Opinion
Peter V’landys. The man hailed as the saviour of rugby league.
He led the game through one of its greatest challenges, and brought it out the other side looking better than it had in decades.
But only twelve months later he could be the man who destroys it as he embarks on his latest crusade.
V’landys’ hard-nosed in your face approach to getting things done has at times made him look more like a mob boss rather than a rugby league administrator.
However, his approach has so far served the game well and has proven to be just the medicine the game needs. The commission in the past had been guilty of pontificating over various issues, often resulting in nothing being achieved.
That has changed under V’landys. However, as this crackdown on high-contact is moving forward, it appears that some cracks in the V’landys administration may be starting to appear.
There is little doubt that V’landys and the commission have the players and the game’s best interest in mind, and the truth is that the game for a long time has been guilty of being soft on high and reckless shots.
It is also easy to forget that despite criticism that the NRL are constantly changing the rules, that this is not actually a rule change. They have simply changed the way they are policing the rules.
But whichever way you want to look at it, it is having a major impact on the game, and depending on who you talk to, its for better or worse.
Peter V’landys (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
Personally, after watching the Broncs beat the Chooks the other day, I should have been ecstatic watching my club cause the upset of the season so far, instead I walked away from the game feeling only frustrated and confused.
The game itself seemed like merely a sideshow to the seemingly more important and inevitable question marks and pending result surrounding almost every tackle that looked remotely dangerous, and judging by the reaction of the crowd and punters online, I wasn’t the only one.
Maybe what has sparked such a heavy handed crackdown is that the league is worried about future litigation or has been hit with or given the heads about a major class action heading their way? Perhaps they fear being accused of not doing as much as they could have to mitigate the issue?
However, if this is the case, and they have no new medical evidence to warrant the sudden crackdown, couldn’t a plaintiff then argue that by cracking down so hard on the issue now, show that the league is conceding that they weren’t doing enough in the past?
Don’t get me wrong I understand what the commission are trying to achieve. The aim is clear in that they are trying to increase player safety by cracking down hard on high contact.
This in the eyes of the commission will over time reduce the likely hood of frequent concussions as players in order to stay in the game will need to alter or change their tackling techniques so that they are hitting lower. In theory it is the right idea, but so far in practice it has been way off.
The reality is, that rugby league from the very beginning has always been and always will be an intensely physical game played at high speed that results often in brutal collisions.
Yes, at times some of these collisions are neglectful or even intentional, but more often than not they are simply accidental or incidental.
It is obvious that hitting a player in the head has always been illegal, but the game has always recognised the fact that not all high shots are created equal. That is why there are different levels of punishment ranging from a penalty to a report to a sin bin to a send off to a suspension.
Treating almost all forms of high contact as the same is overly simplistic and is taking a black and white approach to an issue that is anything but. Will punishing accidental or incidental high contact eradicate it? No! because it is just that.
The commission will argue they are simply targeting any direct forceful contact to the head, but what constitutes direct forceful contact seems to be anyone’s guess, and has so far been widely open to interpretation. Is it direct contact if the arm has bounced off the shoulder?
What if the player is falling or ducking in the tackle? Is it really forceful contact if the player gets straight up with no discomfort and plays the ball? Or as Tevita Pangai did, not only gets up and plays the ball but spruiks to Victor Radley that he will be sin binned for it?
Perhaps the league’s approach should simply be to get much harder on reckless and careless high shots, and general foul play that falls into the category of grubbiness or a dog shot by better utilising sin bins, send offs and inflicting much harder punishments through the judiciary.
Again they won’t always get it right and there will always be a level of conjecture over some decisions but I believe that with this approach more often than not common sense will prevail and the fans will be provided a much better spectacle come game day.
Victor Radley is sent to the sin bin. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
V’landys however remains adamant that the league is going about it the right way, and that the commission is a hundred percent behind this crackdown. This is however the same commission that under V’landys reign appears as nothing more than a side act designed to reaffirm any and all decisions V’landys makes, and boasts only one member with any real background in playing rugby league.
V’landys also went so far as to state recently that he wants players to leave the game and return to their families a hundred percent healthy, not eighty when they retire.
While an admirable notion, it is also entirely unrealistic and nothing short of a fanciful pipe dream. At some point in their life players draw a line in the sand.
They know what they are getting into when they play this game, and are well aware that regardless of what precautions are put in place either by the powers that be or individually to protect their own well-being, that the chances of leaving the game with no long term baggage are slim to none.
It is often the price you pay in life when you commit yourself to something you love or where you can earn a meaningful lively hood.
Despite the league’s resolve, there have been other issues created as a by product of the crackdown that are also adversely affecting the current spectacle. The bunker’s interference is a blight on the game! Going back three to four plays to pull up minor indiscretions is ridiculous and flies in the face of everything the league has achieved in speeding the game up over the past year.
Surely if the contact wasn’t seen or noticed by the referee during the play it can’t have been severe enough to warrant a penalty or worse.
The hijacking of the narrative caused by the crackdown along with the dissatisfaction the players have developed towards the ARLC chairman are also creating issues for the game as it has led to some very negative press. The players grievances had apparently gone so far that players were considering some type of boycott to oust V’landys.
This was more likely media build up rather than any real possibility, however where there is smoke there is fire, and it has become clear through various player comments that they are not entirely all invested in the chairman’s vision of how the game should be played.
It is worth pointing out however, that at the same time the players are whinging about the rules, they are exploiting them. This than makes it difficult for them to argue that they should have been consulted leading up to the crackdown, as they will clearly look after their own self-interest before the game’s.
While some consultation is needed, the game would be better served by working with past players and coaches rather than current ones who clearly have their own agendas.
I only hope that as the season progresses, the league will become more pragmatic in its approach. But judging the way V’landys has so far stuck to his guns it is appearing less likely. Perhaps as time goes by he will prove to prophetic in is judgement.
In a way I hope he is, because he believes that without this hard stance there will not be a game in twenty years, but as melodramatic as it sounds it is my fear that if it continues to trend the way it is, that there won’t be one in ten.
After all, the NRL is in the entertainment business and its number one shareholder is and always will be the fans. If they are no longer interested in the product then the product will cease to exist.
Either way, for the time being I think I will be hanging my ‘Simply V’best’ t-shirt in the closet.
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.
Like most clubs, the Brisbane Broncos have had their fair share of big boppers over the years, many of them legends of the game.…
South Sydney have the bye this week, but that hasn't stopped their bad luck with injuries. They have now lost starting front rower Tevita…
Who are the hardest working big men in the NRL?
Billy Slater says the door is open for Queensland's middle forwards to force their way into the squad for the State of Origin opener…
Friday night’s clash between Parramatta and the Dolphins is likely to be a hot one – and not just because the game is being…
Some of the best TV we'll see all year!
