Stop the hysteria, Gerry Sutton was absolutely right to bin Napa

Tim Gore Columnist

By Tim Gore, Tim Gore is a Roar Expert

Tagged:
 , ,

142 Have your say

Popular article! 5,503 reads

    While Dylan Napa has not been charged for his head clash with Korbin Sims by the MRC, that does not mean referee Gerard Sutton was wrong to send the big Rooster to the sin bin.

    Regardless of the outrage, I completely agree with Sutton’s actions and think he needs the referees boss – his brother Bernard – to come out and stand by Gerard’s decision lest the berserk hysterics trash his reputation.

    The explosion on social media when Sutton sin binned the Roosters prop Dylan Napa in the 75th minute of the match against the Broncos measured 7.2 on the Richter Scale.

    The epicenter was found to be Bondi Junction, with the force being so big that many tin foil hats were dislodged.

    Gorden Tallis went berserk. The Channel Nine commentary team called it ludicrous and went off like cut snakes. And Roosters fans went off their chops.

    How could Gerard Sutton have possibly even have penalised Napa for an accidental head clash, let alone put him on report? But to sin bin him as well?

    Outrageous! It’s a fix! A conspiracy!

    What a load of steaming rubbish.

    The incident proved one thing for mine: Gerard Sutton is a superb referee. He absolutely nailed the handling of the incident.

    These are the undisputed facts:
    1. Napa clearly lined up Korbin Sims with the intention of putting a very big hit on him.
    2. In doing so his head made severe contact to the head of Sims, taking The Gerringong lad out of the game.

    The replays showed that Napa had his arms well out from his sides and that his head was well in front of his body and arms, but facing down and not looking at his target.

    As we know from previous examples – like Richard Villasante’s hit on Brad Fittler in the 2002 Grand final, or the James Graham hit on Sam Burgess in the 2013 Grand Final – it is virtually impossible to prove that a head clash was intentional.

    However, that doesn’t mean they can’t be deemed reckless or careless actions that hit a player high and that had a great Impact.

    And that is exactly how Gerard Sutton, with advice from video referee Ash Klein, saw it.

    He put the incident on report and, as made clear is an option in the NRL’s player misconduct rules, sin binned Napa.

    I’ve sung Gerard Sutton’s courage to unblinkingly wield his authority in high pressure situations before. This is yet another example of why he is one of the NRL’s best officials.

    His decision was completely understandable and reasonable.

    While all the usual suspects in the media were screaming that it was a howler, there were many of us who totally agreed with it.

    In spite of having the Roosters to win 1-12 to win my three leg margin multi, I was one of them.

    That the Match Review Committee has subsequently decided to exonerate Napa does not mean that Sutton got it wrong either. He has a process to follow and an obligation to officiate the game as he sees it.

    The MRC members – whomever they might be – make their decisions away from the heat of the contest, with lots of time for multiple replays.

    That Sutton has the courage to make such calls in spite of all of the muck that could be – and subsequently has been – heaped on him speaks volumes for his high suitability for the role.

    Further, as I pointed out in the wake of the Round 7 clash between the Rabbitohs and the Raiders, it is great that the refs are using the sin bin again, but we can’t allow an in-game situation where professional fouls are treated more harshly than careless or reckless incidents that injure players.

    The referees have got that memo and Sutton’s binning of Napa recognised that logic.

    But the bottom line of the incident is this: Napa was at least careless in his attempt to tackle and a severe head clash resulted, removing that player from the contest. A view supported by the more rational people in the Rugby League media.

    Sutton was more than entitled to penalise the incident, place it on report and sin bin the big Rooster.

    And the Roosters fans putting the loss down to that incident need to again heed Fox Sports Warren Smith.

    Good on ya Gerard. You nailed it.

    Tim Gore
    Tim Gore

    Tim has been an NRL statistician for ABC Radio Grandstand since 1999, primarily as part of their Canberra coverage. Tim has loved rugby league since Sterlo was a kid with lots of hair but was cursed with having no personal sporting ability whatsoever. He couldn't take a hit in footy, was a third division soccer player making up numbers, plays off 41 in golf and is possibly the world's worst cricketer ever. He has always been good at arguing the point though and he has a great memory of what happened. Follow Tim on Twitter.

    New South Wales have won the 2018 State of Origin series with an 18-14 win in an absolutely outstanding Game 2 at ANZ Stadium. See how the action unfolded with our NSW vs QLD Origin 2 scores, highlights and blog.

