Mitch Kenny is not a name super familiar in the NRL, yet he’s managed to become a massive talking point this week without actually doing anything wrong.
The poor guy went down injured with a problem that could keep him out of the next Panthers game against the Storm. As soon as that happened, a Penrith trainer asked for the game to be stopped, and that’s what’s caused a problem.
Blake Ferguson is a far more familiar name, but he too managed to create headlines, this time for something he did do wrong. He made a run that resulted in him holding his head when tackled, as though he had been injured.
Once the whistle had been blown for a penalty to his team, his ‘injury’ miraculously disappeared and he was able to continue to play.
I’m not going to comment further on the rights or wrongs of either incident. In the case of Kenny’s injury, the NRL is investigating this stoppage, and in Ferguson’s case there’s been lots of media space devoted to this already. What’s clear is that these sorts of incidents detracted from a terrific game of football and hurt the sport of rugby league.
(Photo by Matt Blyth/Getty Images)
The NRL is caught in a tough place. Their first and only concern at the time a player goes down injured must be for the health of the player and the welfare of those attending them. In other words, referees must assume the player is genuinely hurt and perhaps hurt badly.
If an injury is deemed serious enough to stop the game, that’s completely the right thing to do.
I remember St John’s Ambulance officers trying to treat injured players in years gone by with the match continuing around them. More than once they were caught up in play and could easily have been injured, which makes this rule a sensible one.
That said, calling a halt to play because of injury seems to advantage the defensive team more often than not. Attacking teams rarely ask for play to be stopped because one of their players is badly injured.
Coaches claim this is a ploy, and in the case of Mitch Kenny that is an understandable perception. The Eels were on the attack, ten metres out on the third tackle with the Panthers down a player.
When the match resumed the Panthers had regained their full complement of players and had their defensive line set. Paramatta still had four tackles but had lost attacking momentum.
In order to even out this result the attacking side needs to be given a seven-tackle set from where they finished up when play was stopped. In the example involving Mitch Kenny, that would have meant the Eels would have had seven tackles ten yards out from Penrith’s line.
It would not compensate for the loss of attacking momentum, but it would even up the advantage Penrith gained in this instance.
In addition, the injured player cannot return for that match, and their ongoing fitness to play in future games would have to be assessed by NRL doctors.
The other point to consider is what type of serious injury warrants a game being stopped. In the case of Mitch Kenny, I don’t think there’s a lot of doubt he suffered a serious leg injury, but does that warrant stopping the game? It’s not my call to make, but that might be something the NRL could look at for next season.
It’s quite ironic that the NRL builds itself up as one of the toughest, fastest team sports in the world, yet players seem okay with taking a dive.
I’m yet to hear one reason that makes this action palatable, so it’s up to the NRL to make it so unacceptable that players will not want to do it. The only way to do that is to make the penalties severe.
Referees should continue to call the game as they see it, and if they believe a player is injured in a tackle, they should make a call on whether they penalise the defending team or not.
In the case of Ferguson, he made it clear straight after his team was awarded a penalty that he was not injured. In that sort of case, when the player gives themselves up, they should be sent off and the penalty should be reversed.
The match review committee also needs to get involved to stamp out this practice, as does the judiciary. Both need to identify and punish this type of action. Players need to cop both big suspensions and carryover points, but to encourage clubs to stop this, the NRL has to impose a diving levy.
Where a player is found guilty of taking a dive in a minor round match, they are penalised as mentioned and the club is levied one per cent of their salary cap for the following season.
If a player is found guilty of diving in the semi-finals, that levy is increased to ten per cent and in the grand final to 20 per cent. As an aside, that levy would be used to support funding for country football and women’s competitions.
Many will of course think this is too harsh in comparison to other penalties, but perhaps it’s time for penalties for other infringements to be significantly increased and for clubs to be more accountable both for their players’ actions on the field and for the NRL brand.
Remember that the NRL is an international product and, come finals time, more people within and outside Australia will be watching matches. Seeing incidents that bring the game down have to be stamped out if at all possible.
Will these suggestions completely stop these problems? The simple answer is no, but if the penalties significantly reduce these sorts of issues from occurring, they are worth implementing.
One question remains: would Fergo have taken a dive if it cost his club just under a million bucks?
BendoverandFakeit
Guest
As long as the refs / bunker penalise players based on the "injury" sustained then we'll continue to see players diving.
Maxtruck
Roar Rookie
And who is Blake Ferguson signed with for next year ? I am sure his team mates and coaches have the same opinion of his milking tactics as the rest or us. And Parra's outrage about the Kenny leg injury stoppage, " karma"
Tony Harper
Editor
Thanks, fixed now
egbert
Guest
Nice piece, well argued - but there's a spelling mistake in the headline.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
If the injury is 'bad' enough to be acting up then he goes off until cleared by a doctor. Simple. As refs can't be expected to know how serious an injury is and cop it if the injury is severe, then every bloke going down with anything is off until cleared by their club doctor. No exclusions. Immediate and play isn't stopped unless it's potentially going to be near (close to defensive line or attacking line or players) the treated person or the medicab is needed. No free replacement unless foul play and the perp is off to the bin.
