Early each week, I receive emails from the NRL regarding the judiciary process for the prior weekend’s games.
The release has a table of each citing, which outlines such basic info as the offending player’s name, their club, the minute of the match in which it occurred, the specific charge grade and whom the misconduct was played out on.
This last bit of info has had me stumped.
Does it really matter who they committed the act of foul play against? Isn’t the main thing simply they transgressed?
But the more I’ve thought about it, the more I think this particular piece of information should be front and centre for the judiciary.
There have been a variety of rules brought in to protect the smaller, more creative players from the thuggery that was simply expected as part of the game in the dinosaur days.
Elbows to the head are now met with multiple weeks on the sideline, punching is a thing of the past and even hitting a man after he’s kicked the ball has become far more harshly punished.
And good. It’s the way it needs to be.
But we still see certain players being targeted.
Being that I go to more Knights games than any other club, the player I see copping this kind of treatment on the regular is Kalyn Ponga.
People who question that young man’s toughness need to wake up to themselves. He gets absolutely belted week in, week out and he never shies away from it. Which, you know, is kind of his job.
But there’s a difference between a fullback returning the ball into a wall of defenders and taking his licks compared to, for example, that same fullback putting a stabbing kick through and then getting hit late by a cheap shot from a much larger man who knows that taking the opposing No. 1 out of the game through injury is worth spending ten minutes on the sidelines for.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Elliott Whitehead, thanks for providing this most recent version of that particular story, although it’s been other blokes on other fullbacks – or halfbacks, or five-eighths – on multiple occasions throughout this season alone.
Now, under the present system, the judiciary would look at Whitehead’s record – although pretty much everyone is back to having none thanks to this year’s record expunging – for committing the same or similar acts when deciding what kind of penalty he would be facing.
And that should continue to be the case.
But would it be so wild if, rather than whack serial offenders with harsher penalties, we also protect serial victims?
What if once a player – any player – has been on the receiving end of misconduct that warrants a trip to the judiciary, say, twice in the one year, any further incidents in which that player receives an illegal hit receive added loading?
Basically, if it can be shown a given player is targeted with illegal shots by opposition teams, then they will receive the added protection of any further illegal hits on them being punished more harshly.
Sure, it may come across as different rules for different players, but if there is a record of a given player being targeted more frequently than others, then they deserve to have different rules apply to them to maintain their safety.
And again, it’s not to make a player untouchable or to have the metaphorical red shirt on when they take the field, it’s simply that illegal acts performed on them carry added weight at the judiciary.
Furthermore, these players would have this designated status after they had copped dirty play on multiple occasions – it’s not like teams could nominate who they want to have added protection.
The hope would be that when game plans are being drawn up, players and coaches would think twice about telling their designated standover men to be reckless when coming into contact with a player who cops more than their fair share of the grubby stuff.
The likes of Kalyn Ponga, Sam Walker and Reece Walsh are going to come in for added attention from the big men. Making them clock up their personal tackle count or simply peppering them with bombs all days will serve to blunt their attacking prowess. That’s how the game works, I’m fully on board with it.
But when there is seemingly a designated plan to hit these players late, high or off the ball, then it’s not enough to punish the players making the illegal hits in the same fashion as anyone else.
If a player is being treated differently by their opponents, then this difference should be reflected by the judiciary.
Rob
Guest
It’s probably because it’s obvious he should have been penalised to all but the official? I thought Cleary’s shoulder was level with Ponga’s neck when it happened. It certainly looked obvious when he came down on Ponga head on the ground. Great shot just a 100-200mm to high. It was penalty and report worthy IMO. Murray’s was forceful and penalty worthy. But I’m a Maroon supporter.
Rob
Guest
Dutski, played a season of RU in the 90’s and was penalised for tackling a couple of attackers late, one off a kick, one off a pass. They simply said if the balls gone before contact it’s a penalty end of story. Growing up in RL it wasn’t considered smart to simply let a player draw, pass and run past you to take further part in the play? It only took that explanation in RU to make me very careful of hitting a player late. It was black and white not the wonderful grey of RL.
Rob
Guest
Yep. And you are whinging targeting one player and not mentioning others when you want to look the other way. I repeat you said nothing about Cleary and Morgan Harper (Manly) . Both players on the receiving end failed their concussion assessments. Hypocrite sum your comments up. Head knocks are an unfortunate part of the game. They should be taken seriously by clubs (there employers). It would appear NSW don’t take them seriously in your expert eye assessment yet you didn’t put Fittler, Klein, NSW medical staff or Murray’s tendencies to drop his head before contact? Murray is lauded for getting to ground on his elbows and achieving a fast play the ball. He’s suffered several head knocks ducking into contact by the way. Ponga didn’t duck at the last my moment and Hammer was stationary on the ground when Harper was 3m away.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
So, Rob, what you are saying is the NRL need to take any contact with the head more seriously? And right now far too many incidents are being overlooked. In other words you agree with the point I was making. “Personally I think people see what they want to see and love to whinge”. This statement sums you up perfectly Rob. Glad you can see it.