    Have Your Say



    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (142)

    • May 20th 2018 @ 9:56am
      Duncan Smith said | May 20th 2018 @ 9:56am | ! Report

      I was more concerned they called a forward pass when Cronk made that line break in the last minute or so, then didn’t go to the video ref for the Broncos winning try, which to the naked eye hinted at obstruction (I didn’t see the replay).

      Is this the same bloke who reffed the Broncos-Bulldogs game? Seems like all the 50-50s go to Brisbane when they play at home.

      • May 20th 2018 @ 12:01pm
        Haz said | May 20th 2018 @ 12:01pm | ! Report

        Maybe you should see the replay before you comment…just saying

        • May 20th 2018 @ 1:22pm
          Duncan Smith said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:22pm | ! Report

          I just watched the replay. When the Broncos’ try-scorer begins his run at the try-line, there are FIVE Broncos players, in a V formation, in between him and the goal posts. He runs around three of them on his way to the line, in a way that could be confusing to defenders.

          Don’t know if it was a try or not, but it is very odd that they did not check it with the video ref considering:

          a) it was the winning try in the last two minutes of the game, and
          b) they routinely check so many other tries.

          Not saying it’s a conspiracy, but the guy seems like a hometown ref.

          • Roar Rookie

            May 20th 2018 @ 1:38pm
            Matthew Pearce said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:38pm | ! Report

            Because no Rooster was actually impeded, and that was patently obvious even live? Seriously, talk about making a mountain from a molehill.

            Also completely ignoring that, just like the Bulldogs game, the “controversies” were all actually correct.

            • May 20th 2018 @ 1:48pm
              Duncan Smith said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:48pm | ! Report

              I don’t agree that it was patently obvious. It was worth checking.

              • Roar Rookie

                May 20th 2018 @ 1:54pm
                Matthew Pearce said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:54pm | ! Report

                No, it really wasn’t. If you’re aware of what actually constitutes an obstruction, anyway.

                I thought refs used the bunker too much, and they needed to start calling more tries themselves?

                Seems some folks aren’t happy if there’s nothing to complain about.

              • May 20th 2018 @ 2:15pm
                Duncan Smith said | May 20th 2018 @ 2:15pm | ! Report

                If it’s the match winning play with two minutes to go, I’d check it, especially if there’s five of his own players between the try scorer and the goalposts when he starts his run.

                Or just get rid of the video ref altogether.

              • Roar Rookie

                May 20th 2018 @ 2:28pm
                Matthew Pearce said | May 20th 2018 @ 2:28pm | ! Report

                Why does it matter if it’s the match-winning play or not? It was quite clear there was no obstruction, it’s a try any day of the week.

                Again, those players don’t matter, because none of them are anywhere near getting in the way of attempted tackles. Not that anyone got a hand to him anyway.

                Get rid of the video ref? Then you wouldn’t be able to check it. What’s the point of making a deal about it being worth checking if the solution is to never be able to check anything again? Seriously, nothing to see here.

              • May 20th 2018 @ 3:15pm
                Duncan Smith said | May 20th 2018 @ 3:15pm | ! Report

                OK Broncos fan, whatever you say … !

              • May 20th 2018 @ 3:51pm
                Justin Kearney said | May 20th 2018 @ 3:51pm | ! Report

                There was no obstruction so no need to review.

              • Roar Rookie

                May 20th 2018 @ 3:45pm
                Matthew Pearce said | May 20th 2018 @ 3:45pm | ! Report

                Sure, like the Broncos aren’t the sole reason you’re complaining.

            • May 20th 2018 @ 3:03pm
              uglykiwi said | May 20th 2018 @ 3:03pm | ! Report

              What about the Tigers game?

          • May 20th 2018 @ 3:38pm
            Haz said | May 20th 2018 @ 3:38pm | ! Report

            Then it would have gone up as a try and it would have been confirmed by the vr. Those players you mentioned can’t just disappear and they never impeded the “lazy” defenders. It was just a great play out of the Matty Bowen handbook. Great to watch.

          • May 21st 2018 @ 11:31am
            ken gargett said | May 21st 2018 @ 11:31am | ! Report

            duncan, if tries are called back and/or penalties given because a player did something that “could be confusing to defenders”, we’ll have a much poorer game. could be confusing is not, or at the very least not always, obstruction.
            many great players have made reputations on doing things that confuse defenders.

