Round 9 of the NRL prompted much discussion about the handling of foul play.
The Eels-Roosters clash on Friday night led to suspensions for Parramatta’s Marata Niukore and Dylan Brown for incidents in one passage of play leading up to halftime.
The failure to follow due process in the handling of Brown’s ugly knees-first effort on the Rooster’s Drew Hutchison, including a 20-minute delay in putting Brown on report, saw bunker official Steve Chiddy dropped. At the time of the incidents Niukore was penalised and placed on report. Neither player was sin-binned, something NRL head of football Graham Annesley has since stated both incidents warranted.
While discussions have centred on the lack of sin-binning for either player – seriously, how can a hit be worth four weeks but not ten minutes? – what has been overlooked is a quirk in the rules that allows foul play to go unpunished in the context of the game.
The issue is that because Parramatta was penalised for Niukore‘s shoulder charge on James Tedesco, the later offence in the same passage of play by Dylan Brown could not also attract a penalty. It’s a two-for-one deal. While Brown was later reported and suspended, so did not get off completely free, in the context of the game the act itself was not penalised.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
A subsequent infringement in the one passage of play is not the only instance where acts breaking the rules cannot attract an in-game penalty.
It’s well known that an infringement on the try scorer in the act of scoring a try can lead to an eight-point try, with a penalty awarded under the posts after the conversion is taken. However, if an infringement occurs in the lead-up to a try – not in the act of scoring but in the same passage of play – it cannot be penalised.
This brings back memories of Cooper Cronk when he was a devious Melbourne Storm player holding back a support player in the lead-up to a try – because the try was scored no penalty could be given.
Another instance is the awarding of a penalty try. If a player commits an infringement that prevents a probable try, a penalty try can be awarded. Some would argue that this is penalising the act of foul play. However, if that same act is not awarded a penalty try, the usual outcome is a penalty and sin-bin for a professional foul.
It raises the question: in a penalty try situation is the act of foul play punished or is there simply awarding of a try that would have been scored anyway and no real punishment for the infringement?
In the Dragons-Bulldogs game at the weekend it was clear that the decision not to award a penalty try to Jack Bird and instead send Will Hopoate to the bin gave the Saints a bigger advantage, with three tries scored while the Bulldogs were down to 12 players.
The NRL has talked about cracking down on foul play, yet these rare but important instances show how the rules of the game can actually prevent breaches of the rules from being penalised. Addressing these issues doesn’t seem too complicated.
In the instance of several infringements occurring in one play it’s not possible to award two penalties. However, there is a precedent – where a penalised player shows dissent the referee can advance the mark ten metres. The same principle can apply for multiple infringements. In the Niukore and Brown example the penalty would be awarded at the site of the first infringement and then advanced 10 metres, thus both acts would be penalised.
If a breach occurs in the lead-up to a try, why not offer a penalty kick for goal at the site of the infringement? That would cut down the chance of deliberate infringements, such as players being held back.
The other option would be to treat these cynical plays as the professional fouls they are and use the sin-bin. The reluctance of officials to sin-bin for even blatant fouls makes this less likely.
It makes no sense for an act to warrant sin-binning only if a penalty try is ruled out. If the act is a deliberate breach, it is a professional foul that should lead to use of the sin-bin even if a penalty try is awarded.
The current plan for eliminating foul play seems to have hinged on putting players on report with the threat of a fine or suspension. Players seem to be okay with a trip to the judiciary costing them a grand or a week as long as it doesn’t cost them the game they’re playing in the moment.
If the NRL is serious about cleaning up the game, it needs consequences to occur at the time of the offence and it needs rules that allow that to happen.
Schawin
Roar Rookie
If the clubs share the responsibility, especially the fines, that will get the coaches to sit up and remind the players, " no foul play!" as the run onto the field.
Rob
Guest
How do you register Taumalolo breaking both hands before playing and Gilbert breaking a leg?
Rob
Guest
The rules are very inconsistent but they really shouldn’t be. I’m not a fan of penalty tries without clear guide lines around the act foul happening in the in goal or a player being tackled or pulled back from behind with the ball staying in the in goal. I prefer a sin bin. The knee making contact with a player sliding in is most certainly a sin bin as are trips, elbows, and high contact on players without the ball. I think both Eels players deserved to be binned against the Roosters. An annoyance of mine is players moving off the mark and being asked to go back and play it, blokes holding the marker or charging into the marker (JWH) is far worse than a player missing the ball with the foot. Most certainly players should play the ball properly but hey I have only seen a select few penalised? Either do it consistently or don’t pick and choose and perhaps it’s not a penalty just a turn over? Can players stand behind the line when conversion are taken? Can players stop lying down? or don’t allow players to be 3 on 1 thrown back into the in goal over the sideline being pushed backwards. In those situations it held, unless it’s a defender doing a one on one tackle. It stops (held) when the second man gets involved.
