the team next week.

2.The player is deemed unable to continue by an illegal act so the opposition player that was guilty of the action is automatically out for the rest of that game. Once again have it reviewed upstairs as you always get time to do that and also have a neutral doctor assessing any players.

At the end of the day the next side a team gets to play shouldn't benefit when the team playing this week is the one being affected.

 

[simmo77]

I was talking about this the other day and we said that there should be some way to punish a club as well as the guilty player when these things happen. I thought maybe a suspension to a player also happens to the club as in kasiano gets three weeks and the club can't replace him for that time. I know it'll never happen but was something different.

 

[Coxy]

It all seems so rife for exploitation. You'll have so many players stay down in order to get a penalty and maybe have an opposition player out of the 17 (in Brizz's suggestion).

And with the original suggestion, I wouldn't have too much trouble with it if it meant the injured player subbed off can't take any further part in the game. as long as it can't be exploited to effectively have a 5 man bench.

I still like the idea of a report being an automatic sin bin. But again, you'd probably just encourage players to stay down.

 

[The Brizz]

I agree Coxy and that is why I want them all to go upstairs and then have the reportable offence redefined and on top of that I want neutral doctors looking at players. I agree it would be very hard to police.

 

[Dexter]

This is why I am not convinced, the arguement is sound to have an 18th man but it is so open to manipulation. How many games go by without a reportable offence? Most players don't stay down atm but this would encourage it a bit more.

 

[Coxy]

This is why I am not convinced, the arguement is sound to have an 18th man but it is so open to manipulation. How many games go by without a reportable offence? Most players don't stay down atm but this would encourage it a bit more.

Yes. As Brizz says, you'd have to redefine a reportable offence, since these days it seems anything the referees missed in the first instance and is found on replay is put on report.

 

[Mister Wright]

I'm against it. I'm also not in favour of the subsitute fielder in cricket (but that's another story all together). How many great wins have come because a team is 1 or 2 players down. That's the game imo.

 

[Jeba]

I'm against it. I'm also not in favour of the subsitute fielder in cricket (but that's another story all together). How many great wins have come because a team is 1 or 2 players down. That's the game imo.

Agree with this. Originally when I heard it suggested earlier this year I thought it was a good idea, but the more I think about it the more I think it wouldn't work. Injuries are just part of the game unfortunately.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

Agree with this. Originally when I heard it suggested earlier this year I thought it was a good idea, but the more I think about it the more I think it wouldn't work. Injuries are just part of the game unfortunately.

Accidental injuries are, but injuries caused on purpose should not be part of our game. I still look back to the origin match where barrett somehow stayed on the field after breaking inglis' jaw. He shouldve had to sit the rest of the game out just like inglis did. I love the idea that a neutral doctor should assess the player, and if he is deemed unfit to return, the offender should be subbed and unable to return. Wouldnt see many tackles like barretts ever again

 

[Mr Fourex]

This is why I am not convinced, the arguement is sound to have an 18th man but it is so open to manipulation. How many games go by without a reportable offence? Most players don't stay down atm but this would encourage it a bit more.

I disagree. If you watch a bit of old footage 80's..90's. Compared to then, players stay down a hell of a lot more now.

The last thing needed is even more encouragement to stay down. It's ridiculous that an illegal shot could only get picked up on if the player stays down and the vid ref has a look at it. Some players lie down because of a slap across the face

Other players simply get up and get on with it......illegally hit or not

One gets penalised / cited and the other one doesn't.

It's crap.

===================================

re: the 18th man

don't like it

The games changed too much as it is......leave it alone.

 

[Dexter]

Misread much?

 

[simmo77]

Misread much?

A little....but he was down in form before he broke his leg.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Misread much?

????

A little....but he was down in form before he broke his leg.

Agreed......:loool:

 

[Coxy]

????

What Dexter was saying was that hardly any players stay down now, but if you had the 18th man/reportable offence/sin bin/whatever rule in place then MORE players would stay down.

He made no mention of the old days at all.

 

[Mr Fourex]

What Dexter was saying was that hardly any players stay down now, but if you had the 18th man/reportable offence/sin bin/whatever rule in place then MORE players would stay down.

He made no mention of the old days at all.

That's what I disagreed with. Players do stay down now.....

 

[Ghibli]

I was always coached to NEVER stay down, it you gave an inkling to the player that tackled you, that they hurt you, you start to lose the physical battle, they feel that they are top of you (the team that is). I guess I grew up in the "old days". FTR, the scenario that Queensland raised, Barrett should have been marched. Whereas the one on Friday night was IMO an accident against Moi Moi, and as Jeb says that's all part of the game.

 

[Coxy]

To be honest, I think if they simply changed the send off rule such that the player is out of the game but can be replaced, would be better than any video referee review/report/enforced permanent sub rule.

I think there's quite a few occasions where referees think something is very very bad and would ordinarily send them off but for the nagging feeling that it would cause a huge change to the game leaving one team a man short.

If the send off rule was modified to merely mean that player could take no further part in the game, I think you might see it happen more often. It's still an impact on a team being down to 16.