Somehow the NRL Match Review Committee managed to only charge Cameron Munster with ‘Contrary Conduct’ for kicking Joseph Manu in the head in the dying moments of the NRL grand final.
This week we’ve sadly – but correctly – seen Greg Inglis suspended from the Kangaroo tour for driving under the influence of alcohol. However, instead of being suspended and giving up his spot in the Kangaroos team, Munster will only pay a $1400 fine.
I know that it was hardly a flying boot delivered with full force, but Munster kicked a prone player in the head, in the biggest match of the year, in front of one of the biggest viewing audiences of the year that included multitudes of kids.
Yet the MRC has declared that isn’t worthy of a suspension, effectively declaring that it wasn’t a kick.
That just doesn’t sit well with me at all.
What’s that I hear you say? Why yes, just last week I was openly suggesting that the Storm use any means necessary to ensure that Billy Slater played in the grand final.
So how could I now have issues about Cam Munster not being suspended?
Because, to me, both incidents show that the current system is broken and in need of a full review.
Cameron Munster of the Storm (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
I felt that, while Slater had certainly put on a shoulder charge, it wasn’t deserving of a suspension. This was because the base penalty – two weeks – had been set too high. Had the base penalty been one game then – if he had no carry over points – Billy may have been able to play with an early plea. That way the integrity of the system is maintained.
All season we’ve seen last ditch shoulder charge efforts to stop tries – some successful, some not – that had been totally let go. It seemed totally arbitrary that Slater had been charged while others had not.
There was no wriggle room to avoid suspension through a lower grading. And then the integrity of the judiciary was compromised by the way he was let off.
For someone who had actively encouraged breaking the rules just a week ago, I now find myself feeling that there is clearly something wrong with the current system.
This rides on the back of the varying punishments handed out to crusher tackles that I had great difficult telling the difference between but that garnered different punishments.
The entire system for charging offences seems to be badly flawed and it is time that it was subject to a total independent review.
There are some offences that just must be automatic send offs, that are also accompanied with heavy suspensions.
Kicking is one of them. That Munster was only sent for ten minutes in the bin and not sent off was wrong. Kicking is a threshold offence. Feel free to have the referees review it but – if there is evidence of a kick – it must be a send-off and at least a one game suspension.
That James Roberts was neither binned, sent off or suspended when he kicked a Titan in the 2016 elimination final is another example of this bad offence being let go for no apparent reason.
If shoulder charging is to be rubbed out of the game – and Andrew Ackerman made a compelling argument for that – then all shoulder charges must face sanction, not just those that the referees see on the day. Video reviews of games must concentrate on picking up those that were missed and charging them.
In Round 1 Kevin Proctor attacked the genitalia of Jordan Rapana in a move meant to either slow him down, make him drop the ball, or to lash out with a punch that would get him sin binned.
Rapana did none of those things. He did, however, remonstrate with referees David Munro and Henry Perenara. While they saw fit to give the Raiders a penalty, Proctor was neither sin binned nor sent off.
Later that week Todd Greenberg did send Proctor a letter telling him not to do it again. John Hopoate famously received a heavy suspension and infamy for his attacking of opposition players anuses.
However, attacking an opposition players genitalia – a matter of inches away – is seemingly tolerated as a misdemeanour. That beggars belief. In any other workplace you’d be sacked and up on charges. But not in the NRL it seems.
Any deliberate attack on a players genitalia must be treated as harshly as eye gouging, biting or king hits. It really is a no brainer.
Tripping, once a send off offence, has somehow become a misdemeanour in recent times. In the 1990s Alfie Langer was commonly accused of tripping in his tackling style. These days blatant trips are getting fines and no suspension, let alone send offs. The NRL must clarify their position on tripping and it’s punishment.
NRL CEO Todd Greenberg. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
These are just an example of the offences for which the gradings and penalties that must be included in a full review. In reality they should all be reviewed for consistency. For integrity.
That review should include not just the offences and the accompanying penalties, but also the role of the match review committee and judiciary – including who sits on them, how they are selected and what qualifications they must have.
By holding this review into the system Todd Greenberg can start to rebuild the confidence of the supporters, players, clubs and media in the system.
Because at the end of the day you’ve got to be suspended for kicking an opponent.
I Am The Walrus
Roar Rookie
Great article Tim. I have watched a lot of rugby league and in my opinion the game has gotten to a point where the NRL wants a cleaner, safer product, yet beats players with feathers when they commit an act that needs to be rubbed out. Is it because they don't want clubs missing players for too long? Harsher sanctions may take players out for weeks at a time, but you could bet your life that all players will think long and hard about the way they approach the game.
James T
Guest
One of the problems with banning the punch. Let’s see Munster pull that garbage if he has to answer to Napa and Hargreaves
M
Guest
Spot on Dogs Boddy. Mal used to be cool back in the day. Nowadays though, as long as a player is a Qlnder, Mal will overlook anything they do. If not a Qlnder, then Mals standards apply.
