Rugby league is a contact sport. But some things can be prevented. And the NRL would be setting a dangerous precedent if they don’t suspend Dylan Napa.
Fortunately, the hit, which saw Andrew McCullough floored in the 23rd minute of the Roosters and Broncos clash on Saturday night, hasn’t seriously injured the Brisbane hooker.
But after a similar incident left Broncos forward Korbin Sims with a broken jaw, it’s clear this is no accident.
Given it is the second time this has happened this year, it’s evident that it was a tackle that could have been avoided.
In the NRL’s Laws and Interpretations Guide, it states: “A player is guilty of misconduct if he… when affecting or attempting to affect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.”
Sure, you can argue all you want that the contact on McCullough wasn’t intentional. I highly doubt it was. After all, the pair were teammates in Queensland State of Origin camp.
And even if they didn’t have a close relationship, I don’t know many players who go into a tackle deliberately trying to injure their opponents.
Was it careless? It most certainly was.
I mean, after seriously injuring Sims earlier in the year, Napa refused to alter this tackling technique on the basis that it was an accident.
However, it shouldn’t be too hard for Napa to fix his ways anyway.
After all, this is all about him changing his technique. And the fact that he plays an aggressive style of footy is no excuse to suggest that he can’t change his ways.
You only have to look at the effort Konrad Hurrell put into amending his running style.
Konrad Hurrell of the Titans. (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
In 2015, the then-Warriors centre was suspended for three weeks after he lifted his knee when approaching Cronulla forward Anthony Tupou, breaking his jaw.
It was a worrying trend for Hurrell and the judiciary responded accordingly.
His only other discretion came in the 2016 Auckland Nines, when Hurrell again came under scrutiny after his knee made contact with Manly lock Jake Trbojevic.
Hurrell’s actions weren’t intentional. But nonetheless, they were careless as he would have known the potential damage he could have caused the Sea Eagles forward given what happened to Tupou.
And to his credit, he made the decision to make an effort to alter his technique, despite the fact that it was a running style he had adopted since his childhood.
“I try to run hard and went the wrong way and hurt the other guy,” Hurrell told the NZ Herald in 2016 following the incident.
“It would be hard for me to change, because I’ve been running like that since I was 12.
“But I need to look at it and work on it.”
A stark contrast to Napa’s denial after the first incident earlier this year.
And you can’t blame him given he wasn’t even made to front the judiciary. Perhaps they too thought it was just an accident and decided to give him another chance.
Well, that chance is up. And now the judiciary must act.
Napa may go to training next week with the intent of changing his technique. However, the only way to ensure that this is the case is to suspend him.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
There needs to be some form of deterrent, similar to the one Hurrell faced a couple of years ago, to force Napa to accept that until he changes his ways, his team will suffer the consequences.
We don’t want to see another tragic death that could have been prevented.
While the game is a contact sport and therefore there will always be risks in playing, it is about minimising these risks.
The shoulder charge was banned from the game in 2013 for the potential harm it posed to players.
This harm was unfortunately made clear to the rugby league community in 2015 when James Ackerman passed away after suffering a ruptured artery in his neck from a shoulder charge delivered by Francis Molo in the Queensland Cup.
Molo, who was playing for Broncos feeder club North Devils, was handed an eight-match suspension, only to return to be suspended another two times the following year for shoulder charges.
While obviously concerned about Molo’s welfare, coroner John Lock concluded that the Brisbane Broncos didn’t do enough to specifically address his tacking technique, leading to his infringements following the incident in 2015.
These were exceptional circumstances and thankfully we haven’t seen such an incident since Ackerman’s fatal death.
The game learnt from it and made it clear that the ban on the shoulder charge was there to stay.
A similar stance needs to be taken against Napa.
Now, this isn’t about trying to condemn him as some sort of villain. Nor is it a call to single him out as a threat to player safety.
Rather, it is a plea to the NRL to help Napa or any other player with a dangerous habit that poses a risk to the safety of our game.
And a suspension is certainly a start in ensuring Napa and the Roosters directly confront the problem – for both his sake and that of other players.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Oh for crying out loud, why are we still so hung up on this 'deliberate' point that is being argued by nobody? I don't think he did it deliberately. No-one here is arguing that he did it deliberately. How could you look at this thread and still so spectacularly get us all wrong about that? We know he didn't intend for the hit to result that way, but that is completely and utterly irrelevant. It doesn't have to be intentional to be reckless, and to be worthy of punishment. There's no lynch mob here, champ. Just one person trying to excuse the inexcusable.
