NRL NRL Rules

[Ref]

Also, define what a play the ball is and what will be penalised. It’s not that hard surely? Stand up, plant the ball, use your foot to play the ball back.. and be consistent with the rulings on

You are bang on.
It’s my understanding that we will be making sure the foot makes contact with the ball.
It used to be a penalty for not getting your foot to the ball.
It is a staple of our game that must be pulled back into line.

Same as a knock on or forward pass.
It’s an offence with no discretion allowed.

 

[Matiunz]

Better ‘punishment’ for HIA would simply be if an illegal action causes a player to not be able to continue- the offending player is essentially benched then unable to come back on. What this does is the aggressing team doesn’t gain an advantage from the opposition losing a player to HIA, instead their bench is also negatively affected.
Like that milking is being stamped out with obstruction as it was frustrating seeing try’s being scrubbed out when the offending play had zero effect on the end result. Only problem is it becomes a grey interpretation now

 

[Makasene]

Am I right that an HIA ruling can be made by the team.

And, if they choose not to, the independent doctor can / will make the ruling for them? Or, if entirely missed by the team, the independent doctor can call for it?

If so, then you would need to take the HIA rulings completely out of the hands of the clubs. We would not even get to the end of Round 1 before it will be suggested that club A scrubbed their own player out for the rest of the game so that Club B would have their player sin binned

 

[Evil_Mush]

With our injuries to key players being talk of the town again, I was wondering about how the 18th man works, and whether that should be reworked in the case of players being deemed unable to return to the field, regardless of the reason?

As I understand it, 18th man only gets activated when 2 players are removed permanently from a game due to HIA fail and/or foul play?

I'm just wondering, why does it need to be those conditions? Surely if a team is down to 2 player bench regardless of reason that should be good enough for 18th man (player welfare etc etc)

Are there stats as to how many times 18th man has actually been put on NRL-wide this year? For all the times we've lost players in games, I don't think we've had it once right?

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

With our injuries to key players being talk of the town again, I was wondering about how the 18th man works, and whether that should be reworked in the case of players being deemed unable to return to the field, regardless of the reason?

As I understand it, 18th man only gets activated when 2 players are removed permanently from a game due to HIA fail and/or foul play?

I'm just wondering, why does it need to be those conditions? Surely if a team is down to 2 player bench regardless of reason that should be good enough for 18th man (player welfare etc etc)

Are there stats as to how many times 18th man has actually been put on NRL-wide this year? For all the times we've lost players in games, I don't think we've had it once right?

Why if one player is injured due to a player on report can’t you use the 18th man?

 

[Ref]

Why if one player is injured due to a player on report can’t you use the 18th man?

100%
Makes perfect sense.

 

[tyrael]

Why if one player is injured due to a player on report can’t you use the 18th man?

Yup. I think they need to rejig a few of the rules.

1) if a player is injured due to on report, this activates 18th man, not just HIA
2) if a player goes for HIA check due to on report, then the person on report also needs to be subbed off while that player goes for a check. If that player is ruled out for the rest of the game, then on report player is off for the rest of the game (not a sin bin though). This activates 18th man for the infringed side.

 

[Bay39er]

Taken from online so it allows what you are suggesting


The 18th man can only be activated in the event of the team losing two players to a game-ending head injury assessment, or a match ending injury that is caused by foul play that has resulted in a sin bin or send off for a rival player.

 

[Evil_Mush]

Why only for those events though?

Why should a team be disadvantaged with a shortened bench through no fault of their own (be it accident or non-penalised contact), compared to another team that gets the 18th man also through no fault of their own (but contact was penalised)?

 

[WA Warrior]

Why only for those events though?

Why should a team be disadvantaged with a shortened bench through no fault of their own (be it accident or non-penalised contact), compared to another team that gets the 18th man also through no fault of their own (but contact was penalised)?

The main reason I see is that the coaches will rort the system.
They will exploit the rules to benefit themselves.

Who would make the call that the player has a real injury or is actually faking it?

Coaches are a huge issue within the game.
They have made the game wrestling heavy to slow the ruck down.
The tackling technique to tackle around the ball to prevent offloads has seen HIAs increase over the years.

If there was good faith across the board this could work maybe making a mandatory stand down for the player that comes off but I can see coaches twisting it.

 

[Evil_Mush]

Don't they have independent doctors that do the HIA? Why don't they do it?

And same question - why should a team be disadvantaged for legitimate injuries just cos some pussy coach/players pretend to be injured to "rort" it?

 

[WA Warrior]

Don't they have independent doctors that do the HIA? Why don't they do it?

And same question - why should a team be disadvantaged for legitimate injuries just cos some pussy coach/players pretend to be injured to "rort" it?

