Man Down!

There has been a lot of controversy in Super League regarding players staying down after head contact, in what many perceive as an attempt to draw referees' attention to head contact and see their opponent sin-binned or sent off.

People will have different views on this. Some may see it as fair game; players are paid to win matches at all costs. If your opponent is reduced by one player, you are simply furthering that aim.

Others see it as against the spirit of the game. There is no rule which prohibits players drawing attention to foul play by staying down. But many feel it to be against the unwritten morals of rugby, about toughness, fair play and respect.

This is not a new problem. In 2022, the RFL introduced a 'green card' to combat perceived play-acting. That law was as follows:

"Should the referee call time off at the request of either a Physio, Doctor or Head Trainer to allow a player to receive attention, then the player will either leave the field for a concussion assessment, be interchanged, or will leave the field for 2 minutes of elapsed playing time before being allowed to re-enter the field by the Reserve Referee in an onside position from the dug out side of the field.

When the injured player leaves the field for a period of 2 minutes, the referee will show the green card to indicate this process starting.

The referee still holds sole discretion to be able to call time off."

In 2024, the rule was tweaked so that only defending players could be shown a green card.

For as long as there will be rules, there will be players trying to manipulate them to their advantage. In the words of former prop forward turned pundit, Barrie McDermott, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying".

Several coaches have made a lot of noise about the relatively new trend of players staying down after head contact to try and draw a penalty or worse. That suggests that this is only a handful of clubs who are doing this. It is not. It is most if not all Super League teams.

And I don't blame them. If I was a coach, whose employment is contingent solely on winning matches, I would want my players to do anything in their power to win (and strengthen my job credentials).

What does create an issue from my perspective as a fan is that we seem to have indirectly created a challenge system. By staying down after head contact a player can, essentially, request a video referee review for a yellow or red card. Control has been passed from referee to player.

So, what do we do about it? As I see it, there are four options.

1) Do Nothing

We accept that this is part of the game now. We accept that it is the responsibility of the defender not to hit players in the head and we learn to deal with it.

The argument in favour is that the new rules have drastically cut head contact in 2024 so are achieving their aims. The argument against is that the new status quo has removed control from referees and given it to players and provides a negative view of our game to new and current fans.

Worse still, many perceive it as unfair.

2) Mandatory HIAs

This is the current darling of Rugby League social media. The proposal is if a player stays down and the game must be stopped, they must automatically leave the field for a HIA.

It sounds great. But how would it work? If a player was genuinely feigning a head injury, they would leave the field and immediately pass the HIA. They would then return to the field and their team would gain an extra substitution. 

I do not see what the deterrent is. The measure would be ineffective. It also would not cover situations such as late (but not high) tackles and cannonball tackles.

The argument in favour is that we are acting in an abundance of caution and a lower bar for HIAs furthers player welfare.

3) Mandatory Standdown

The third option is that if a player stays down following high contact and the game is stopped, we treat this as what the NRL call a "category 1" HIA. That means a player is removed from the game and is not allowed to return.

The advantage is that this would act as a deterrent to play-acting. The disadvantage is that it may encourage genuinely injured players to try and continue despite being medically unfit to. 

Furthermore, the 'eye for an eye' nature of this may mean that taking out a dangerous opposing player and getting a yellow card could be seen as a price worth paying for a defending side.

4) Reduce Video Referee Involvement

The final possibility is that we do not allow video referees to make judgement on foul play and leave it solely to the discretion of the referee. So go back to how things used to be.

I quite like this idea. Referee makes a call. We get on with the game. The issue is that it would lead to more mistakes and inconsistency. 

A lot of Rugby League fans cannot accept that referees are human and make mistakes. They decry an 'obvious error'. 

How can the referee have missed that incident, they say, having watched the same incident in super slow motion from five different camera angles, against a referee who has a split second to make a call.

There is also an argument that it would harm player welfare as it would likely lead to more lax on field sanctions for high contact.

As is always the case, there is no easy answer. And if there seems to be one, question it. I would love to hear your thoughts on what, if anything, we should do about this new trend in the comments.