Womblat
Guest
Your "incredibly simple" concept makes the arrogant assumption Napa did it deliberately. You think he did. I don't. Look, the lynch mob are out and by trying to illustrate their imbalance all I'm doing is fuelling their hatred. Enjoy the march on the castle, chaps.
Penrith Punter
Roar Guru
I think it wasn't punished originally because they gave him the benefit of the doubt, thinking it was an accident and he could work on it. He's now done it again and so clearly he didn't learn and it's not really an accident anymore given he could have done something about it and changed his technique. That's how I saw it at least.
souvalis
Guest
I’ve got one more question before it gets put to bed..the same one that Fox commentators are asking tonight...why wasn’t this punished the first time around..Napa’s style was identical..but was deemed as having no case to answer...ie nothing wrong with your style mate keep going...Greenberg steps in and says he would’ve suspended him..6 weeks later it’s suddenly a 4 week offence..what’s wrong with this picture ? If precedents are acceptable as a means of defence,how will Napa not walk free?
Matt P
Roar Rookie
So, what you're saying is that every player who's ever been penalised or suspended for a head shot has done it intentionally? That's your argument, is it? Intent is irrelevant. Head shots are illegal regardless of intention. This is not someone accidentally bumping heads. This is someone leading with the head and collecting them like you would a shoulder. I don't understand how people can struggle with this incredibly simple concept.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
What's the weather like on your planet Womblat? Contact to the head is illegal irrespective of whether it was deliberate or not. It's a poopy argument to start with, and compounding the misery, it's plain wrong. Later in the same game Alex Glenn got Tedesco high and was penalised. He didn't mean to - Tedesco was falling and his head was barely above knee height. Glenn lowered his aim, but not enough and gave Teddy a fairly innocuous shot across the chops. His action of attempting to tackle was deliberate (as was Napa's), but the highness of his shot was not, but it didn't matter. There was even the mitigating circumstance of Tedesco falling, but it didn't matter. It was illegal and was penalised. Same thing goes for Napa. Didn't deliberately whack McCullough in the head, but he did in the act of a deliberate attempt to tackle and will rightly face a penalty. End of story.
Womblat
Guest
Another poor comparison. Hurrell stood no chance of being hurt by deliberately picking his knees up yet every chance of inflicting it. This, again, isn't that. And to strip it back, DELIBERATE contact with the head is illegal. This, yet again, wasn't that.
Penrith Punter
Roar Guru
Hurrell's knee lifts were bad technique but he never intentionally sought out to injure anyone. Is that a good enough comparison for you? High tackles are illegal and so is what Napa did because it hit McCullough high. Anything that hits a player head-high is illegal and Napa clearly hadn't learnt.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
Strip it back Womblat and stop over-complicating the issue - it's illegal to whack a guy in the head. Napa hit McCullough in the head. A suspension is appropriate
Womblat
Guest
If intent is irrelevant, as you say, then it must be an accident. The very definition of accident is "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury" or "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause." Blame is non-existent. Holding someone to account for something that is unintentional is nonsensical. When your precious Bulldogs smashed the Dragons today, Jason Nightingale had his arm creased by his own teammate in another complete accident. According to your logic, we need to suspend his teammate for a few weeks as well. Today as well, Lachlan Fitzgibbon got smashed by Knights teammate Josh King in yet another accident, knocking both out. Should we suspend them both? They were, after all, guilty of "bad technique". If it was "good technique", they wouldn't have been hurt at all, right? Nope. You made a bad comparison. Coat hangering someone isn't bad technique, it's an illegal act. This wasn't that. Head clashes are not illegal. They are just unfortunate. Under the rules as they stand, Napa shouldn't have a case to answer.
Penrith Punter
Roar Guru
That's clutching at straws Womblat. Intent is irrelevant in reference to high tackles - people get suspended/penalised when a player is slipping a tackle. Napa's effort was far worse.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Three weeks. Past record.,Led with shoulder ,then head ,with zero use of the hands. Penalty required due to seriousness( though unintentional).He has been warned prior about his defensive technique.Accidental description, loses meaning on that basis. This action has got to be removed from the game.Napa has got to change his technique, else he'll be spending more time on the sideline than on the field.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t know where you’re coming from with this argument. Forget intent. For a dangerous contact charge intentional, reckless, careless doesn’t apply. It’s definitely bad technique. He’s trying to tackle someone on his right with his left shoulder and that’s putting his head right in the middle. You’re taught that in under 6s. It’s awful technique for a professional footballer. So yeah, it’s a tackle gone wrong. It’s bad technique. It’s got nothing to do with him being evil. But that doesn’t mean he escapes suspension. If you go in with bad technique and coat hanger someone there’s a price to pay. You can’t have someone charging around inflicting horrible head injuries on opposition players through terribly poor technique and there not being any punishment. Napa got a chance earlier in the season. He could have fixed it up then. This is the second time and I think 3-4 weeks is about right. He’s broken one player’s jaw and knocked another into next week and busted his mouth. Intent is irrelevant. If he does it again he should go for 6-8.