      • May 21st 2018 @ 10:13am
        Noel said | May 21st 2018 @ 10:13am | ! Report

        Like 50-50 call when Fingers Ferguson clearly knocked on when retrieving a kick. That kind of 50-50?

        • Roar Rookie

          May 21st 2018 @ 10:19am
          Matthew Pearce said | May 21st 2018 @ 10:19am | ! Report

          Heh, that one was a bit of a stinker. Funny though, that was a literal 50/50 call, since they did get it right second time round.

          But yep, we ignore those calls because they disagree with our narrative.

          • May 21st 2018 @ 7:17pm
            KenoathCarnt said | May 21st 2018 @ 7:17pm | ! Report

            Just went and watched the replay again the only thing I have realised from it is just how dam good it was LOL! Isaako is looking for Milford and then realised it is not on and completely left all Roosters players for dead. Yes there were Broncos players there but they in now way obstructed. Roosters fans are just gutted by the loss and are grasping for straws. I’m sick of every Broncos win being shamed as cheats sometimes you just have to accept a tight loss and it hurts.

            • May 22nd 2018 @ 7:39am
              Noel said | May 22nd 2018 @ 7:39am | ! Report

              How about Isaako’s turn of pace when he saw the gap, nevermind the step he put on Cronk. Magic stuff.

    • May 20th 2018 @ 9:56am
      Geoff from Bruce Stadium said | May 20th 2018 @ 9:56am | ! Report

      Agree Tim. My initial reaction was the refs couldn’t be serious. But when you see it again on replay Napa’s arms are never up to make a tackle. He had to go. I think Napa wanted to collect Sims with a shoulder or upper chest but he gets it horribly wrong. And getting back to the Graham hit on Sam Burgess in the GF – I still reckon it was a deliberate ploy to take him out of the match which ultimately backfired.

      • Roar Guru

        May 20th 2018 @ 1:06pm
        Renegade said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:06pm | ! Report

        Agree with your summary Geoff, Tim has nailed it.

        • Columnist

          May 20th 2018 @ 4:38pm
          Tim Gore said | May 20th 2018 @ 4:38pm | ! Report

          Thanks lads

          • May 20th 2018 @ 4:54pm
            Stu said | May 20th 2018 @ 4:54pm | ! Report

            Agree completley also

        • May 20th 2018 @ 10:15pm
          johnno2 said | May 20th 2018 @ 10:15pm | ! Report

          yes sir !!!!!!!!!

          • May 21st 2018 @ 6:49am
            Womblat said | May 21st 2018 @ 6:49am | ! Report

            I’ll be the dissenting voice then. Watch the tackle again at full speed and recount the days when you (if you) have ever had to tackle someone like Sims. He steps this huge right foot thing at the last minute, WAY after Napa started the forward motion, and crack. There is a case to answer (especially since the bloke has a broken jaw) but it’s 50-50 responsibility in my eyes. Napa is one driver in a car crash where they are both to blame. There was no intent and to imply otherwise is pointless.

            No-one at this level tackles deliberately with their head. That’s a myth. Graham and Villasanti’s hits may have looked that way but they were exactly the same thing as Napa’s. It’s only because they didn’t show any pain at all it looks like they meant it. But that’s genuine toughness, not evil intent. That’s an unknown thing to a lot of millennials these days.

            And if this notion gets a grip, soon every player involved in a 50-50 incident will be at risk of suspension. It’s a contact sport, probably THE most contact sport there is. Unless you’ve played it, just watch and enjoy without the slow motion, inch perfect, split second judgement. But I promise, stamping out the likes of Napa will steal enjoyment from it just like that.

            • May 21st 2018 @ 7:40am
              qwetzen said | May 21st 2018 @ 7:40am | ! Report

              Absolutely.
              And the obvious solution to avoid future occurrences of this type is to penalise players who step before they get to the line.

      • May 20th 2018 @ 7:28pm
        SAVAGE said | May 20th 2018 @ 7:28pm | ! Report

        Added to the fact that the same thing happened against the Warriors the week before with Ignatious Pasi coming off the field to be treated for HIA and blood bin after head clash with Napa.

    • May 20th 2018 @ 10:03am
      Jarryd said | May 20th 2018 @ 10:03am | ! Report

      You’ve missed the bus on this issue Tim. The outrage machine is now focused on Scott beating the snot out of Walker, and then Walker getting binned for it.

