Todd Greenberg never should have needed to order a crackdown

In Kelly’s time smith would have spent a lot of time on the pine having been sent off or knocked out for his grubbiness

Hoy I think he did that to avoid giving away a penalty. I’ve seen it on a number of occasions. The player realises he’s just committed a shepherd and in submitting in the tackle he isn’t gaining an advantage from it so the ref doesn’t penalise him. The shepherd is fine as long as the defence is a good distance away and isn’t impeded by the dummy runner, but in close quarters it will get pulled up. Submitting in the tackle is the only real way of stoping the loss of possession.

@ Brian Jones Absolutely brilliant comment, deadset correct, this Greenberg, mor0n does absolutely nothing for the game and just sits there watching the NRL die in front of his eyes. He watched the Bulldogs be destroyed beyond repair, now he is doing the same thing to the NRL, someone please bring back David Gallop!!!!!!!!!!

Hoy, surely you aren't suggesting an uneven penalty count is the result of the players rather than outright corruption of the referees?

Yes David, I can relate to the scrum mess as I played as a hooker from the early 60's to late 70's and we had a few changes in the rules between those years e.g. limitless tackles, ended 1966, 4 tackle rule, ended 1970 and then the 6 tackles, started 1971 but, the scrum were still upheld to be a scrum! Where a hooker (No12) was just that 'a player that hooked for the ball in the scrum' and that was his main purpose in the team and dummy half duties. There were also plenty of penalties involved with the 'scrum' e.g. feet across the tunnel, lose arms, half backs, not putting the ball straight, putting it into the second row etc the current scrums are a joke and a waist of game time and has no purpose. The current scrums, detract from the game of RL and the scrums should either be, re invented, like in the old days and the rules above applied or like what they did In 1983, where handovers were introduced to replace scrums, when a team was caught in possession after six tackles (or tackled for the sixth time in a set). Another thing that aggravates me and was dealt with very effectively was the 'forward pass' and intentional forward pass was always 'penalized' which is not happening now and forward passes are part of the game like a 'dogs breakfast'.

Munster the other day, ran behind a dummy runner, then he turned back infield, and flopped down like he'd been shot... Noone within metres of him... he lay there until a defender cam up and put his hand on him... It was ridiculous to see.

Yup. Next up... any ball that hits the turf seems to be 99% knock on, regardless of where it actually lands... I can't understand how they call some forward. Commentators and journos complaining about the refs blowing penalties don't seem to realise that it's not the Refs causing the penalties. It's the players.

Against South Sydney in the 88 finals? And they lost the game on the resultant penalty? Or maybe my mind just made that up without telling me.

Another forgotten rule is the voluntary tackle. When was the last time we saw this penalty on the NRL?

Trouble is Greenberg is the CEO and should be there to run the organization not have a knee jerk reaction every time there is some sort of penalty crisis. Archer is supposed to head up the refs. If he is not doing his job get rid of him. Every week depending on which ref interpretation's change. Not doing his job by trying to put every little fire out that arises.

Smith is by far the biggest grub...in any era.

Yep, Greenburg having no other ideas or talents ordered a crackdown by the refs because he had to been seen to be doing something in order to justify being nepotistically parachuted, despite a total lack of abilities or credentials, into his lucrative position. He has now disappeared again to god knows where while the game flaps on hopelessly in the breeze.

You are right and that is why you can only compare players by how they dominate in the era they are in.

And a tough bugger. Turtle Conescu was another smaller, tough hooker.

You're right insofar as I've only seen scrappy footage of 60's football but never in the history of our game have players been as fit, fast and strong as they are now. Kelly has never faced a JT13 because there has never been one before, let alone with 10m run up. Who in the 1960's could deadlift 300kg like Taupow? Kelly was tough without doubt but Smith, with the accountants body has played in 500 games (rep included) in the middle, making 50 tackles per game and has knocked over all comers the likes that Kelly has never seen. All the while being the smartest player in every game. That is the very definition of tough both mentally and physically.

Smith would have likely played halfback in Kelly’s days. Then again, John Lang was a superb rake and dummy half in a time of contested scrums and he was smaller than Cam Smith.

David, I suspect if Smith had played hooker in Noel Kelly's time, he would have lost the scrum, the argument and the fight! Both very good players but you're right Kelly was a genuine hooker and Smith is a "new age" dummy half.

Deep breath - I agree 100%. On the same page here.

And this where it becomes confusing and frustrating....fans can no longer follow the game because the are not sure what rule is being used....the 'black and white rule' or as you say 'the interpretation of the rule'. Maybe it's about time the rules were reviewed and tidyed up so we can all follow the game again.