2017 Brisbane Broncos Thread - we hate them for their freedom

Dip wrote:

This 100%. In this case there was a perfect opportunity to stop play after the knock on as well, but even if there was no infringement (eg the Wallace falcon), if he was knocked out while play was alive, then I'm happy for the whistle to be blown then play restarted as per the rule for accidental whistle blows (last team to touch the ball before the whistle gets the scrum feed). If that means a team gets the feed, or 6 again when they probably shouldn't, I don't care for the maybe once every few seasons it happens. It is extremely rare a player is knocked unconscious on the field. It only happens a few times a year. Comparing it to a player stumbling around like Wallace is arguing for the safe of arguing. There isn't anyone who say what happens to Oates who didn't hold their breath when it happened - same as when Chief was Ko against Spud a few years ago.

Jesus, if Moga made the tackle, which was highly likely, chances are someone would have jumped over Oates to get to dummy half. It's incredible anyone has an issue with this. When a trainer requires a HIA he puts both arms up and the ref currently stops play even if the injured player is well behind the attacking line.

No Worries wrote:Pieman, your problem is that you're right in the Bronco's thread. Even if Foxtel have no clue.

It's not a question of people's opinion on a forum, whether they are fucking this custard or the severity of a head knock. It's black and white in the laws of the game. The ref stops play if the continuance of play endangers the player. Play had moved on he shouldn't have stopped it. The only other time is if an injured player requires to be treated by a 2nd person because a player can only be treated by 1 individual while play is in progress.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Firstly, the ref's got it 100% right on the weekend and I suspect this whole debate started with Pieman merely trying to maintain his mantle as chief dickhead around these parts.

Secondly, now that Pieman is scrambling to try and not appear like the khunt he is, he has been suggesting the rule should be changed and made black and white for consistency.
Which would a deadset moronic suggestion, even for Pieman.
But even your suggestion above is a bit dicey Dip, as we saw with Phil Hughes, it doesn't have to be a clear cut knock-out for the blow to be catastrophic.

The rule is spot on and needs to be left to the referee's discretion.
Realistically, it is as rare as a Pieman brain cell that the blow appears bad enough for the game to be stopped instantly and the one time that it has, the ref's made the correct call.
Clearly the rule is working so let's not fuck it up with stupid black and white guidelines for the unachievable dream of 'consistency'.

Dip wrote:

Even if you want to use that interpretation, the ball came to rest at most 1 foot from Oates, so it had not moved on until Katoa moved it on, so it is stop play since the ball doesn't clear the scene. Oates is endangered by Katoa being there. The fact Katoa didn't end up causing any further injury changes nothing to that ruling.

I mean if say Oates went up for a kick 20 metres from anyone and got knocked out, you wouldn't wait for a player to run there to pick up the ball to see if advantage could be applied.

Pieman wrote:

No its not arguing for the sake of arguing, because you just like me and just like the ref have no right to say that one head knock is more severe than the other.

Dip wrote:

You mean like they do every time a defender makes contact with a ball carriers head, and the ref decides whether it should be play on, a penalty, on report, or a send off?

Pieman wrote:

This is part of my point exactly. It doesnt happen. Its up to the ref.

Make the rule, if someone gets a head knock (and not just stays down because we have no idea how severe any are) stop the game immediately. Dont leave it up to the ref to decided when to stop the game.

My opinion is that Oates was not in any further danger, so the play shouldnt have been stopped immediately. I dont think stopping the game when it did had any influence on how fast a trainer could have got there. If someone disagrees with that, thats fine, Kudos for having an opinion.

It only stopped because he had the ball - if it was a defender eg Thiaday and they are left laying in back play the play doesnt stop immediately. It might stop a play or 2 later. Its a possession issue, its not a player welfare issue. If it was a welfare issue the game would stop immediately when any player cops a head knock, but it doesnt, it stops when its appropriate.

Eh Mah Gawd tho I am all of a sudden the greatest ever villan on here because I dont think play should have been immediately stopped. (I do think it should have been stopped at the end of the next play tho).
Yet no one can answer why (because player welfare is the most important issue ever) they dont stop games immediately when defenders knocked out when they get their heads in the wrong spot etc and they are left in back play.
No one besides HS is saying that they agree that games should always be stopped immediately when players get head knocks, im even going further to say not just players left laying on the ground. I would be happy as larry if they came out with a rule that said that. More than happy to have a few delays in the game if it means the players are safer.

All I want is consistency with it.  

100%, Turn it up.

Pieman wrote:

1. Disagree, dont think they did.
2. My entire argument has not changed from the start.
3. If welfare is the biggest concern, then fucking go all out. Stop for every head knock - not just the ones that look bad on tv. The phil hughes point helps my argument, thanks.
4. The ref's discretion fucks up enough games - and this is a rule that we can take out of their hands.

Honeysett wrote:

You had a go at the refs with a tongue in cheek remark about playing doctor, yet you're doing the same from your couch.

At the end of the day it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to player safety.

If a player is on the field and out cold there's absolutely no reason to play on. I'm sure most players would agree. That's why no one complained when they saw the state that Oates was in.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

1. Understandable stance from a shit bloke like yourself.

2. Never said it has changed but it has certainly shifted focus to the rule itself......but either way you are wrong on both counts.

3. That's one of the biggest head impacts I have seen in nearly 40 years of League, if the teams were reversed I couldn't care less about the ref stopping play because I would have done the same.
If that is my kid and I am on the sideline, I am on the field and couldn't give a fuck if I impeded the play.
I would be filthy on myself for the rest of my life if something bad happened and I lost even half a minute whilst the game was still being played.

4. This is the sort of thinking that the NRL often employs reactively....they then bring in 5 other rule interpretations, to finally bring it back to how it was, after realising that sometime human judgement isn't such a bad thing.

surmo13 wrote:lets be honest here, the only reason this is an argument is because it's a perfect combination of do or die football, the spotlight being on the refs after a week where 4 great games were discarded in favour of coaches having a whinge to take the focus away from their own failings, and the Broncos being the beneficiary.

if this exact thing goes down Round 13 in a Dragons/Cowboys game, nobody is arguing the ref's decision... well, except Pieman, because he's a garbage human who thinks playing over an unconscious player until some-one either gets tackled, scores a try or dies is part of the game.

speaking of, dunno why you bothered quoting me, I told you, i've got nothing left to say to you, its finished, finito, over... looked like a lot of words too, what a waste of time you could've saved yourself by knowing having the last word doesn't mean you've won the argument

Mighty Fishes wrote:Could be just BS but a few rumblings on twitter that FAC might return this week. I thought he was gone for months

Piedick wrote:1. Disagree, dont think they did.

surmo13 wrote:

yeh i think they have some dud sources, Macca himself just posted an article today talking about his recovery and his hope that he'd be walking properly in time for his wedding day in January and right to play by Round 1 of next year.

Mighty Fishes wrote:

Yeah I think it all stemmed from Benji saying he thinks he is going to be dropped next week

dicksherhalo wrote:

Here's where your argument annoys me.

You keep saying you just want consistency, but instead of coming down on the side of the bloke who was knocked cold, and attacking all the other non-calls, you're saying the ref got it wrong, and play should go on. That's the level of consistency you're after.

Is that not tacitly implying "stuff player welfare"?

No Worries wrote:


Probably because he signed with the Tigers, Bennett's known for dropping GUN PLAYERS who sign with other clubs.

Mighty Fishes wrote:

Didn't he just do that once and it was to Hodges?