With 12 tries and 66 points scored, Friday night’s Roosters versus Bulldogs clash was a cracker. Intense footy, great ball movement, brutal defence, see-sawing momentum and all completed at near-perfect execution rates by both teams.
But three incidents left me feeling uneasy and questioning the direction rugby league is taking.
The good news is it’s nothing to do with the referees!
The first was the bitch-slapping between Jared Waerea-Hargreaves and Sam Kasiano.
To set the scene, JWH had been brutalising the Bulldogs forwards for the first 30 minutes of the game. Big Sam came off the bench and started fighting fire with fire. This was a great clash of two big men in the greatest traditions of the game and the bedrock that rugby league has been built on. It was exciting to watch.
That it is until they started slapping each other across the face. It’s the most pathetic look for a game that prides itself on its gladiatorial contests. I felt sick to the stomach seeing it.
Either let them punch it out and crack down on the third man in with big suspensions or ban the slapping as well by sin binning players that do it. I don’t care which path the NRL takes, but this slapping cannot be allowed to continue.
Let me be clear that my position isn’t that rugby league is better with punching. My position is that rugby league is infinitely worse with slapping.
Paul Gallen’s punches to Nate Myles’ monolithic melon were the catalyst for the no-punching edict, but the game was hardly a slug fest before that incident. The evidence of that is the public reaction that those punches received. If the NRL was a rolling brawl that incident wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. There are more melees per game now than ever before with players running in from everywhere every time there is even a mild disagreement. Is that the look we want?
After that we had another brilliant confrontation, where young bull Kane Evans pulled off a cracking shoulder charge on Kasiano, as Big Sam returned the ball from the kick off. It’s been a perfectly legal tackle for 110 years. No one was remotely injured – except maybe Kasiano’s pride.
Instead of the tension and drama of the game ratcheting up another notch we get a penalty for a perfectly executed tackle. Kasiano and James Graham respected the hit. Graham even looked like he disagreed with the tackle being penalised!
It was a brilliant rugby league moment ruined by a dumb, unnecessary law. No doubt that hit will be used to promote the game at some stage – particularly if these teams meet again in the semis.
The third incident was the dive taken by Michael Lichaa. No doubt the contact was a little high and brushed his chin or throat, but if we have a set of laws that create a situation where a player thinks diving like that is a viable option then there is something wrong with those rules. At the end of the day the right outcome was reached, with no penalty and Lichaa hopefully told to get up and stop acting like a goose, but it’s another terrible look for the game. This can’t be left to players and coaches to eradicate as they are usually rewarded for taking a dive.
We’ve got to this point off the back of two myths.
Myth one is the old line trotted out about mums not letting their kids play league. The NRL needs to rethink its policy. It’s pointless. Would a mum who doesn’t want their son playing league have watched that game and thought, “That was extremely brutal, but there were no shoulder charges or punches. I’m going to let little Johnny play after all”?
This mythical group of mums is ruining the game.
Myth two is about the NRL trying to appeal to new demographics rather than the ‘rusted on’ fans. That makes sense, but not if it’s done in a manner that alienates lifelong fans of the game.
Player safety is clearly not a myth but the suggestion that these rule changes are somehow enhancing or improving player safety are.
3 Hats
Guest
Very true Barry, I saw that incident and the replay was on the coverage. What surprised me was a commentator mentioned it and someone else said oh well its gone, they can't go back? BUT...they could of gone back as that play was the one that directly led to a Goal line drop out and play was stopped so the Video Ref must of been asleep to have missed it. That drop out led to the Roosters try...so in fact the dogs should of had the scrum win and advancing down the field. Instead they lost the lead and eventually the match! A PATHETIC MISS.
3 Hats
Guest
Well Muzz we finally agree on Something!
3 Hats
Guest
RUBBISH absolute RUBBISH
3 Hats
Guest
WELL Harry T, your actually wrong about the security Guards. In the USA Security Guards are actually at ALL junior Sport. Even Little League which is in the U12s down to Pee Wees U6s These are facts.
theHunter
Guest
They can play touch footy...its almost as similar to rugby league rules except for the contact bit....atleast they can learn to be agile, quick and develop skills like RTS, Marshall or the like...
The Barry
Roar Guru
No idea. Are you really saying kids shouldn't be allowed to play footy until they're 14 or 16?
theHunter
Guest
I believe all junior competitions is the cause of youngsters dropping of.... Children are not matured enough to understand what the effects of shoulder charges or punches are on the body but they get marvelled by how it looks 'manly' and 'tough' that they will definitely try to mimic it to look outstanding. This is when they can get themselves injured or other children injured. And when this happens they may choose not to continue rugby league either because the child is too scared to play and get hurt again or the parents are too protective to have their child get hurt again. This than ultimately causes the decline in youngsters. Therefore all competitions should only allow for ages 16 (or 14) and above. When all youngsters atleast are matured enough to understand the rules and play fair, still have their personal heroes and consciously decide their own path as young adults.
planko
Roar Guru
Ok so fans cant boo , cheers ironically or claim to have slept with or question the marital status their mother at the time of conception. Players can't do much at all. I list some but not all. 1 Sleep with more than one groupie at a time. 2 After drinking several beer simulate having it off with a dog. 3 After drinking several beers pee on other patrons or in their own mouth. 4 Touch anyone after midnight. 5 Jump up and down on people's cars after a large night There are 100's but my personal favourites are listed
The Barry
Roar Guru
That was a blatant miss and completely changed the momentum of the game. Roosters fans have selective memories when they cherry pick refereeing decisions out of that game.
catcat
Roar Rookie
My sour point was the linesman missing the foot over the line by the Roosters late in the game....and the Dogs losing...otherwise an enjoyable game of football for mine
The Barry
Roar Guru
Does he pull hair? I've got nothing against big, hairy men...
Jackso
Guest
Theres always been niggle in RL - its just the cameras have close up shots now - the scrums used to be a real bunfight where there was a contest for possession but now there is non aggression pact between teams...
The Barry
Roar Guru
I agree about the cheap shot aspect Ken. Players aren't prepared for it. The same thing if/when someone throws a punch. Players have no reason to expect it at all now.
Ken
Guest
That rule is a result of where the danger occurred. Defending players with no momentum were being tackled dangerously in mid-air often crashing to the ground with little control by players running through at full speed. This situation almost never occurs in reverse. Coupled to this, if you rule that an attacking player can't be tackled in the air you will greatly increase the bomb as a weapon of choice (beyond it's already almost ubiquitous presence). No defence until the player reaches the ground means no defence at all if they are anywhere near the tryline. So, although it does seem like a double-standard, the rule only exists one way because it's only beneficial one way.
Ken
Guest
... And make them wear a jersey next week with 'I'm a slapper' written across the back. They really should be embarrassed. I'm not really up on NFL turbodewd, how do they reduce foul play? I have to say I've changed my tune on the shoulder charge. When they first banned it my opinion was exactly like turbodewd's, head contact is already banned and penalised so go for your life. I must say that I don't really miss it though, and it's hard to disagree that the potential for ringing someone's bell is so much higher than a normal tackle. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong to have them banned, in the current climate it's basically a cheap shot. The player that gets hit has no reason to consider preparing to wear a shoulder charge.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Aaron Woods must get your blood boiling then.
The Barry
Roar Guru
If they start pulling hair, I'm outta here...
Ando
Guest
One great trend was the chooks domination over the hapless dogs!! -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Muzz
Guest
Kassiano is a slappa : ) They need to ban slapping. It's freaking embarrassing!
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Anti-slapping? Geez, you'd think one's sense of masculinity was being threatened...