      • May 20th 2018 @ 11:29am
        Christov said | May 20th 2018 @ 11:29am | ! Report

        Ah the old Anasta rule

      • Columnist

        May 20th 2018 @ 4:39pm
        Tim Gore said | May 20th 2018 @ 4:39pm | ! Report

        I can only write so fast Jarryd! Rest assured it is filed already.

      • May 21st 2018 @ 3:08pm
        Beastie said | May 21st 2018 @ 3:08pm | ! Report

        Walker threw a punch in retaliation. He deserved the 10 the same way that Scott deserved to be sent. Koroisau on the other hand should have been sent for an early shower for his coward punch instead of just 10 in the bin.

    • Roar Guru

      May 20th 2018 @ 10:09am
      Con Scortis said | May 20th 2018 @ 10:09am | ! Report

      Hi Tim, you commented on Napa’s high missed-tackle record during the week, so am interested in your thoughts on Napa’s approach to defence.

      A lot of coaches talk about “effective tackling”, meaning defence that stops the ball-carrier, which after all is what defence is all about. The really effective defenders in the game focus their efforts on stopping the man, whereas it seems to me that Napa’s entire focus is on putting on “the big hit”.

      As I posted yesterday, the really effective forwards (guys like Taumalolo and S Burgess) may have a huge highlight-reel hit maybe once in every twenty or thirty tackles. That’s for two reasons. Firstly, their main goal is to stop the ball-carrier – that is, to put on an effective tackle. Secondly, when they do put on the big hit it’s often effective because they pick and choose their moment judiciously.

      Contrast that with Napa – when I watch Napa, he always seems to be charging out of the defensive line like a missile. It seems to me that his focus on on smashing the ball-carrier, rather than putting on an effective tackle.

      To me this makes Napa a defensive liability. He’s often going for the low-percentage hit and it’s one of the reasons he misses a lot of tackles but it’s also one of the reasons he often gets things wrong, as he did on Friday.

      Given how he defends, Napa has nobody to blame but himself for what happened on Friday and I have no problem with the way Sutton handled it.

      • Roar Guru

        May 20th 2018 @ 10:42am
        Nat said | May 20th 2018 @ 10:42am | ! Report

        You make a good point Con. One of the parameters of a shoulder charge is having the arm tucked in but in a case like Napa’s he has no intention of wrapping the arms around. The intent is maximum carnage with the shoulders only in this instance, the player steps and and the head clash ensues. By no definition is he trying to ‘tackle’ him.

        • May 20th 2018 @ 11:49am
          Fraser said | May 20th 2018 @ 11:49am | ! Report

          Those are the old parameters. The new guidelines reflect the fact that a shoulder charge can be administered without the arm tucked. The guidelines are:
          -The contact is forceful, and;
          -The player did not use, or attempt to use, his arms (including his hands) to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.

          • Roar Guru

            May 20th 2018 @ 12:55pm
            Nat said | May 20th 2018 @ 12:55pm | ! Report

            Ok good and fair enough. However, we have seen plenty of them this year. Napa put exactly the same on Lodge earlier in the game but go back further, DWZ’s “hit of the year” on Marshall King was exactly the same.

            Locky just said on the Footy Show that Sims may have a broken jaw and people are whinging about Napa getting sent off – BS.

            • Roar Guru

              May 20th 2018 @ 1:07pm
              eagleJack said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:07pm | ! Report

              He wasn’t sent off. He was sent to the sin bin.

              How many Grade 1 or Grade 2’s have you seen being sent to the bin?

              Napa’s tackle didn’t even warrant a grading from the MRC. So are we going to see every reckless high shot binned? Of course not.

              We won’t ever see one again. And that’s the issue. The NRL struggle with consistency. But make it hard for themselves, as this is something that is near impossible to be consistent on.

              • May 20th 2018 @ 2:38pm
                jimmmy said | May 20th 2018 @ 2:38pm | ! Report

                EJ are you and I the only ones to see how completely outrageous this decision was. The Tackle on Tapau the previous week, penalty sufficient. Then this out of the blue.
                Like the old Union rule , one off all of or none off at all. I can live with either but not this crepe.
                The sin bin lottery continues.

              • Roar Guru

                May 20th 2018 @ 3:09pm
                eagleJack said | May 20th 2018 @ 3:09pm | ! Report

                I think we may be the only ones jimmmy.

                As we have both stated, if this was to become the new norm, happy days. But it won’t be.

                And nobody here will have a problem with that it seems.

            • May 20th 2018 @ 2:39pm
              jimmmy said | May 20th 2018 @ 2:39pm | ! Report

              But he hasn’t even been charged Nat . Something is seriously out of whack.

