As is often the case, the NRL’s tendency to be reactionary rather than proactive is causing all sorts of judiciary drama that could have been avoided.
In an age when professional sports live in fear of litigation if they are seen to be too relaxed around head contact, the perception is that the NRL has become more lenient towards rough play.
The judiciary system which was rushed through hours before the start of the NRL season has been a mess all year and the snowball effect is turning into an avalanche a week out from the finals.
High contact, cheap shots, head slams, hip-drops and all manner of roughhouse play seem to be getting more prevalent.
Dinosaurs will tell you that it’s because players can no longer do the “manly” thing and punch an opponent these days because of the automatic sin bin edict. That is nonsense.
There were very few actual brawls in the modern era before the automatic sin bin rule came in back in 2013 after the infamous Origin incident when Paul Gallen threw a flurry of punches at Nate Myles.
Rugby league has always been a game that has turned a blind eye to “a bit of niggle” in the ruck with the view that as long as the match officials don’t see it, then you try to get away with it.
Nelson Asofa-Solomona. (Photo by Daniel Pockett/Getty Images)
Coaches have always instructed players to push the envelope and it’s up to the referees and the judiciary system to enforce their duty of care to the participants.
The previous points-based system became too complicated and it meant that suspensions were being dished out for minor incidents when a fine should have sufficed.
It should have been simplified but the NRL’s new system has veered way too far to the other end of the spectrum so that you get ridiculous situations like Nelson Asofa-Solomona escaping suspension yet again despite copping his fifth charge of the season on the weekend.
After clearing him of a similar incident last month when he knocked Warriors hooker Wayde Egan’s teeth out with his reckless stiff arm, you can see why he thought he could try this kind of thuggery again when Roosters winger Joseph Suaalii was tackled to the ground, lying pretty much defenceless.
NRL head of football Graham Annesley, when asked specifically about Asofa-Solomona, at his Monday afternoon media briefing said he accepted the match review committee’s grading of the latest incident and claimed the Storm prop was running a risk with his actions.
Cynics would argue that he’s lost comparatively little for the gambles he’s taken with his cheap shots this season.
“Some players do play on the edge much more than others,” he said, choosing his words carefully. “Nelson’s not the only one in the competition – whether it’s high tackling or just the level of aggression that they play with – there are players who go closer to those limits than others.
“And that’s fine as long as they don’t cross that line.
“In relation to players who are constantly getting low-level charges, those charges do increase, those outcomes do increase but importantly there’s another factor in the judiciary code that can deal with those incidents as well and that is where the match review committee feels that there is a need for a personal deterrent.”
He went on to explain that this “personal deterrent” was to charge a repeat offender with a grade-two offence for a grade-one incident when “the message isn’t getting through”.
After five charges, it’s safe to say Asofa-Solomona hasn’t received that message … mainly because the match reviewers have not sent it to him in any way shape or form. And until he gets a harsher sanction, he will continue on his not so merry way.
The NRL should be applauded for the improvements it has made to preventing concussion with head injury assessments but it should be derided in equal measure for the match review process which allows this kind of thuggery to go virtually unpunished.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Fines of $1000-$3000 are no deterrent to players who earn 100 or 200 times that amount, often more.
Suspensions and send-offs are the only way of getting the point through because it penalises the entire club and sends a message to coaches that if you break the rules, the team will be missing players.
But now if you do a careless high tackle, make dangerous contact or display contrary conduct, you can escape with a fine whether it’s your first, second or third offence.
In fact, the only category among the eight which warrants a suspension if you’re found guilty of a grade-one offence is a reckless high tackle.
So you can also be found guilty of a spear tackle, striking, a crusher tackle or a shoulder charge and as long as it’s rated a grade one, the only punishment will be to your hip pocket.
You don’t have to be a spinal expert to understand a spear tackle, or the euphemistic term “dangerous throw”, along with the hideous crusher tackle can have serious repercussions.
Likewise, striking – as in punching an opponent, usually in the head – and the shoulder charge, can have the most serious of outcomes. A player died in a QRL match in 2015 after he was on the receiving end of a shoulder charge. It’s a dangerous sport which can have catastrophic consequences.
Players are aware of the risks involved when they step onto the field but you only have to look at how improvements can make a massive difference in a sport like Formula One, which had a terrible record of tragedy with 28 deaths in races over four decades prior to Ayrton Senna’s fatal crash in 1994.
After a range of improved safety measures since that infamous day at the San Marino Grand Prix there has only been one death – Frenchman Jules Bianchi in 2014.
With the threat of class action lawsuits and the ongoing debates and mounting scientific evidence around the dire consequences of repeated head injuries in contact sport, how can the NRL’s judiciary system be justified?
Previously, charges were rated on a grading of 1-5. Now there are only three options.
So before a grade-one charge was considered within the first 20 percentiles of severity, grade two in the 20-40 range and so on.
Now because there are only three gradings, for an incident to be rated grade two to warrant a suspension, it has to be in the middle third of the scale, which also suits the players because the match review committee seems reluctant to dish out higher-graded charges.
And just in case you were unaware, it’s going to be even worse in the finals with the Origin system of fines replacing suspensions in place for pretty much everything. As long as the NRL’s thugs tread that fine line between being sin-binned or sent off and getting away with grubby on-field acts, they won’t be suspended during the playoffs.
Annesley said the previous system that was scrapped in the off-season was too complex and too often players were missing games for “what were effectively low-level charges which did not require suspensions”.
Brent Naden of the Tigers is sent off by referee Peter Gough. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
“The multiplier effect and the addition of carryover points was pushing players into suspensions that people were saying ‘how can you get two weeks for that?’ These things are very much a delicate balance.