Bernie Vinson
Roar Rookie
It was a tiny knee which is mild compared to some of the high tackles you see every game which can cause lots of damage. I note that Malcolm Knox's column of 21 September in the SMH has still not been posted on the website whereas every other column has been. This of course is the column where he suggested that the NRL annual report highlights how many close games they have and he speculates about what the refs think when they read it. He seems however to have won a trip to New Guinea for the Kumuls/Orchids game as a result.
3 R M
Guest
I'd say a real kick is one that is intended to hurt someone but I'm not condoning what he did I'm saying the penalty in isolation and in the context of a GF was just .this doesn't take into account the first bin and whatever the time that was left in the game .you would say he probably should have been sent for a second offence or for kicking but in the end munster got the double bin and they got well beaten anyway .munster was lucky in respect to the penalty he recieved after but he is not the first player to cop a break at the judiciary before a rep game. I'd hate to harp about this but like most 'hot topics' these little kicks occur more than is being stated on these threads . I still don't agree with them But if a team gives away stupid penalties as long as it isn't my team I'd be happy. 10 in the bin. I'm extatic. Sent to the showers. Crack the champagne !
Dogs Boddy
Roar Rookie
To add insult to injury big Mal has come out praising the "more mature" Munster prior to handing him a kangaroos jumper. What an absolute joke.
Dogs Boddy
Roar Rookie
Ah gotcha. Yep agree with all of that.
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
Who will decide degree of force required to be a "real kick"? There's no grounds for kicking someone.
JOHN ALLAN
Guest
People attending court these days get off with the defence of"brain fade", "error of judgement", "I am deeply remorseful", "I made a mistake". So why can't sportsmen?
Rob
Guest
Totally agree Tim. Munster should have been sent. Zero tolerance on kicking, gouging, bitting, squirrel gripping and tripping, you go. Happy for the judiciary to handle the suspensions from the outcomes. Shoulder charges and high shots that go on report are penalties and automatic 10min. The game needs some standard punishments. Unfortunately for the Panthers Peachy and Maloney would probably get 10min every second tackle if high contact was policed correctly.
The Barry
Roar Guru
That’s not my point. I agree - ban the shoulder charge completely. It’s a penalty under any circumstances. Sin bin the player if warranted. Just have a grade one charge that’s worth 100 points so that the judiciary can say “yes, that was a shoulder charge. You are guilty. But you can still play next week with an early guilty plea because it wasn’t the brutal, dangerous front on variety that we want out of the game and you didn’t make contact with the head” If the judiciary could have done that for Slater’s charge instead of the ridiculous “it was pec contact first” a lot of the rubbish from grand final week would have been avoided. Just like Jake Friend’s tackle. It’s a far better outcome.
buttery
Roar Rookie
When the media didn't start a fire on Munsters punishment & ex players on Fox & 9 just say he had a brain explosion & didn't hurt anyone ,then nothing will happen, I was expecting a 2 match ban, as the NRL have been telling us for a few years now that the head is sacrosanct, but that appears to be an untruth. Time to get the judiciary back to Jim Comans day & give out the right punishments.
Hard Yards
Roar Rookie
Haha. Kelly and Davidson. Very patient ! Loved the 80s. Sitting here right now in my 80s Manly “Wormalds” jumper having a couple of Stouts.
JohnB
Roar Rookie
I'm puzzled this is the first time the Friend lifting tackle in the GF has got mentioned. Munster's kick wouldn't have knocked the skin off the proverbial rice pudding, but that's irrelevant. He deserved a suspension on the basis that any deliberate kick warrants a suspension (and for stupidity).
bigbaz
Roar Guru
he was doing the Munster Mash , a popular dance in Rocky
Dogs Boddy
Roar Rookie
I'm just saying you can't ban all shoulder charges unless it's side on, or have different rules for when you can shoulder charge and when you can't linked to a 4 week penalty as Larry suggested. If you are going to ban an action because it is dangerous then you can't have excetions. It would be like allowing spear tackles so long as he didn't actually land on his head. That could be closer to what I was trying to say.
Brian_K
Roar Rookie
"That James Roberts was neither binned, sent off or suspended when he kicked a Titan in the 2016 elimination final is another example of this bad offence being let go for no apparent reason." James Roberts missed the next game, a semi final against the Cowboys. His kick was not to the head but to the body, Roberts had posession of the ball and the player he kicked was laying all over him in the tackle. Not condoning his actions, but how did he get suspended and not Munster. I'm a huge fan of Munster but I'm dumbfounded he did not at least get a week for that kick. While we are there, how did Jake Friend not get suspended for his spear tackles in both his last two games?
Greg
Guest
Or no suspension for Munster was ludicrously low........
Jacko
Guest
paul I believe that all rules necessary to deal with any situation are already in place...The big issue seems to be that rtefs dont apply the rules all the time to all situations...A ref pulls up a dummy half pass in a critical moment but has somehow missed the 20 already done in a match...same with holding down...same with pretty much everything to be honest
Paul
Roar Guru
Great comment Nat and you're right, a head butt was way more common.