Rob
Guest
It’s the officials horrible way of interpreting the rules. Player going low or effecting a good tackle bring a player to ground is deserving of a super quick play the ball. Many attackers especially those that play the ball fast look to duck or drop before contact to find the ground also now? There is no voluntary tackle rule? It’s theses little things coaches see as an advantage and the games officials are encouraging. I have no problem with a good one on one legs tackle being rewarded. I have no problem penalising gang tackles driving players backwards or over side lines when a player forward momentum is effectively stopped. I hate 3 man tackles especially with prowler and cannon balls coming in and not getting penalised.
Rob
Guest
Gee the fact Murray ducks down before contact doesn’t contribute to the contact? Murray played the football and continued playing then was cleared. If Murray is allowed to continue against your expert medical knowledge is that more a NSW, independent doctor problem? Don’t forget Yeo was left on the field in game one also by NSW. Hammer copped a blatant knee to the back of the head last week and failed to pass his HIA. Look up base of skull fracture in your medical dictionary. Look up using a knee on an opponent to affect a tackle in your rule book. Hammer was unable to be considered for selection by QLD. I didn’t here boo about your outrage on that occasion? Ponga was ruled out of the game after Cleary got him on the chin with the shoulder and drove down on top of his head into the ground on following through? I’d love to know the NSW opinion if Kaufusi preformed that tackle and Tedesco was forced to leave the field? Ponga didn’t duck into the contact at speed like Murray did it was mostly Cleary racing up. No 5 plus weeks for Cleary or Morgan Harper ? Gee people can get selective. Personally I think people see what they want to see and love to whinge.
Muzz
Guest
The NRL are playing with fire. They need to get serious and start enforcing the rules. Forget fines.It's just loose change.
Muzz
Guest
The NRL need to get serious and start enforcing the rules. Currently it's half-arsed and irresponsible.
Adam
Roar Guru
With all the playeds diving for obstruction in the NRL I'm not so sure they need to find any outside help
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Totally Adam. Sort of ‘as long as X player (on my team) doesn’t get suspended…’
JennyFromPenny
Guest
If only the ball was rounder, you'd have so many coaches to choose from.
JennyFromPenny
Guest
Yes, that'd be the go. Set a 12 wk precedent starting next magic round, be way over the top with penalties, and have the review committee do backflip after backflip two months on. Ace.
JennyFromPenny
Guest
Yeah and the last two times there's been a tackle of his to look at, there was not so much as a penalty on either occasion. If he is so looked after, why would the Bunker even bother going back to microscope his every move ?
JennyFromPenny
Guest
But wasn't GI protected more than any other?
JennyFromPenny
Guest
I thought they did get a penalty for the high tackle, meaning they could have put Nico in.
JennyFromPenny
Guest
Don't agree.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Cleary went high on Ponga and Ponga was hurt. It wasn't only the head slam. Meanwhile, Cameron Murray gets whacked high which draws blood and stuns him. Hasler could point to both tackles and he'd be correct if he said they were much worse than the Manly winger's tackle a while back where any contact was very minor and led to no injury. . ''High contact has been penalised all year, pull your head in Hasler'' was the war cry. All very nice in theory but it's crappola.
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
A lot of Ambiguous comments here,particularly around late hits.Who decides what constitutes late tackle.A lot of so called “late” tackles are 50/50 .The Refs have a split second to adjudicate , if they see it .Do we want to give the Bunker some guidelines? Say .5 of a second on freeze frame - I think not ,they will complicate it,like separation on Try put downs.
Adam
Roar Guru
Yeah the best place to do it is surely in the video room on Monday morning. The crazy thing is there aren't many people more qualified to do the role than Annesley. But perhaps he shouldn't be the "face" of the referees. In fact should the referees have a face that fronts the media every week?
Adam
Roar Guru
Magic Round was so problematic because it was trying to walk back about two decades worth of refereeing. It would be much easier to start by creating thresholds/steps for the referee/bunker to step through to penalise/sinbin/send off players. Then let all the teams know on Monday that all contact to the head will be penalised. I admit then they'd probably at the same time have to come up with some sort of judicial process for people silly enough to intentionally duck into high tackles who can be fined if found guilty. But at the end of the day it appears, at least on the surface, that the NRL has no real appetite to speak to the elephant in the room