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.
ken gargett
Guest
were there two games last week in parallel universes? "Sims wasn’t ‘unlikely to take any further part in the game’ so it wasn’t ‘Foul Play’" On what planet was the poor bloke likely to take further part in the game? he is lying in a concussed heap on the ground with a smashed jaw. at the absolute least, he was off for HIA so he had absolutely no chance of taking any further part given only a couple of minutes left. also, you state it wasn't deliberate. how do you know? it looked pretty deliberate to me. it may not have looked deliberate to you (we are, after all, in different universes) but how do you know? i don't. nor does anyone bar napa himself.
Chris Love
Guest
I’ll admit the arms swung late but they did swing. It was nothing close to a shoulder charge though.
Chris Love
Guest
You’ve said a couple of things that are factually false here. Barely lowers at all? At the point of impact Sims’ left leg is bent almost at 90degrees as if he’s doing a squat. So what now if you’re going to be “forceful” now days tacklers should make sure the ball runner isn’t going to duck down to the height as if they’re sitting in a chair? Who can predict that? Secondly Napa’s feet are firmly on the ground in the lead up and during the impact. Thirdly careless and reckless? Basically what your saying is that if a player goes to put a hit on, there isn’t a single scenario imaginable where if head contact is made the tackler isn’t being either careless or reckless. In your mind, Force+Head Contact= automatic careless/reckless. What a fantasy land you live in.
Noel
Guest
How about Isaako's turn of pace when he saw the gap, nevermind the step he put on Cronk. Magic stuff.
The Koomz
Guest
Terrible technique from Napa, to put it simply.
McTavish
Roar Rookie
The only possible points of contact from Napa were his head or shoulder. His arms were well behind him at time of impact. Either scenario is illegal and dangerous as arms in the tackle is a definite requirement these days.
KenoathCarnt
Guest
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.
ken gargett
Guest
i must say that when i saw some of the blithering nonsense sprouting from mr love that i really did think i had seen it all (in screen shots, too) and that it really would not be even worth looking back at this thread. matthew, may i thank you for some sanity, and tim for this piece (i have not always agreed with tim, but he has this absolutely spot on). the only person being careless is sims. that is box of frogs stuff.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Screenshots? You're using still images to predict movement? Gee, that'll work perfectly... how about you watch the replays (available on not one, but two videos on our own roar.tv)? Napa launches off the ground before impact. That shoulder is going nowhere other than Sims' chin. Wow. That was something else. Let's see; A) Lowering? He barely lowers at all. He's side-stepping, not slipping onto the ground. Also funny that you want to try and paint that as the main factor, when Sims was actually in the process of returning to full stretch when he was hit. So, no, you can't blame that. "There is dozens of cases every week where contact is made with the head through no fault of the tackler." Far out, people really think this line is the Holy Grail of arguments right now, don't they? No, that example and many more are should not be penalised, because they are not forceful, primary impacts that result from recklessness/carelessness. It's in the laws and interpretations handbook, page 10, read it. "All you can expect of a tackler is what is humanly possible and that is to effect a tackle that is not high under normal circumstances." Yes. However, that does not negate high contact, and that definitely does not negate careless and reckless tackling that leads to serious injury (in this case, a broken jaw). The fault is all Napa's; stop pretending otherwise and catch up with the present.
Chris Love
Guest
If you’re not leading with the head in a tackle you’re doing something wrong. You must be watching too much AFL.
Chris Love
Guest
I have screen shot’d the stills of the hit. Wish there was a way to post them and put this to bed right here and now. At the point of impact Napa’s shoulder would have hit Sims in the plexes had Sims not lowered his body height at the last moment. In the photos the referee, the other players in the shot are all standing taller than Sims. Napa’s body height is the lowest of anyone. The step certainly aligns the heads but it’s the lowering of the body height that puts Sims head in danger of what the shrinking violets are calling high. There is dozens of cases every week where contact is made with the head through no fault of the tackler. Fullbacks/players trying to get back into the field of play after a grubber, dive forward over the try line so they don’t force a drop out. Contact with the ball runners head often happens with the tacklers legs. Should that also be a penalty because the tackler “should anticipate” a ball runner suddenly flying through the air with his head a foot off the ground? That’s just one example that doesn’t get penalised for good reason. All you can expect of a tackler is what is humanly possible and that is to effect a tackle that is not high under normal circumstances. He has no way of accounting for the sudden drop in height of a player like the Sims case.
Chris Love
Guest
What’s the definition of high? It’s easy enough when the ball runner remains at normal running height but the defender has no chance to re-adjust his tackle once he’s launched into it and the ball runner drops down. Take a look at the stills of the tackle again. Had Sims not dropped into the tackle he would have been hit in the plexes.
Beastie
Roar Rookie
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.
Canberra Matt
Guest
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...
Cass
Guest
What about consistency. If Napa should have been sin binned, why not the Bronco crusher tackler in the 1st half? Put on report attacking the head of an opponent resulting in injury. What was the difference, except the time left in the game and pressure on referee perhaps?
Hoy
Roar Guru
Neither were... this is a major bugbear of mine in League... it's akin to touch footy... ball hits the deck, hand over. So many times there are "knock on" calls that are anything but a knock on.
ken gargett
Guest
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.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I will not argue intentional... the call was reckless. Simple as that. Yes the step potentially caused the head clash... but Napa leading like that, was RECKLESS.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Godwin's Law.
Hoy
Roar Guru
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.