Petition to sack Vlandys and Abdo

[Big Dog]

At first I was encouraged by these two clowns. Now I believe they are trying to wreck the NRL. Please sign the below petition and spread the word far and wide.

http://chng.it/h7F4NCPgt8

[BenCumminsIsACheat]

The hero we need

[King Salvo]

Short term pain for long term gain - Sorry i agree with what the NRL are doing - sure it affects the Chooks but one has to say they were self inflicted offences

Radley and Crichton need to change their ways and be more responsible as senior players and especially with the injury toll as they are not only letting themselves down but also the team and club.

Both now repeat offenders with 3 similar offences (50 % loading for each ) and 1 non similar (20 % loading for each ) past 2 years and carryovers( 60 for Radley and 70 for Crichton ) - even a grade 1 charge -base points of 100 will put each out for 3 plus games.

[RoosterFanNZ]

Short term pain for long term gain - Sorry i agree with what the NRL are doing - sure it affects the Chooks but one has to say they were self inflicted offences

Radley and Crichton need to change their ways and be more responsible as senior players and especially with the injury toll as they are not only letting themselves down but also the team and club.

Both now repeat offenders with 3 similar offences (50 % loading for each ) and 1 non similar (20 % loading for each ) past 2 years and carryovers( 60 for Radley and 70 for Crichton ) - even a grade 1 charge -base points of 100 will put each out for 3 plus games.

booooo

[Grant Hedger]

Short term pain for long term gain - Sorry i agree with what the NRL are doing - sure it affects the Chooks but one has to say they were self inflicted offences

Radley and Crichton need to change their ways and be more responsible as senior players and especially with the injury toll as they are not only letting themselves down but also the team and club.

Both now repeat offenders with 3 similar offences (50 % loading for each ) and 1 non similar (20 % loading for each ) past 2 years and carryovers( 60 for Radley and 70 for Crichton ) - even a grade 1 charge -base points of 100 will put each out for 3 plus games.

Shut up you imbecile. I’m thinking of starting a petition to kick you off this forum.

[Rooster_6]

Short term pain for long term gain - Sorry i agree with what the NRL are doing - sure it affects the Chooks but one has to say they were self inflicted offences

Radley and Crichton need to change their ways and be more responsible as senior players and especially with the injury toll as they are not only letting themselves down but also the team and club.

Both now repeat offenders with 3 similar offences (50 % loading for each ) and 1 non similar (20 % loading for each ) past 2 years and carryovers( 60 for Radley and 70 for Crichton ) - even a grade 1 charge -base points of 100 will put each out for 3 plus games.

I agree, we need to do something about foul play in the game but there doesn't seem to be a clear strategy from the game so I find it hard to believe in the long term gain you speak about. Only 32% of concussions in the game occur to the player carrying the ball, I'm not convinced the game has done enough research when developing their strategy.

[King Salvo]

Shut up you imbecile. I’m thinking of starting a petition to kick you off this forum.

Ha Ha Ha there's always one on every forum

Just keep running on the pavement/footpaths like your namesake but be careful of shin splints and stress fractures though.

[King Salvo]

I agree, we need to do something about foul play in the game but there doesn't seem to be a clear strategy from the game so I find it hard to believe in the long term gain you speak about. Only 32% of concussions in the game occur to the player carrying the ball, I'm not convinced the game has done enough research when developing their strategy.

They are doing research on tackling techniques and have stats saying players tackling up right ( the catch and hold tackles) are 3.2 times more likely to suffer concussions and taken from the fray.

Of course the narrow target zone for such tackles means there is little room for error or discretion when a ball carrier is struck in the head - arm bouncing off the shoulder or ball and hitting the ball carriers head or the ball carrier falling/slipping etc - it's the final impact.

It's all to do with this wrestling and judo nonsense that they should never have allowed to come into the game

I was watching a game from 2010 so not long ago and there was hardly any 3 defender tackles - mainly 2 and a lot of one on one tackles and in my mind a much better game- off loads / plenty ball movement /good defence /quick play the balls - unstructured play even.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most intriguing finding, however, was that the chance of a HIA for a tackler was 3.2 times greater when they were upright as opposed to when they were bent at the waist. This was because high tacklers were generally injured by head-to-head and head-to-shoulder impacts, while ball carriers were injured by head-to-head, head-to-arm and head-to-shoulder collisions.

The results, which are consistent with the findings in professional rugby, could point to a need to lower the target zone. Junior players are taught to tackle around the legs, but at NRL level players are coached to tackle high and lock up the arms of the ball carrier.

Gardner, dual international Timana Tahu and senior biomechanics lecturer Suzi Edwards from the University of Newcastle are working on an evidence-based approach to safer tackling techniques.

