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?
Bearfax
Guest
I think this issue is being seen far too emotionally, which is colouring the perspective of what really happened The important thing is to look at the incident at normal speed then in slow motion. Bird is passed the ball and drops it and reaches down to retrieve the ball. Taupau is committed to the tackle which if you look at closely is aimed at waist to lower rig cage level. It was not at all aimed at the head of Bird. It only looks that way because Bird is bending down. Secondly look at Taupau's focus. He is bracing himself for the tackle and doesnt even have his eyes directly on the player. He's committed to the tackle, and a tackle at waist level. Two facts come out of that. Firstly it was not a tackle directed at the head, but at the waist or lower chest at best (look carefully at the arm and where its positioned). Secondly Taupau is committed to what would have been a legal tackle...very difficult to pull out in that fraction of a second. Third his eyes are not looking directly at Bird. He's bracing himself. Conclusion. No way was it intentional. Clumsy, probably. Maybe he should have been watching closer, though he would have had to act very quickly to not connect where he did. The judiciary got it right. It looked bad, but the reality is it was unintentional and the tackle was aimed low. Some are comparing tackles that look similar but they are ignoring that many of those tackles are high, aimed high and the player is aware of where his arm is heading. That's not how this tackle occurred. Deserves a week off because he connected with the head, even if accidentally. But no way can it be considered intentional. Clumsy at worst.
Officer59
Guest
So Jamie Buhrer has his jaw broken by a swinging arm in a trial game this year& not a single word said by anyone. Bird gets whacked & walks off the field & Taupau is condemned! I'm not condoning what happened but to say it was intentional is going a bit too far! No player goes out to hurt another player intentionally. Dylan Napa is reported for 2 high shots in one game earlier this year & once again not a mention!! This just sounds like Manly bashing as usual!
Will Sinclair
Roar Guru
This is a disgraceful decision, in my opinion. Jack Bird missed essentially one game for being hit high and late by Marty Taupau... and now Taupau misses one game as well? So you miss the same amount of game time for being the victim of foul play as you do for perpetrating the foul play? It's bizarre.
Will Sinclair
Roar Guru
Didn't one of the Burgess brothers get more than one week for throwing an empty plastic bottle onto the field?
Muzz
Guest
Cheers eJ.
Doug Graves
Guest
Of course Bird not having the ball should be a factor. Is Taupau vision impaired or something? Does he have no awareness of where the ball is? Taupau goes in hard and high (with a swinging arm) on a guy who doesn't even have the ball. The worst part is that even if Bird had held onto it, the tackle would have been borderline head high anyway. I haven't watched it in slow mo but if if looks even worse in slow mo then Taupau's probably looking at a couple of months out.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
Yep, both will miss the Roosters game. Advantage Muzz.
The eye
Guest
If his counsel can prove that his eyes never deviated from straight ahead when he kneed Ennis in the kanakas he'll walk away with a week
Muzz
Guest
Is Lawrence also suspended?
Andrew
Guest
I dont believe in bias towards teams, the dogs seem to fight alot of charges and get off, but thats because they contest the charges. I would have like MT to have copped 2-4 weeks, inconsistency rules particularly with these ref touches at the moment.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
Taupau's eyes never deviate from straight ahead and at Jack. The slow mo camera angle shown in replays is quite deceiving. Giving the appearance that he would have known the ball was lost. He was going in for a hard tackle. Yep, it got him high. And he was charged with a grade 2. Careless, as I agree it wasn't intentional. There are inconsistencies at the MRC but talks of bias towards some teams is frustrating. I mean do people actually believe that?
eagleJack
Roar Guru
I wouldn't mind if they re-jigged the sin bin rule to accomodate foul play. At the moment it appears to only be used for holding down a player after he has made a break in his attempt to have a quick play the ball. Or for repeated infringements, but even that is quite rare. Rugby has it right with the yellow card system. Lifting tackles, high shots etc are automatically 10 in the bin. Playing with 12 for 10mins would have a huge impact, and I imagine we'd start to see fewer attempts to hit players high. The concussion rule in place now means it is quite easy to target a star, have him removed from the game, and only be put on report.
Andrew
Guest
How could MT have known he had dropped the ball is stretching it a bit far EJ, maybe, but he still got JB on the chin, without the ball. I thought the ball being knocked on and JB stoppping to regather was slow enough for MT to see. I dont think it intentional however. Last year Junior Paulo was rubbed out for around 8 weeks for that terribke tackle on Ballin, I thought fair enough if consistent but the consistency as proven by this 1 week descison is anything but.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
I guess you first need to understand the system before commenting. Nobody was representing Manly at the judiciary in this case because it hasn't gone to the judiciary. The MRC came up with a grade 2 careless high tackle. And if you look at previous grade 2 careless high tackles it is very similar. People seem to think that Bird not having the ball should be a factor. But how would Taupau have known? He was coming in for the tackle as Bird fell and lost the ball, with his back to the defensive line. Watching it in real-time is very different to slow mo. Anyway there was a nice exchange between Marty and Jack on Twitter straight after, which you rarely see. I can understand people's frustration with the MRC (not the judiciary) as they can be inconsistent. But screams of bias towards some teams is for the comments section of the DT. I'd like to think the Roar caters for the slightly more intelligent.
Mike from tari
Guest
He should have been sent off, my bugbear with the concussion rule is exactly what happened in this case, take out one of the best players by hitting him in the head & he can't come back on, the Sharks lost one of their best attacking players due to an illegal act, the head is supposed to be sacrosanct in our game but with the raft of cannonball tackles drawing more suspension than head tackles, it seems that the leg is more important than the head,
Jarrod Free
Roar Rookie
I agree that he should have been charged more significantly. The point of the article is to point out the lack of logic in gradings and the apparent lack of understanding the match review committee has regarding the actual play-to-play aspect of rugby league and what can/cannot happen in a split second. He either was not at fault at all, or he was massively at fault. This is a case where there cannot be a grey area and a one or two week ban. Suspend the man properly or don't suspend him at all. Now there is a precedent for late swinging arms that any semi-competent lawyer can refer to and get their players off a similar charge if it is graded more heavily.
E-Meter
Guest
4 weeks minimum. How anyone could say no charge at all, defies all sense of an ability to think rationally. This was a dog act.
Squidward
Roar Rookie
One week is outrageous. You get more for patting the ref. And this bloke has form on the board. Can't believe falling into it is being used. It's late and he is going down to grab the ball he dropped. Marty needs to buy a lotto ticket
Chris Morrison
Guest
I don't understand how it was ruled anything other than intentional. Bird drops the ball. Tries to retrieve the ball that he dropped and then Taupau, who had plenty of time to pull out of the tackle intentionally hits him after he has dropped the ball. It was very late and high. I believe not only should he be suspended for minimum 4 weeks he should of been sent off in the game immediately. But the grub plays for Manly, so therefore like many a manly grub before him he gets away with a slap on the wrist of one week. I don't see how Roosters and Manly players seem to continuously get away with these things at judiciary. Whoever is representing them, the NRL should open "the war chest" to allow every club to get one of these lawyers. Proved to be a joke once again. Nothing has changed.