The NRL should have avoided this HIA Storm

Well Latrell just copped 4 weeks for something only a third as bad. Look at my original argument Joe. There was malicious and clear intent by Kaufusi to cause a concussion (TWO attempts in the same tackle). If that isn't worth 6 weeks what is?

Actually he got 2 weeks...and only because of an early plea as the original charge was 3 weeks. As mentioned above. Matterson has a history of concussion which is very likely why he is still out weeks later...same as Cordner....same as Keary was last year. History of concussion very likely ends with long term sideline...look at Cordners last concussion in Origin going in to tackle Kaufusi...no foul play and a tackle you see many times every weekend but Boyd is still out and likely might retire because he has a history of concussion. That is the point I'm making about Matterson. I'm not disagreeing its foul play just that Matterson has a history of concussion which is likely why he is still out of action. You see heads getting slammed into the ground every weekend, whether accidental or if they're knocked out and head hits the ground but all these players are not out for weeks, they're usually playing the following week.

"it is clear that your only interest in the NRL is when you want to lay the boot into them" Not sure how you could know this, warren. I've played rugby league, have enjoyed watching it for years, and still do, every weekend. Sure, I write on rugby union, but that doesn't stop me being an informed an enthusiastic follower of league, AFL, the A League, golf and other sports. It is indeed possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. I've outlined how the NRL does indeed have rules in place with respect to head high contact. They just don't enforce them. We are now in the midst of some form of crackdown, and it remains to be seen whether this has a lasting effect or is a form of window dressing. We are starting to hear more commentators now use some of the language that I and other writers, and importantly, a number of medical experts in the field have been using with respect to concussion, so perhaps there will be some lasting change. But it's a long road - no matter all those good things you list, we still saw players hit in the head last week without penalty, and players stay on the field after exhibiting symptoms of concussion. Those are facts, no matter what bias you might think I hold. You mention shoulder charges, I have previously made the point that this was a great initiative by the NRL to have these taken out of the game. There was a lot of objection at the time, and the fact that the NRL saw this through was a credit to them. It also demonstrates that if they really do want to drive lasting change with respect to player safety, if they're up for the task to change old attitudes and culture, then they can do it.

Spot on TB. Your point about different players being treated differently for the same offence is blindingly obvious in the differing treatment for the same offence this round : Run of the mill forward - sent off. Top string forward - penalty. Star playmaking back - no action.

Geoff, I think I speak for most RL supporters when I say that it is clear that your only interest in the NRL is when you want to lay the boot into them. It is what we are use to from Rugby Union writers on this page so welcome to the club. Your comments both here and in past articles suggest that the NRL does not the act in the best interest of its players & you are using any head knock that does not meet the strictest of protocols to push your bias point. Apart from the HIA protocols, the facts are that the NRL has introduced numerous rules to protect the players over recent years. These include but are not limited to banning the shoulder charge, lifting a player in a tackle, tackling a defending player in the air, attacking the legs of an opponent either kicking or standing in a tackle, grapple tackles, chicken wing tackles, automatic sin bin for punching etc. All of this from an organisation that you want to paint as negligent in their approach to player safety. I have said it before and I will repeat it again. Unless you can work out a way to ban the tackle in the game you will always have head injuries. Do the NRL or the clubs get it right all the time? No they don't but, it there is a difference between this and your bias opinion.

There are interesting lines in the NSWRL and QRL operations manuals, though I don't know how they feed into the NRL rules (someone else may have input) Let me preface by saying I saw someone on Reddit say this and it was eye opening: 26.7 If a player is fouled by an opponent, who is then dismissed from the field, sin-binned or placed on report and the fouled player is caused to leave the field as a direct result of an injury sustained in that incident, this interchange will not be included for the purposes of calculating the number of interchanges, provided that it is made without delay and by the time the referee has acted on the incident. 26.8 If the fouled player subsequently returns to the field later in the match, that interchange will not be included for the purposes of calculating the number of interchanges. I can see it captured in the 2012 manual, so I imagine its still there. So what we saw Friday night is a team who knows the rules (and lets be honest, play within them as closely as they can), and many many others who need to learn them, lest they be shown that the Storm did everything the rules state they can to get a free interchange. Other clubs should learn the rules really quickly, particularly as 2 free interchanges are golden in todays fast paced games.

Also Joe explain to me why Kaufusi only got suspended for one week...

