- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
A week of inaction by the NRL has assured the accent in this weekend’s round won’t be on representative hopefuls or which teams are shaping up as chances to make the top eight or win the premiership. It will be on lifting tackles.
Why was there no action taken on this tackle? Why was that tackle acted upon? Why did they think that tackle was wrong? And the biggest question: why haven’t they barred lifting the leg in the tackle altogether?
If it was worth at least a penalty every time a player did it, they would soon stop doing it. Coaches – and, therefore, players – act according to what is and isn’t outlawed. They may try to find another way to initiate the slowing-down effect, but as long as it isn’t dangerous, let them try.
It would be an alternative to a player, who has already been practically stopped and controlled by two players tackling up top, from potentially landing dangerously because of a third player lifting his leg in an attempt to get him to the ground.
I’d like to say I can’t believe what has come out of the NRL on the issue this week, but unfortunately I can.
First, there were these quotes attributed to match review chairman Michael Buettner:
Under the rules, for a player to be charged with a dangerous throw we have to be satisfied that a player has been lifted into a position where it is likely that the first part of his body that will make contact with the ground will be his head or neck.
With the Joel Thompson tackle, we did not believe a charge was appropriate as, while there is a lifting action, Inglis retains one leg on the ground for much of the tackle and he clearly lands on his forearms. He doesn’t reach a dangerous position.
With the Beau Falloon tackle, again there was a lifting action but we do not feel he is put in a position where it is likely his head or neck will make first contact with the ground. It is his forearm that makes first contact with the ground, then the shoulder, and in our opinion a penalty was sufficient.
Then there was Head of Football Todd Greenberg, talking in a style that is becoming identifiable in the game as Greenberg-speak:
The first thing I’d say to you is that we won’t make any rash decisions without fact and data in front of us.
And it’s very important people understand that we will assess the risks in the game, we will assess information but we simply won’t make decisions on fundamental decisions to change rules without all of that information available to us.
Meanwhile, players keep getting lifted in tackles when stopping it should be a relatively straight-forward process.
Finally, the plain, common sense on lifting tackles came from Dr Robert Reid, a sports medicine physician who was quoted in a story in The Daily Telegraph on Thursday:
When it comes to lifting tackles, there’s a real lack of consistency. You hear the (NRL) talking about how the player lands, whether it’s on the forearms or the head… but the tackle is the tackle is the tackle.
It’s the mechanics of the lifting tackle we should be concerned about. That’s the problem. Define what is and isn’t safe. What is and isn’t outlawed. Whether someone gets injured or not, that all comes down to luck.
Well said. And not all that hard to work out, I would have thought.
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.