How is it reasonable for respected commentators to argue Dylan Napa has no case to answer for what was effectively another reckless flying headbutt?
Yet, that is exactly what’s happening and their misguided sentiments must not be allowed to hold sway.
The NRL must take a firm stance on his serial recklessness or they will put every ball carrier at serious risk through their negligence.
Further, they’ll also damage the grassroots of the game because parents like myself will actively discourage our kids from playing rugby league if Napa’s brand of recklessness can be excused as accidental.
Here are the facts: twice this season – both times against the Broncos – Roosters forward Dylan Napa has performed reckless tackles that have seen his head brutally impact an opposition player’s head horribly.
In Round 11 at Suncorp Stadium, the impact from Napa’s head broke Korbin Sims’ jaw. On Saturday night Andrew McCullough was lucky to escape with only severe lacerations inside his mouth.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
In both cases, it meant Brisbane went a man down for the entire match while the Roosters only lost Napa for ten minutes.
Lots of those who have seen the tackles have speculated that he is deliberately leading with his head with the intention to injure, but with protection from sanction as the likelihood was that the incidents would be justified as accidental head clashes – which is exactly what the match review committee decided after the incident in Round 11.
This isn’t a new issue either. Richard Villasante was accused of doing it to Brad Fittler in the 2002 grand final
Nate Myles was often accused of leading with his head.
And some think James Graham deliberately lined up Sam Burgess in 2014.
However, there is no proof that those were anything other than accidents.
And here’s the thing: you can’t prove that Dylan Napa intentionally lead with his head. Unless you find a secret recording of Napa either planning or admitting to deliberately doing it, you can’t know what the intentions inside his flame topped melon were.
However, that is totally irrelevant.
When was it ever the case that a high shot, spear tackle or crusher had to be intentional before it was punished? I reckon around 80 per cent and up of all such offences are accidental or reckless. Yet we see those actions receive suspension commonly.
Why on earth shouldn’t that logic apply to incidents where there are head clashes due to recklessness?
In both incidents, Dylan Napa is clearly going for a big hit and it all goes horribly wrong as a result of his recklessness. History repeated on Saturday night and it’s clear that Napa must change his tackling style.
If something is reckless and high impact then the game’s administrators have a duty of care to the players to deal effectively with the risk, and to put in place measures and deterrents to help mitigate and reduce that risk.
After Napa’s Round 11 hit on Sims was found to not be deserving of charge, Todd Greenberg even said as much on NRL 360.
“My personal view is player safety always comes first, and if you’re going to err on the side of caution, I thought it warranted a charge.”
News flash Todd: you are the CEO OF the NRL. It’s your job to run the game. If you think something is warranted then you should probably make it happen.
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
Otherwise, the exact same thing might happen again. So much of the problem to this point is that NRL HQ has not properly assessed the risk and as a result, failed to put an adequate treatment in place.
A further part of the problem is that we have some of the games most respected commentators trying to pass the incidents off as unfortunate accidents that shouldn’t lead to Napa being sanctioned.
When Andrew Johns expresses an opinion we pretty much all listen. The problem is he said this:
“He’s not looking, it looks awful and I really feel for Andrew McCullough, but there’s nothing illegal in it because it’s an accidental head clash.”
Then Wally Lewis chimes is as well:
“It was absolutely identical [to the tackle on Korbin Sims]. He’s tried to smash his opponent. He did the best dive forward possible and it’s not a great way to promote rugby league, but he’s gone in there and timed his defensive play very poorly.”
Both these comments acknowledge the devastating high impact and yet still end up basically defending the bloke who careened in and smashed them.
Even the team who lost the player appear loathe to call out the recklessness and demand action. Darius Boyd was very reserved in his comments on the matter.
“I don’t want to comment on it too much, but he’s an aggressive player. It probably has something to do with his technique, definitely. It doesn’t happen by chance a couple of times. It’s probably something he needs to look at,” said Boyd.
Even the bloke Napa smashed, Andrew McCullough, came out on twitter in support of his Origin teammate.
Quality bloke or not, the incidents – Napa’s tackling style – can’t go unaddressed.
Andrew Johns was of the opinion that the Match Review Committee had shown their hand in Round 11 and that the hit would again not garner a charge.
However, the MRC – very likely at the instruction of the CEO given his previously stated sentiments – have charged Napa with a Grade 3 dangerous contact charge that will see him out for three weeks with an early plea. While I still think this penalty isn’t quite enough, it’s a step in the right direction.
After all, just because it is an accident, doesn’t mean it wasn’t reckless.
And recklessness shouldn’t have a place in our game.
abdul
Guest
Intention does not have to be proved and is irrelevant as you say. "‘When affecting or attempting to affect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly" Was it intentional, or was it reckless, or was it careless? Certainly this tackle, and the James Graham one in the Souths GF, are at least careless and/or reckless. If Napa's arm had made first contact with McCullough's head then everyone would be saying it was a head high. Just because Napa's head makes first contact everyone wants to let it go. The rules do not say amything about what part of the tackler hits the head of the ball carrier but people seem to be reluctant to apply the rule when it is the tackler's head. Extremely dangerous.
TIGER MIKE
Guest
Yes well said I have another proposal to deal with these sorts of penalties, suspensions, that I guarantee would be more effective than anything shown this year anyway
Justine
Guest
Bottom line is he needs to change his tackle technique... It was a terrible looking tackle which could have broken another players jaw (again). Lucky for Brisbane 9 that didn't happen.