We can argue about the sanctions and where they apply but I think this is one aspect that Rugby has done well. Clear directives and lines on how to officiate high tackles. Ref just runs through a checklist, purely about what happened and comes to a conclusion. Was the contact high? Was it direct? Was it with force? Was there mitigation? Did a play trip into the tackle unexpectedly, etc? Not did the player lower the height into contact like every ball runner does. No hard to determine questions like intent, etc.

Whether the victim of the offence is injured should have no bearing on the penalty imposed for the offence. Agreed. Doing so only makes it worthwhile to roll the dice and hope it doesn't cause injury when you do it.

So a lot of people on here are now suggesting that after a star player has been collected across the chops, regardless of injury, he must be swapped out? Or if he stays down for a couple of seconds, could be anything, winded? Then he is swapped out? We are then punishing the victim again here.

Had it been a legal shot below the shoulders and not two intentional shots to the head we could have that conversation Joe. Cody Walker's shot was also not acceptable although much less severe. JWH does this as often as he brushes his teeth but he rarely gets suspended for it. We don't need players making contact high. Players slipping or ball runners ducking or falling at the last second is a different category. Looking at Latrell Mitchell's charge it was reckless and stupid but on the lower end of the dangerous category because it was a glancing blow and incidental contact. It deserves 1-2 weeks for the offence IMO while Kaufusi deserved 3-4 weeks like Latrell. NOT the other way around! What upsets NRL fans is the fair perception that the Storm and the Roosters are favoured both by on-field calls (especially in regard to send offs and sin-bins) and also at the judiciary. Latrell is making a dangerous and foolish gamble trying to downgrade the severity of his charge. In light of the contrary contact "striking" charge fans and the media are demanding their pound of flesh so in all likelihood it will blow out to a 4 week suspension which will hurt the Rabbitohs. On that note, 1. It was foolish, self-indulgent and looked far worse than it was. 2. We only got to see the reverse angle repeatedly. The one side angle showed that Latrell's boot was nowhere near Garner and his knee brushed Garner but did not make direct contact. 3. Garner should have been sin-binned for professional foul (holding on to Latrell's leg LONG after the ball was gone to prevent him from backing up a break by the Bunnies. As to whether it was unnecessary is a conversation for another day. I am sick to death with the cheating (euphemistically called "gamesmanship") where players out right cheat to gain an advantage. Garner had NO RIGHT to continue to hold Latrell's leg and deny him the chance to backup and support the break by the Bunnies. It was a professional foul and a sin-bin offence. Yet this was ignored because it was overshadowed by Latrell's foolish reaction. Professional fouls like that can prevent teams scoring and could easily cost a side the premiership. It must stop! Also Joe explain to me why Kaufusi only got suspended for a double blow to Matterson's head that left him unable to play for weeks yet Latrell gets a 3-4 week suspension for a glancing blow with his back turned?

Enough of your hysterical wailing because it's those nasty Storm Mexicans. It wasn't a head shot. He got Munster flush across the Jaw. Surely Munster can take his time counting his teeth before he stands up. Radley has got form. And lots of it. It was all just a storm in a teacup. Those nasty criminals from Melbourne.

Typical Storm. Potential concussion lawsuits are a serious issue that could bankrupt the game we all love. The current fines clearly aren't a deterrent and need to be reviewed.

It's soo obvious... You bloody saint!

Strip Melbourne of premierships, isn’t that what normally happens? But seriously, Formula One drivers get stripped of positions so league teams should lose points for gaming the rules.

Easy for the NRL this one. 1) independent NRL doctor at all games makes all decisions re concussion, HIA assessments etc. Takes clubs out of it completely. 2) Any HIA resulting in a non-return affords a free replacement. Not interchange, a replacement. Clubs are not unduly (unfairly) penalised by a negative HIA. Game remains 17 on 17. 3) Repeat point 2 for all subsequent negative HIAs. Clubs can carry up to 5 replacements to cover, so game day squad of 21. If more than 5 in one game, wow, I guess that's just super bad luck.

Open in an Incognito window.

No he wouldn't but is the out for weeks due to the severity of Kaufusi's action or because he has a history of concussion is the point I'm making. I'm not excusing Kaufusi's shot but I think the length of time Matterson is out is due to other factors, not just the shot by Kaufusi.

No, but a he's a man who clearly has a penchant for attacking the head and being a grub. He's only allowed a very narrow defence to be honest, and probably best if you left it there.

Would Matterson have been out for weeks if Kafusi had just wrapped him up in a regulation tackle Joe? There was malice intent and forethought in that action. First to slam Matterson's head into the ground and then to follow through with his elbow and forearm.