Big Daddy
Roar Rookie
The new NRL motto. All care but no responsibility and if you dare tell the truth and criticize an official it's another $10k fine. This lot are the most hypocritical administration that has graced the Australian sporting arena. You get fined less for DUI.
steveng
Roar Rookie
Fully agree Tony, that intentional (as Brown had no chance of stopping that disallowed try) of not only kneeing but he went foot first for the ball and f he would have made contact he would have cause even more injuries as he nearly took Hutchison head off too. Brown should have been charged with 2x compulsory breaches and he should have been charged for both. IMO, all these breaches should be graded from whatever is the worst to the least dangerous and a compulsory period of suspension should be applied with none of these discounts like early plea etc etc as Brown should have gotten at least 8 weeks and not 3 weeks with an early plea just like Niukore only got 2 which should have been at least 4.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
1. Red Card : Send Off; 2. Orange Card : 10 minutes in sin bin. 3. Yellow Card : 5 minutes in sin bin. If consistently used we should see an increase in tries without an increase in bombs.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Hey bazza. I was thinking about that and while advancing it 10m would see the penalty blown near the tryline not 12m out, it would at least be something. Of course both players should have been in the bin, but they weren't. Imagine if the rule changes I suggested were put in place though and if there was no knock on by Morris in that play and the try was awarded, then Brown was penalised for the knees (under the posts), then a penalty is awarded at the site of niukore's shoulder charge. Potential 10 point try with both incidents of foul play penalised in the game. And that's without the sin bin. That's a powerful disincentive right there. I know that's a lot of if's in the one scenario, but it could definitely work.
bazza200
Guest
In the parra case advancing it 10m would of done nothing. The only thing that would of done something different is a sin bin or person being put on report.
mushi
Roar Guru
I can't actually understand how the ARLC as a governance body has gotten comfortable with those numbers. And if they aren't looking at numbers that they're producing then that defence of ignorance will be tough to mount when a member of the public can pull that data. To me it seems another breach of the governance standards and the Commissioners should be removed.
mushi
Roar Guru
They've published the players out in a relatively consistent fashion since 2018 by the looks of things. It does count all injuries so one week or 10. So I just counted it free hand skipping the suspensions. So let's give a margin of error of 2-3 Last week, in discussions with Nat, I did it double entry in a spread sheet for better data integrity. Last week we were massively up on week 10 in a prior year (cant' remember if Ant chose 18 or 19) and we've grown this week. I also looked at projected time lost that week (well up) and season enders (well up)
The Barry
Roar Guru
Nice article I’ve banged on about this elsewhere but the discrepancy between Niukore’s shoulder charge and Pereira’s - both on a falling Tedesco - show pretty starkly the lack of consistency on and off field Also shows up the games priorities when we have Hoppa get ten in the bin for getting in Birds way but players getting no sanction for making opponents in the chops or puncturing their lungs…
The Barry
Roar Guru
Are you tracking that yourself or have you found someone doing it? How is injury defined? Missing at least a week? Thats (obviously) 11 a week. If you were take into account the number of weeks missed that’s a lot of talent sitting on the sideline… But the games slightly “quicker”…
Tony
Roar Guru
Thanks Ian
AJL.
Roar Pro
Great article. But a few points on the rules that are worth making: There is no reason that two players can't both be punished for separate incidents. Both Brown and Niukore could and should have been sin binned. There also nothing in the rules that I know of to prevent the officials from both awarding a penalty try and sin binning the offending player, it's just the interpretation they use. Apparently both 10 minutes and 4 points is seen as too great a punishment. I do like the idea of extending the potential 8 point try to any foul play in the lead-up, though.
Ian_
Roar Rookie
I don't think there's actually anything in the rules that stops this now. Obviously once the first offence is penalised, the second won't be, but there's nothing stopping the second offender being sent off or sin binned, if the offence warrants it. Just like the penalty try or sin bin thing isn't really a rule of the game but an NRL policy - the rules allow a penalty try to be awarded and the offender sin binned. An obvious example of a second offence being punished is where you have one player commit an act of foul play which gets penalised, but also starts a fight with a bit of punching on for which other players are sin binned. I'm also pretty sure there's provision in the rules for a penalty to be overturned, but we never see it happen. For example player from team A gives away a penalty, player from team B comes in and punches him in the face - that should result in penalty being reversed and going to team A
mushi
Roar Guru
Though in other news Nat I think (it was a count not a spread sheet) we just missed the triple digits of injured players with 99. Fingers crossed next week we'll break the ton
mushi
Roar Guru
Apologies Brown apologised after the charges came through. Claims he accidentally dropped his body weight into the guys back through one knee. Apparently his tackling style is "classic proposal ".
mushi
Roar Guru
Look they just f'ed up. Both bunker and ref. That's why they didn't bin the roosters for holding down in the second half, they knew they should be playing v 11. Haven't heard anything from Brown on the incident which is surprising.
mushi
Roar Guru
If you play for Parramatta you can belt him in the mouth and then knee his mate in the back
Al
Guest
Great article Dutski! It seems every other year we're talking about sin bins, send offs and suspensions and the NRL seems to throw it's hands in the air like it's all too hard, like no other professional sport on the face of the Earth has to deal with players acting dangerously and/or intentionally breaking the rules. It takes 5 minutes to go and look at what another sport is doing. That's not to say anyone has it 100% right, but plenty of leagues around the world do it a hell of a lot better than the NRL. An example, as food for thought, from field hockey: Green (2 minutes), yellow (5 or 10 minutes) and red (game) cards are considered "personal" penalties and can be assessed separately from other on-field penalties. More often than not, they go hand-in-hand with another penalty but, if a similar situation were to happen (an infringement occurs in general play, a shot is taken and missed and then another infringement happens once the ball is dead), both of those infringements could be carded. And as an immediate example of where other sports don't have it right, whether or not a free hit could also be awarded would be contentious. I think one of the things the NRL are going to struggle with is getting the referees onside with this. People will grumble when the on field penalties are too weak, might stand down one or more of the officials for the rest of the weekend. Go the other way though and be seen to have entirely decided the fate of a game by sending blokes from the field - that can be career-ending. Stop coming out on Monday and telling everyone the refs got it wrong; if the best half dozen or so referees can't police the rules as written, fix the rules so that they can; empower the video officials with enough personnel to be able to jump in and assist the on field team with timely and accurate advice. The referees are the best of the best within their field, undercutting them in public can't possibly be making them better at their jobs.