              • May 20th 2018 @ 2:49pm
                Brian George said | May 20th 2018 @ 2:49pm | ! Report

                Back in the day when the bin was used regularly plenty of players spent time in the bin and weren’t charged jimmmy, why so upset about this one?

                Tim is spot on for mine.

          • Roar Guru

            May 20th 2018 @ 1:10pm
            Emcie said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:10pm | ! Report

            They have been pretty liberal with that interpretation though and I think it’s been worded in such a way as to give the refs and MRC leaway in situations where obvious shoulder charges might otherwise get off due to technicalities around the key indicators for a shoulder charge.

      • Columnist

        May 20th 2018 @ 4:41pm
        Tim Gore said | May 20th 2018 @ 4:41pm | ! Report

        Totally agree Con. And that style isn’t ideal in a defensive line.

        • May 20th 2018 @ 5:12pm
          JM said | May 20th 2018 @ 5:12pm | ! Report

          Dunno how a so called “expert” agrees with this. Napa would make 30-40 tackles a week. A small fraction of those would be going for the big hit. And he has a problem with his defensive style?? That’ll do me. We all applaud a legit big hit (which Napa has done plenty of btw) and we cruxify a guy who gets it wrong? It’s easy to criticise from the lounge. Some onus must go on Sims for stepping to try and avoid the big left shoulder and it was the same unfortunate accident we’ve seen a thousand times before. If there’s no more big men trying to hurt each other (legally) in this sport then it will be a very boring game indeed

          • May 21st 2018 @ 6:47am
            Drongo said | May 21st 2018 @ 6:47am | ! Report

            Players that lead with their head like that must be taken out of the game. If Napa only does it one out of 40, it is still a very dangerous habit and he must eliminate it from his game. The reply shows it clearly, it is a very dangerous technique. In rugby union it would be a red card. Eyes down, arms back, no care whatsoever for the well-being of the opposing player, it is reckless, and disregards the obvious and real risk of a serious head clash directly to the head, face or neck of the tackled player.

            • May 21st 2018 @ 2:33pm
              Canberra Matt said | May 21st 2018 @ 2:33pm | ! Report

              Well said, Drongo – the onus is entirely on the tackler to avoid contact with the head and neck. At best Napa’s effort could be said to be reckless, at worst it was an atrocious act of thuggery…

    • May 20th 2018 @ 10:11am
      kk said | May 20th 2018 @ 10:11am | ! Report

      Hi Tim,

      Hard to find make up of the MRC. Secretive lot. Former list.

      Stuart Raper
      Michael Buettner
      Michael Hodgson
      Ben Ross

      All former players. Don’t know if this is list is current.

      • Columnist

        May 20th 2018 @ 4:44pm
        Tim Gore said | May 20th 2018 @ 4:44pm | ! Report

        I asked who they were. Got no response.
        I guess if we knew who they were and why they made their decisions we could hold them to account.

    • May 20th 2018 @ 10:14am
      Sean said | May 20th 2018 @ 10:14am | ! Report

      Sorry I disagree. Napa was in the motion of tackling Sims left shoulder before Simssteps off his right to line up directly with Napa’s head. Thus it can only be seen as accidental. Should not even be a penalty..

      • May 20th 2018 @ 10:20am
        BennO said | May 20th 2018 @ 10:20am | ! Report

        Yes because no one ever side steps when running with the ball. How could Napa possibly expect that when he’s defending?

      • Roar Rookie

        May 20th 2018 @ 11:40am
        Matthew Pearce said | May 20th 2018 @ 11:40am | ! Report

        Tim literally accounted for that in the article. See: paragraph directly above embedded tweets, as well as said embedded tweets. He went in for the big shot, created a high-risk situation, and messed up enough to enable that. That the MRC decided he has no case to answer at all is a disgrace.

        Not even a penalty? Um, hello? Head contact?

        Accidental is irrelevant. “Don’t rule a knock-on, ref! I didn’t mean to drop it!”

        • May 20th 2018 @ 1:30pm
          Sean said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:30pm | ! Report

          With all due respect NRL is a high risk game. These tackles were the norm a few years ago. Sounds like political correctness gone wrong the way some people argue on this. Its irrelevant if Napa was going in for a big aggressive tackle. The headclash was accidental. Case closed.

          • Roar Rookie

            May 20th 2018 @ 1:43pm
            Matthew Pearce said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:43pm | ! Report

            “Political correctness?” Yeah, you’ve dug that hole yourself.