Heyou
Roar Rookie
Well said. Yes to all :thumbup: :thumbup:
Chris Love
Roar Guru
I think the mindset surrounding how serious an injury is and whether it is enough to stop a game is completely the wrong way to think about it. The point of stopping a game due to injury is all about ensuring that the injured player isn't subjected to further danger. If the play has gone past them and they aren't in further danger, like in the Kenny incident, let the set continue until either the ball goes dead or is recovered by the defending team and the play has stopped. The Fergo incident is far from the first. There's one almost every game. It's a very easy fix. If a player stays down claiming high contact they are off immediately for a HiA. If its due to another injury, they should be forced to make an interchange. If the replay shows there is nothing in it like with Fergo, the team shouldn't get a free interchange. Go back to the 80's, 90's and 00's. When a player stayed down like that because of a legitimate injury, they were almost always interchanged as they were almost always legitimately injured. When they were slow to their feet, or stayed down because of high contact they almost always got to their feet to play the ball to show they were ok so they didn't get sub'd off. The latter had to change for the players own benefit. Too often now days players are milking penalties, holding their faces, knees, ankles etc like a Premier League Soccer player only to stay on the field and make a miraculous recovery after a penalty is given. Imagine a team being down with 10 to go and getting a light slap around the chops, head in an awkward position (after they hit, spin and drop in a tackle) etc etc and the Cleary's, Turbo's, Teddy's, of the game staying down to milk a penalty if the result was an automatic HiA 10 mins on the sideline? You're pretty much ruling out your whole spine/backline from milking that because it could cost them the game.
Paul
Roar Guru
I'm not so sure the NRL is in a tough place on this, Matt. I looked at the sets completed from the games on the weekend and it worked out to be roughly 85 per match or very roughly, one per minute. Lets say a player is injured on tackle one but play continues up field. If play is not stopped immediately, that means the injured player is not receiving proper medical care for maybe 45 or 50 seconds. Short of something life threatening like a swallowed tongue, I can't see a time when those seconds could make a difference in the treatment of an injury. Happy to stand corrected by a sports doctor but if I'm right, maybe this is part of the game that should revert to the touch judges to monitor and the ref to make a call
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
I hope so. We'll have the Neymar memes out in force otherwise...
matth
Roar Guru
The thing about the Kenny situation is, there wouldn't be nearly the amount of angst over it if the Panthers didn't have previous form in this area, where they wait for a strategically advantageous moment to stop play.
matth
Roar Guru
The problem with any 7 tackle restart, etc might be that genuinely injured players might not be treated quickly so as to not incur the penalty. I think the NRL are in a hard place on this one.
matth
Roar Guru
Or the comment from Annesley after the Titans v Roosters that implied the Titans would have got a blocking penalty on the match winning field goal if they had dived properly.
matth
Roar Guru
To answer your last question, Fergo probably would have, others maybe not.
Tony
Roar Guru
Yep. There has to some mitigation in these situations which are far different than the really ugly tackles where the defender basically drops on the ball carrier's head/neck.
Paul
Roar Guru
"The tackled player instigates a large percentage of the alleged crusher tackles by backing into the defence " That's my perception as well Tony. It might be something for the NRL to have a look at over the off season; identifying if there are patterns to crusher tackles happening. If ball carriers are putting themselves into positions where they're high risk of sustaining injury through no fault of the tackler, why should the tackler cop a penalty, or worse?
dogs
Guest
What Ferguson did is no worse than any case of staying down. In some ways it's more honest than when most players milk a penalty and then quietly go back to their position and hope nobody notices they're fine. I don't like either, but for me its just the same as what Liota and Fisher-Harris did. Unfortunately we can no longer heartily mock soccer players, as league is now no different in terms of trying to win penalties. Maybe it's just something that comes with professionalism. The other thing I hate is all the free interchanges. Someone else said Penrith had 15 interchanges on the weekend? Almost double the allowed amount. That is definitely getting out of hand. For me I think the punishments you suggest are way over the top, not to mention different rules for different games is wrong in so many ways (even though we have it unofficially). I think a simpler solution: - Any time a player needs to be checked by the trainer, they must either be interchanged or stay off for 2 minutes - You only get a free interchange if its foul play and the offender is sin binned. (There is no point in putting a player "on report", don't the match review panel watch everything anyway? Pretty sure "on report" us just there to generate talking points) I know the main issue with what I have suggested is that by HIA not being a free interchange, clubs will be more likely to leave players out there when they shouldn't. But at the moment they're rorting it horribly. HIA's for leg injuries, stopping play to check player and leaving him on but then stopping play a few minutes later (always when other team is in posession) to take him off. I'd like to think we could trust clubs to save a few interchanges and have the players best interests at heart, but I'm not quite that naive.
Tony
Roar Guru
If the game was played by men we wouldn't have a problem. Fergo is a disgrace, and not for the first time. How embarrassing. What amazes me is that in 114 years of rugby league it's taken until the last couple of years for the crusher tackle to be an issue. Prior to that I can't recall players getting up rubbing the tops of their heads. Sivo's the best at it though, rubs his head even after a knee injury. The tackled player instigates a large percentage of the alleged crusher tackles by backing into the defence and then folding himself to the ground in order to play the ball.
Nat
Roar Guru
Yeah, it's a tough one. Take away the trainer calling it from the stands, if he followed procedure , I have no issue with him being replaced as he would have been at any position on the field, the question is how quick can they restart? They have their 2 mins (should they apply it) but can we change that standard/rule because they are in an attacking zone? Had Parra knocked on, play would still have been halted.
Paul
Roar Guru
I've no issue with the game being stopped for the Kenny injury, Nat. Whether the trainer followed the right protocols is a different issue IMO. My preference would be to keep play going or try and come with a balanced solution so one team doesn't gain a significant advantage over the other. I'm suggesting a 7 tackle set restart, but I'm sure there are other options the NRL could explore, eg not allowing a replacement for the injured player until that set is complete?
Paul
Roar Guru
that was the one I was thinking of DP. Right now if a player gets this as a charge, they get hit with a wet lettuce leaf. I reckon they should get hammered, especially in things like taking a dive, etc.