Womblat
Guest
"Seems to be". That's the issue with this whole conundrum. That's opinion, and like something else, everyone's got one. It's a tackle gone wrong, that's all. People get hurt. It's the nature of the game. Just because someone gets hurt doesn't man someone else is Dr Evil and they need to be crucified. This tackle was not evil, not malicious and not dastardly. Napa's head is no harder than any one else's. He's got the same chance of being broken as they do. Maybe it is poor technique but only because he could get hurt as badly as them. Any argument regarding intent is puerile. With a fraction of a second planning and preparation time? Please. I see this as a turning point where the game needs to take a stand to defend itself. Rub out Napa, you've rubbed out one of the last of the hard men of the sport. It'll be a final squeal of glory for the PC lefty hysterical minority who abhor violence in public yet secretly covet it in their love of a sport which is inherently violent. If the irony wasn't so thick I'd be nauseous. They secretly want what they publically decry. It's sickening. Should we ban every person who tackles someone who gets hurt, regardless of intent? Or the nearest person to them if their hammy goes when running, or they hurt their back scoring a try? What about if you look at them mean and they get upset? That's the common sense in this argument. Zero. It's only a matter of time before millenial, panicky cowards, 99% of whom have never made a tackle or kicked a ball in their insulated cotton ball lives, completely demasculate this sport from the safety of their lounge chairs and computer screens. I can't be the only one who finds them offensive, and the pandering attitude of the NRL twoward them as gutless, surely.
Zavjalova
Roar Rookie
It wasn't intentional, but the fact that his tackling technique has caused serious damage to 2 Broncos players suggests that a suspension will force his and the clubs hand as far as changing his tackling technique goes
Matt P
Roar Rookie
No, that's incorrect. You can absolutely be a fault for an accident. By that limited definition, manslaughter wouldn't exist as a charge. If you deliberately commit an action, and the end result isn't what you intended, then yes, it's an accident, but it's also still your fault, because you created the situation that led to that result.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
That's entirely the wrong way round... his poor technique is completely relevant, because it's the cause of the injury. I'm not arguing for a second that Napa intended to hit him in the head, but the intent is what's irrelevant, because it's still happened. That's wonderful. Every other person who's replied to you has also pointed out exactly why their comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, the contact was accidental. Everyone knows that, because no-one is accusing Napa of deliberately trying to take people's heads off. Can we seriously get past this point, because no-one is trying to argue it. The premise is that, as the tackler, he has a responsibility to avoid making dangerous contact. His poor technique and reckless approach have seen him commit a careless high shot that could have very easily been avoided. That's why he needs to be suspended. Please don't tell me you're genuinely peddling that conspiracy theory. The difference between someone slipping into an otherwise normal tackle, and someone rushing in hell for leather and taking a bloke's head off is extremely simple to comprehend.
Lewl
Guest
Konrad Hurrell got suspended for 3 weeks off the back of someone getting injured due to his 'bad technique' (in that case, his running style). Unlike that case, this isn't even the first time Napa has actually injured someone with this tackle technique. Is 3 weeks the starting point?
souvalis
Guest
Pal? Pal? Th only issue that interests me is whether this impact was accidental or pre meditated..nothing else...does he have poor technique ? No argument...but totally irrelevant to intention.. I’ve cited evidence of every commentator calling the game live immediately calling it ‘accidental’...based on what they saw and their experience at that level... Your retort ? They don’t have any knowledge.....and I should go and look in the mirror..looks like you won that point hands down.. Author AJ himself stated he believed the tackle unintentional...and the premise of the article appears to be whether we should penalize unintentional carelessness..that’s the issue..so we reach a stage where players could be suspended for opponents slipping into head knocks..it won’t end well..
Craig
Guest
By definition, if it's an accident then no one is at fault If someone is at fault then it's not an accident