JM
Guest
Not withstanding all the commentary regarding a flawed technique or intent I think league could take a leaf out of the union playbook in two areas - 1) the downtown rule and 2) zero tolerance with regard to protecting a player’s head. Any player going over shoulder height, even if they start below the shoulder gets either 10 or red. No questions. It’s the only way to take subjectivity out of the game. Enough of its an accident or flawed technique. It’s why they banned the spear tackle. Accidents can have lasting affects. Tell me there aren’t crunching tackles in Union these days as a consequence of zero tolerance for head highs.
Big daddyBi
Guest
Have to agree with you on this. If wasn't for their football knowledge wouldn't get a job in public sector either. All "yesterday's men "
Hard Yards
Roar Rookie
That’s right. The Club should be penalised: take points off them. And on a lighter note; what chance do you reckon most of the TV commentators would have in getting a similar role; covering any sport, in any country in Europe or North, Central or South America? What a gaggle of bogans . The TV executives are mainlining. People here would Hoover down intelligent , professional and articulate commentary.
Rob
Guest
I agree. The tackling technique being taught with modern players making first contact around the shoulders to hold players up instead of bringing them to the ground has a lot to do with the head contact. Napa is a tall bloke and launches towards the ball carrier aiming high unfortunately. If he goes lower he possibly runs the risk of coming of second best or the player gets an advantage by a good low shot allowing a fast play the ball. One on one tackles should be rewarded and gang tackles discouraged IMO. This has developed from the Roosters in the early 2003. It’s not about stopping the attacker but slowing the attacking teams momentum. Allow a good low tackler time ( dominate rule) and rule 6 to go for prowler tackles.
Nick
Roar Guru
What Big Daddy said plus... Laws evolve. This one evolved faster, hence the suspension. Precedent is not a one size fits all excuse. Precedent isnt used as a way to cover a mistake. The previous judgement was a mistake.
Tim Gore
Expert
A doggies fan with a raider? The original odd couple.
DaveR
Guest
Quite right @shirtpants. No effort to wrap the player up, its a hit. It should have been 2 weeks first time round. But because the NRL did nothing, its a bigger penalty now.
Big daddy
Guest
This is not double jeopardy. Different victim.
Gray-Hand
Guest
The failure to rectify the problem might mean that the coaches have something to answer for internally, but that is completely seperate from Napa’s personal responsibility to not recklessly or carelessly injure his opponents. He’s a grown man, and he’s responsible for his own actions. Unless he can come up with some sort of evidence that Trent Robinson was coercing him into sweeping the leg, it’s on him. And let’s not pretend that he doesn’t know how to tackle properly. He’s been playing rugby league at a professional level for years now, and he’s a State of Origin player.
shirtpants
Roar Guru
His technique is almost that of a shoulder charge. He makes little to no effort to wrap the player up. Having said that, surely he gets off with the precedent having been set? The rules need to address this for it to ever be a stint on the sidelines, right? I think its awful technique at best. Should have been two weeks the first time around.
Don
Roar Rookie
But it should be done like the zero tolerance for punching after Gallen put a couple on Myles’ bonce Gallen didn’t cop a suspension. The NRL said no more from now on... My issue isn’t whether the crime deserves time. It’s that the same guy did the same thing a few months ago and the same court ruled that there was no case to answer and the laws are the same now as they were then. So how can you give a different penalty?
Nick
Roar Guru
Anything that is allowing a player to use the head to hit another head (however accidental the action may be) is absolutely critical and should be changed mid-season.
thomas c
Guest
I would have agreed after the first hit. At that point, the coaching staff had the option of fixing him or sidelining him. He's on the field because they put him on it, in their colours and representing them. I'd make the comparison to a general. If a soldier goes rogue unexpectedly, it's not their fault. If a soldier goes rogue with inadequate training, mixed messages or higher ups having seen warning signs, it becomes increasingly on them. In a corporate environment, similarly, management is held responsible if there are shortfalls in their actions. Penalties apply against the company if actions by individuals aren't anomalies so much as unofficial policy. It motivates people with the power to affect change to be motivated to. I'd also note at least one other rooster has a tendency to raise knees or lower elbows to risk concussions.
Don
Roar Rookie
Spruce I cannot agree that they can simply say that they “got it wrong” the first time and toss him out for 5 weeks or so now. The precedent was established by the first incident and the same punishment should apply now. His legal rep will surely ague that and if anything, the hit on McCullough wasn’t as bad. And although I think he should have sat out 2 weeks after the shot on Simms, I can’t stand the idea of the NRL suspending him now. Todd Greenberg saying that Napa should have been suspended after the Simms hit shouldn’t make any difference. If the tolerance levels for incidents like this have been lowered or amended, clubs should be notified. And unless critical, this stuff should be done in the off season.
Nick
Roar Guru
You're not wrong, I'm just saying the NRL are more at fault than the player and club. There was contempt for the initial decision and Greenburg spoke out. Yet Greenburg didn't change the law either...that was a massive problem. It allowed the Roosters and Napa to sweep it under the rug. If Greenburg has said "that was wrong, and we'll immediately be changing the rules to outlaw that" then it would have forced the Roosters and Napa to change, it would have then silenced Johns on Saturday. But Greenburg merely said he didn't agree with the decision...
souvalis
Guest
2 and a half what ? says clueless observer...drop the baggage,take a deep breath,a little thought...then charge again..Napa stupid...you know him ? You know what coach Robinson has been doing with him....clearly no..What do you know with certainty about any question you raise and self answer......nothin’..great post..
Big daddy
Guest
Napa has accepted his 3 match suspension. Probably wise .