- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The Marty Taupau high tackle on Jack Bird has caused quite a bit of division in the rugby league community.
Most people are coming down on one of two sides: that which believes Taupau should have been suspended for four or more weeks, and those that think he should not have been charged with an offence at all.
You can understand the arguments of both sides. While it is besides the point of this article, I am on the side that believes Taupau should have received a significant suspension. His arm only begins moving once Bird has begun falling.
I do not believe that NRL players wish to injure their opponents, as I have worked with NRL athletes and they are all exceptional people, and I do not wish to call Taupau’s integrity into question, but the reality is that there is a significant disconnect between the moment Jack Bird began to fall and the moment Marty Taupau’s arm began moving aggressively towards his head.
Now, given this disparity, I find it very strange to learn that Taupau will not miss more than one week of NRL action. If the judiciary believes that Bird was falling into the tackle then it is not, in fact, a careless high tackle, as the implication of suggesting a ‘fall into the high tackle’ incident is that the tackler was committed to a fair tackle and had no opportunity to pull out of it safely when the affected player began to fall.
A careless high tackle is one that had the potential to become a high tackle with poor timing. It is quite clear that Taupau’s tackle would have been at mid-thigh if Bird had not slipped. Ergo, not a careless high tackle and no charge should have been laid if the judiciary believes that Bird fell.
If they believe that Taupau is at fault, and agree with my assessment that there is significant enough a disparity between the moment Bird slipped and the moment Taupau began his tackling motion as to warrant concern, then Taupau should have been hit with a charge of reckless level two at best. He could have been possibly even hit with a low grade intentional high tackle.
A reckless high tackle carries a charge of between 300 and 500 points, depending on the grading, and Intentional being between 550 and 950 points. This means that a reckless charge would have seen Taupau facing a suspension of at least three weeks, with the likelihood of a ban closer to five or six weeks.
This is a far more reasonable and realistic charge if the judiciary believes that Taupau is at fault for the incident.
Again, I do not wish to call Marty Taupau’s integrity or nature into question, but this is the type of incident that warrants either no suspension, or a heavy suspension.
Where do you come down on it?
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.