leaguegod wrote:if we changed the grading system and didn't just hand out grade 1 careless high tackles to 99% of high tackle, you could just carry forward any of the actual high tackle (eg joel thompson are almost always avoidable swinging arms with a fair bit of force) that deserves it and the lower scale can come off
lost in the jrey/frizz madness was thompson getting another grade 1, 3 other high tackles in last 12 months or somthing and only misses a week, he doesn't miss players when he goes high either
Exactly right. I actually like the grading system provided it is used right, but a lot of points need re-assessing. For example:
1. A trip grade one is 75 points, (reduced to 56 with an early plea and no loading) increasing by 100 points per grade. Grade 1 should probably start at 175 and go from there, or alternatively, grade 1 should only be made where the tackler has a hand on the attacker (ie the Langer tackle that was banned). If there are no hands and you throw a leg out, you should have no option but to cop a week at least.
2. Careless, Reckless and IntentioalHigh Tackles are separate charges, each with 5 grading points. That's 15 in total, but I can't remember anything but grades 1 & 2, and very ocassionally grade 3 careless being used. Why not get rid of the the 15 gradings, and just made a charge of "High Tackles", grade 1 to 5. Careless high tackles only go up by 50 points each grade, so with an early plea you can miss nothing with a grade 2. Considering there aren't that many grade 3's, that doesn't seem right to me either.
3. Dangerous throws start at 125 points, but then go up 200 points each grading. That doesn't seem right. Why can a grade 1 get no suspension with an early guilty plea, then grade 2 get 2 weeks? Maybe if they see dangerous throws as serious, then increase grade 1 to 150 or 175 points, and then increase it by 100 - 150 points each so you have to miss a week.
4. Why does kicking start at 200 points when tripping starts at 75? They are both using your foot in an action that can cause injury and have no part in the game. They should start at the same level IMO, or a grade 1 kicking should maybe be less, especially when any kicking charges are usually a tackled player struggling to get to their feet to play the ball. At 200 points I reckon the MRC is virtually asking the charged player to go to the judiciary and argue accidental, unintentional contact (ala Cameron Smith and Paul Gallen), and they will probably get off wasting everyone's time. If the charge had less, then they'd be more likely to take an early plea with just carryover.
5. the 50% good behaviour discount after 8 years is too long IMO. The vast majority of players in the NRL don't even last in the NRL 8 years. 5 Years would suffice IMO, at least for grade 1 & 2 charges.
It doesn't seem right that clocking someone in the jaw ala Thompson, or tripping ala Reynolds has the same penalty as brushing the ref. That is exactly the sort of thing that should be fined. I bet $5000 would deter players from touching the ref more than 75 points. Start with $1000 for running at the ref to go to the video ref as well in my opinion.
I don't mind the carryover and loading system, because to me, it penalises repeat offenders. Since the send off and sin bin are never used anymore, I can live with that. The sin bin has to be used for foul play IMO - even if for 5 minutes. It's absurd that in a close match if you hold someone down after a break and get 10 minutes, you've almost certainly cost your team the match, but you could do a grade 2 high tackle on JT or James Tedesco, get no suspension, only have a penalty against you in the match, and have their play maker or most important player either miss the rest of the game through concussion, or at least miss 15 minutes while they're being tested.
Home