Tahu believes the cheek-to-cheek tackling technique taught by many coaches contributes to the spate of concussions.

“We have to go back to the drawing board and start looking at tackling techniques again,” Tahu said.

“You need to look at different variations that can help the sport.

“The players only know to tackle high because that is what the wrestling coaches have taught them. There needs to be more education on it.”


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/the...22-p57u7f.html

[Rooster_6]

They are doing research on tackling techniques and have stats saying players tackling up right ( the catch and hold tackles) are 3.2 times more likely to suffer concussions and taken from the fray.

Of course the narrow target zone for such tackles means there is little room for error or discretion when a ball carrier is struck in the head - arm bouncing off the shoulder or ball and hitting the ball carriers head or the ball carrier falling/slipping etc - it's the final impact.

It's all to do with this wrestling and judo nonsense that they should never have allowed to come into the game

I was watching a game from 2010 so not long ago and there was hardly any 3 defender tackles - mainly 2 and a lot of one on one tackles and in my mind a much better game- off loads / plenty ball movement /good defence /quick play the balls - unstructured play even.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most intriguing finding, however, was that the chance of a HIA for a tackler was 3.2 times greater when they were upright as opposed to when they were bent at the waist. This was because high tacklers were generally injured by head-to-head and head-to-shoulder impacts, while ball carriers were injured by head-to-head, head-to-arm and head-to-shoulder collisions.

The results, which are consistent with the findings in professional rugby, could point to a need to lower the target zone. Junior players are taught to tackle around the legs, but at NRL level players are coached to tackle high and lock up the arms of the ball carrier.

Gardner, dual international Timana Tahu and senior biomechanics lecturer Suzi Edwards from the University of Newcastle are working on an evidence-based approach to safer tackling techniques.

Tahu believes the cheek-to-cheek tackling technique taught by many coaches contributes to the spate of concussions.

“We have to go back to the drawing board and start looking at tackling techniques again,” Tahu said.

“You need to look at different variations that can help the sport.

“The players only know to tackle high because that is what the wrestling coaches have taught them. There needs to be more education on it.”


https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/the...22-p57u7f.html

They are not doing research on tackling techniques related to concussions the University of Newcastle are, that research grant is not funded by the NRL nor is it at the request of the NRL it is independently being done. And this is what I'm alluding to, the article you just linked which refers to the study being completed is brilliant and exactly what the game needs, it's the type of material the NRL should be using to build their strategy moving forward.

This is the easiest message in the world to sell yet every time PVL speaks he keeps coming at it from a different angle. Last night it was the risk of government intervention... like seriously.

The message is easy, we want to reduce concussions in the game and these are the strategies we are going to implement and the tactics we will ask our key stakeholders to implement. Can you clearly outline their strategy and tactics? I can't. I haven't herad PVL once talk about the defenders being at risk... it's been all about the attackers so I don't even know if he's read the study you linked to be perfectly honest, apparently when the NRL were asked for statistics on this topic they couldn't provide any. So what data is advising them on their stance?

PVL doesn't get credit points for being aware of the seriousness of concussions, his job is to provide competence and strategy around it. Neither which I have seen. He gets point from me from not shying away from it and actually talking about it unlike previous administrators in the game but now he's got to back it up with some action that's actually going to drive change.

Like Robbo said on 360 this is something that needs to be discussed at length over weeks with all key stakeholders not something that's implemented on the run mid-season.

You say Radley needs to change his ways yet his tackle on Pangai was a 1 on 1 tackle, where he bent his knees and his target area was at the torso before Pangai dropped his centre of gravity and braced for contact. Radley did everything above you say you want him to do so I'm confused, what's the tactic you want from the defenders exactly? And this is why I say the strategy is not clear and therefore the tactics they want clubs to implement is confusing.

[rented tracksuit]

I agree, we need to do something about foul play in the game but there doesn't seem to be a clear strategy from the game so I find it hard to believe in the long term gain you speak about. Only 32% of concussions in the game occur to the player carrying the ball, I'm not convinced the game has done enough research when developing their strategy.

Well said. It’s not getting hit, it’s trying effect a hit that has all but taken both Cords and Friendy from the game.

[Rooster89]

I agree with what the NRL want to do but dont agree on the severity at which they have done it and how quickly too.

[dice]

The photo in that petition is quite apt. The ball runner has braced themselves with a shoulder and also has a slightly raised knee. Tackler not allowed to brace themselves with a shoulder, and no longer allowed to make a high front-on tackle (like this Australian defender) for risk of being crucified like Radley.

V'Lakas asking the defenders lower their tackles. If you were a defender making a tackle on this ball-runner that is also stepping and twisting, in a split-second where can you safely stick your head in this instance?