How can a Dr tell soft tissue injuries are legitimate?
You want MRIs on the sideline?
Injuries are apart of the game that’s why you select a 17 to cover your bases or you get found out if you selected poorly.
NRL introduced the 18th man for head trauma that can severely impact you later in life.
A little different to professional players having to play 60 minutes with 16 players.
We can’t change the fabric of the game because of injuries, being advantaged/disadvantaged by them has happened for over 100 years and it’s part of the game.

 

[mrblonde]

With our injuries to key players being talk of the town again, I was wondering about how the 18th man works, and whether that should be reworked in the case of players being deemed unable to return to the field, regardless of the reason?

As I understand it, 18th man only gets activated when 2 players are removed permanently from a game due to HIA fail and/or foul play?

I'm just wondering, why does it need to be those conditions? Surely if a team is down to 2 player bench regardless of reason that should be good enough for 18th man (player welfare etc etc)

Are there stats as to how many times 18th man has actually been put on NRL-wide this year? For all the times we've lost players in games, I don't think we've had it once right?

I agree, taking player welfare into account (and the crowd's desire to see 17 v 17 - well, that's what the Sport Is Entertainment People say, I say bollocks, seen many good 16 v 17 games, but anyhow!) think it should be activated when 2 players go down, irrespective of the cause.

In order to not game the system, ie play your nuffie who all always needs the trainer on and have the nuffie's Much Better Replacement as the 18th man, maybe the NRL should make a rule that the 18th Man can't have more than a certain number of games experience (TBF, they might have that rule anyhow)...

 

[Cces]

One of my favourite Warriors matches in recent years was when we came back from 6-25 against the Raiders in 2021, which I think contributed to the introduction of the 18th man as they had x2 HIA no returns early on.
The only tweak I'd make regarding interchange would be a 5-man bench but you can only play 4 (but all 5 if foul play rules a player out)

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

We can’t change the fabric of the game because of injuries, being advantaged/disadvantaged by them has happened for over 100 years and it’s part of the game.

Great post but I would counter that the fabric of the game has already been changed because the NRL has led the change that you don’t play through injury anymore (HIA, etc) and player welfare is more front of mind.

With enforced HIA’s, a longer season with increased wear and tear, the NRL speeding the game up promoting fatigue and causing more injuries, etc we’re getting many situations with 1 man benches, etc that you would never have had in the past.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Great post but I would counter that the fabric of the game has already been changed because the NRL has led the change that you don’t play through injury anymore (HIA, etc) and player welfare is more front of mind.

With enforced HIA’s, a longer season with increased wear and tear, the NRL speeding the game up promoting fatigue and causing more injuries, etc we’re getting many situations with 1 man benches, etc that you would never have had in the past.

I doubt there would be much controversy?

Which team would replace a first choice player with an 18th man (less talented) other than as an absolute must. Coaches are reluctant to even use the 17th man sometimes.

I could see minor injuries making most of the system but not tactical changes.

 

[WA Warrior]

Great post but I would counter that the fabric of the game has already been changed because the NRL has led the change that you don’t play through injury anymore (HIA, etc) and player welfare is more front of mind.

With enforced HIA’s, a longer season with increased wear and tear, the NRL speeding the game up promoting fatigue and causing more injuries, etc we’re getting many situations with 1 man benches, etc that you would never have had in the past.

No that’s totally fair. Times do change and the game needs to as well.
The players have an unbelievable workload these days so I do get the player welfare aspect.
Reducing the games is the best thing for player welfare imo but TV partners won’t want that.

The fabric of the game has always had fatigue in it.
The smaller man can exploit the bigger man the longer/faster the game is.
So I still believe it’s just the pure luck with non head injuries.

If someone could come up with a smart way of implementing the reserve player without it being corrupted then maybe a discussion could happen about player welfare and how this could help etc.

 

[WA Warrior]

I doubt there would be much controversy?

Which team would replace a first choice player with an 18th man (less talented) other than as an absolute must. Coaches are reluctant to even use the 17th man sometimes.

I could see minor injuries making most of the system but not tactical changes.

I can think straight off the bat you carry a middle forward as 18th man.
Instead of using an interchange you bring a fresh player on for a sprained ankle.
It sounds conspiracy theory territory but coaches will exploit this imo

 

[Evil_Mush]

I just feel like the pros for replacing legitimately injured players outweighs the cons of sneaky coaches hooking an "injured" player.

Had we been able to get 18th man in our last couple of games (especially Panthers game where we were down to 3 man bench in less than 10 min and 2 man the entire 2nd half), maybe we wouldn't be so sad in this week off trying to figure out how to fix these bad feelings