            “These tackles were the norm a few years ago.”

            A) You’ve gotta go a little further back than that if you want to find the days of thugby league. Maybe try the 70s? B) The norm then was wrong. The aim of the game is to tackle, not send people flying into next week and give them irreversible brain damage that will impact them for the rest of their lives.

            No, the fact that Napa was going in for a big tackle is completely relevant, because that’s the cause of the entire situation. What actually is irrelevant is it being an accident.

            • May 20th 2018 @ 2:52pm
              Sean said | May 20th 2018 @ 2:52pm | ! Report

              If Sims bounced off and continued to run on would the referree award a penalty? I doubt it. The bunker came in and decided the decision even though the evidence was there to see. I understand where other people are coming from but I cannot agree with it sorry. Leave it at that.

              • Roar Rookie

                May 20th 2018 @ 2:59pm
                Matthew Pearce said | May 20th 2018 @ 2:59pm | ! Report

                “If Sims bounced off and continued to run on would the referee award a penalty?”

                Yes, he would, because he was hit high. Why is this such a difficult concept?

              • Roar Guru

                May 21st 2018 @ 11:25am
                Hoy said | May 21st 2018 @ 11:25am | ! Report

                What if he didn’t award the penalty? You might be right… but the fact is he was binned for reckless tackling, and it caused an injury.

            • May 20th 2018 @ 5:23pm
              JM said | May 20th 2018 @ 5:23pm | ! Report

              Matt the fact it was an accident is very relevant. Your point would make sense if this wasn’t the only time (correct me if I’m wrong) a ref has called a head clash intentional. It’s happened countless times, many times with 1 or more players being hurt, and is ALWAYS called play on.

              • May 20th 2018 @ 5:27pm
                Justin Kearney said | May 20th 2018 @ 5:27pm | ! Report

                Reckless is different to intentional. I am in despair of this discussion. Grab a dictionary lads. It’s a big book full of words in alphabetical order with meanings next to them. Dear me.

              • Roar Rookie

                May 20th 2018 @ 5:42pm
                Matthew Pearce said | May 20th 2018 @ 5:42pm | ! Report

                Are you really trying to compare this to accidental head knocks (in the process of making legal tackles)?

                These are obviously not the same thing. Nowhere near being the same thing.

            • May 21st 2018 @ 2:47am
              Dan said | May 21st 2018 @ 2:47am | ! Report

              Exactly.
              Attempting a collision without any regard for technique creates an opportunity for dangerous contact, which is what’s happened here. And dangerous contact is a penalty all day, every day.
              The whole reason you can play league without NFL-style helmets and padding is because of the technique involved that is as much defensive effectiveness as it is about self-preservation.

          • May 20th 2018 @ 1:53pm
            Forty Twenty said | May 20th 2018 @ 1:53pm | ! Report

            Political correctness or Hitler always end up in a debate if it goes on long enough. Just about every decision made in or out of football to protect peoples safety is met with frigging nonsens3. Ever sat in an work safety meeting? I’ve had a few and I can’t recall one where people didn’t come out of it mumbling about common sense and ‘what a load of rubbish’ .

            Napa now it seems has been given the green light to enter this years GF and charge at any attacker full pelt , head first and if he some how sends that player off to hospital then everything is just dandy .

            Is this an acceptable risk that Nathan Cleary or Shaun Johnson takes in the game? Like punching. shoulder charges, ‘reflex head high tackles’ , chicken wing and any other dangerous tackles this needs to be banned right now. Send off offence and ten weeks on the sideline. It is way too dangerous .

            • May 20th 2018 @ 3:30pm
              Pomoz said | May 20th 2018 @ 3:30pm | ! Report

              +100

            • Roar Guru

              May 21st 2018 @ 11:27am
              Hoy said | May 21st 2018 @ 11:27am | ! Report

              Godwin’s Law.

          • May 21st 2018 @ 3:35am
            thomas c said | May 21st 2018 @ 3:35am | ! Report

            if we use norms of the past as our guide, we should embrace CTE. Football isn’t worth people being messed up for the rest of their (possibly shortened) lives. If we can’t be bothered to take reasonable steps to ensure player safety, we shouldn’t have a sport. I don’t think telling the Sims family that Dylan Napa is too incapable of thought to be blamed for decisions and can’t be trusted not to occasionally lunge head first at head height would be well received.

    Explore:
    , ,