These ridiculous expectations is what ended Jake Friend's career. Will end Cordner's career. Radley has also been concussed a few times with hip tackles.

[ism22]

I agree, we need to do something about foul play in the game but there doesn't seem to be a clear strategy from the game so I find it hard to believe in the long term gain you speak about. Only 32% of concussions in the game occur to the player carrying the ball, I'm not convinced the game has done enough research when developing their strategy.

Fair point. I know they wanna rub out ugly tackles, but IMO they haven't considered that:
- Most concussions occur during legal contact.
- The ugliest hits are often friendly fire, head clashes and mis-timed tackles.
- Friend's medical retirement (which presumably involved a $$$ no fault settlement) is presumably what triggered this all. As tragic as it is, most of his head knocks were sustained through legal contact, where he (unfortunately) copped it hard as he's a champion defender/competitor who always threw himself right into the action. I just dunno if this action will address such issues! If anything, they risk players who are concussed saying 'you fiddled with the game too much!!! You made us tired and forced us to use unnatural tackling techniques that we didn't learn how to use as kids... that's why I kept getting concussed through legal contact as a tackler! I was tired and cared about getting sent off...'

IMO no research/guidance has gone into how they want people to tackle. What's their preferred, safer method that will protect tacklers?

[The Corner Post]

So should the NRL do nothing about the 32% of concussions occurring to the ball carrier because............68% occur to the tackler?
That just doesn't make sense.
Why not do what they can to address the 32%, while also looking at strategies to address the 68%.

As far as concussions to the tackler goes, I believe the clubs are in the best position to change tackling style. I cant see any rule changes by the NRL that would address this. Sure, some rule changes may encourage 1 on 1 low tackles, but what are we talking about here? Changing the rules to create a slower play the ball for 1 on 1 tackles? Wouldn't a change such as this 'change the fabric of the game' more so than what they are doing (i.e. enforcing head highs).

[King Salvo]

They are not doing research on tackling techniques related to concussions the University of Newcastle are, that research grant is not funded by the NRL nor is it at the request of the NRL it is independently being done. And this is what I'm alluding to, the article you just linked which refers to the study being completed is brilliant and exactly what the game needs, it's the type of material the NRL should be using to build their strategy moving forward.

This is the easiest message in the world to sell yet every time PVL speaks he keeps coming at it from a different angle. Last night it was the risk of government intervention... like seriously.

The message is easy, we want to reduce concussions in the game and these are the strategies we are going to implement and the tactics we will ask our key stakeholders to implement. Can you clearly outline their strategy and tactics? I can't. I haven't herad PVL once talk about the defenders being at risk... it's been all about the attackers so I don't even know if he's read the study you linked to be perfectly honest, apparently when the NRL were asked for statistics on this topic they couldn't provide any. So what data is advising them on their stance?

PVL doesn't get credit points for being aware of the seriousness of concussions, his job is to provide competence and strategy around it. Neither which I have seen. He gets point from me from not shying away from it and actually talking about it unlike previous administrators in the game but now he's got to back it up with some action that's actually going to drive change.

Like Robbo said on 360 this is something that needs to be discussed at length over weeks with all key stakeholders not something that's implemented on the run mid-season.

You say Radley needs to change his ways yet his tackle on Pangai was a 1 on 1 tackle, where he bent his knees and his target area was at the torso before Pangai dropped his centre of gravity and braced for contact. Radley did everything above you say you want him to do so I'm confused, what's the tactic you want from the defenders exactly? And this is why I say the strategy is not clear and therefore the tactics they want clubs to implement is confusing.

It was deemed that Radley "Launched" himself at Pengai Jnr and made contact above the ball and imparted moderate force on impact resulting in a direct contact to the head- It's the ball and all/catch and hold/tackling upright issue - very small margin of error when you tackle this way and as per the stats i mentioned above 3.2 times more likely as a defender to suffer a head knock/concussion.

This is all because of wrestling and judo etc with clubs employing such people to train this type of tackling method.

Radley has to aim lower simple as that - waist and below - tackling the ball and above could result in the arm/shoulder bouncing up and hitting the ball carriers head - it doesn't matter if the initial contact was not the head it's where the arm and shoulder finishes - some might say these ones should not be subject to on report/sin binning and or MRC/Judicary charges - but if you let them through players made be trained to tackle that way- coaches exploit rules all the time.

Thaiday in the link below shows the area Radley needs to be aiming for

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHMP7oEejKI

They may have to introduce the rugby rule on this

A high tackle is an illegal tackling move in rugby football. A high tackle occurs when a player tackles or attempts to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders, or makes contact with another players head or neck. The move is dangerous due to the risk of injury to the head and neck of the player being tackled and the defender