“We have a system in place that is intended to protect players firstly and make sure players aren’t subjected to dangerous foul play during the course of matches.
“It’s a tough game and most of the instances that take place in our game are not deliberate.
“With 12-16 cameras around a game at every single game, you kind of have to be crazy to do something intentionally, unless you’ve completely lost the plot and we don’t have too many instances of that happening in games.”
Sounds like the kind of madness Asofa-Solomona is getting away with.
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open('POST', '/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php', true); request.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded;'); request.onload = function () { if (this.status >= 200 && this.status
Cadfael
Roar Guru
For high shots, the rulers are already in place as per the laws of the game. To quote "when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly." (S15, p. b). In every sety of six at least half will see a tackle around the neck or head of a player. Most are nothing more than grabs but they are high and should be penalised and if necessary sin binned or sent off. The last thing league needs is for player to take legal action because of head injuries sustained in the game. In Europe, up to the end of Jukly, there are 100 cases going on against WR and its unions over head injuries sustained in the gae. Look at the other two big international games: soccer and union, a second sin bin in a game is an automatic send off. Probably no other penalty for a send off here, it would be regarded as send off was sufficient penalty (we used to get this in league years ago). Too late to do anything this season but the NRL has to get the clubs together and sort this out. Referees and touchies to officiate as per the laws pf the game not on guidelines from head office.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Tough
Dumbo
Roar Rookie
Probably not - like parking fines are not claimable.
Dumbo
Roar Rookie
I suspect that the NRL will continue to believe it has extra-judicial powers as long as players believe and accept that the NRL judiciary is the sole arbiter of what is or is not acceptable on-field. Unless and until one player takes them to court after being severely injured, with the perpetrator receiving a minimal punishment, we will not see NRL Central, players and Womblat disabused from this belief.
A
Guest
Also includes Karl Lawton Will Keendy Brent Naden David Klemmer Nathan Cleary Tom Burgress James Tamou Francisco Molo and Brian Kelly
Davooo
Guest
Quick! Call the nrl secret police! Someone's figured out the great pro Melbourne conspiracy :laughing: We all think successful opposition clubs get a better deal than the one we support
Davooo
Guest
Cool, so by that logic, jwh's attempted headbut would be 4+ weeks? And this rule would be applied equally against all players from all clubs? Thought so. By origin next year half the comp will be suspended :laughing:
Davooo
Guest
Having seen the footage of the altercation in Bali a while back, I don't think any right thinking person would want to be on the receiving end of nelson's fists. He throws them pretty well and wild. He was trying to get the storm to agree to allow him to line up in a boxing card not that long back
Davooo
Guest
Easy for Kent to hype it up by using the blokes entire career. He's averaged just under 2.5 charges a season. For a middle forward, enforcer type, that's pretty bog stock really. Yeah, his performance this season hasn't been a good look, a few to many angry pills, but perhaps the mrc and judiciary are actually working as intended and the bulk of his offences just haven't been suspension worthy no matter how much opposition fans want them to be. As for the kafusi tackle.... actually look at it. His body is on the ground, not lying against the back of the opposition players legs. But don't let fact cloud your bias :laughing:
Davooo
Guest
Armchair lawyers, unite! Give it a rest with the litigious BS you lot. You're boring the footy fans
zonecadet
Roar Rookie
Storm don't need 'help' to get into the finals.
zonecadet
Roar Rookie
Well said 'Rookie'. My 2 cents worth on solutions to all this - send 'em all off for rough play if that is not acceptable BUT allow teams to replace them so the product isn't harmed and results are not skewed. No more 13 on 12. Allow maybe 5 on the bench during the transition/learning phase so teams don't run out of players. We then need the judiciary to have clear guidelines on suitable punishments in terms of Weeks off, not financial. 1 week for most indiscretions and 2 or more for the real bad stuff.
LMM
Guest
At this point I am just in disbelief that he keeps getting away with it, but also completely expect it. It’s just so weird to see an incident live and think wow that’s awful, he clearly meant that and wanted to injure the opponent. But then think well he won’t have a case to answer. I don’t want to scream conspiracy but why do NAS and Kaufusi get beaten with a feather? If Jaydn Sua, Jarrod Wallace or Mitch Barnett did what NAS does they would be burned at the stake.
Michael Butterfield
Roar Rookie
By reducing the grading for crusher tackles and shoulder charges I’m sure James Ackerman will be looking down from above and saying “ I died from a shoulder charge and now reducing the grading is a stupid and dangerous thing to do”.
Womblat
Guest
Thank you for your considered and respectful response, it's a change from your first. Since you seem to have a very near and dear opinion on this and obviously a great knowlege base, I would like to address your points. You reference "extra judicial power" a few times. The NRL HAS got extra judicial power. It is a corporate entity and has it's own rules. It has used it several times in the past. Changing rules without consultation is a great example, it's done that many times. Judicial systems require at least an act of Parliament or lengthy statutory process to change laws, but the NRL changed 3 rules this year alone. It's their product, and they can and will change it as they want. You think Nathan Cleary would have got 5 weeks jail for spearing some punter on the street on a Saturday night? How about Danny Williams, for coward punching a bloke unconscious? Does John Hopoate go to jail for three counts of what you would classify as "digital rape" in one game in 2001? None of these players faced civil censure. It was handled purely by the NRL. That, by it's very definition, is "extra judicial justice". Jordan McLean was given a 7 match suspension for the McKinnon tackle. Do you think had he done that to a bloke on the street he would have got 7 weeks jail? If it were up to the law of the land he'd STILL be inside. That's because the NRL ARE extra judicial. They make their own decisions and they are accountable to absolutely no-one. Moreover, double jeopardy didn't apply because the law didn't apply on the footy field. There was no judicial aspect. It wasn't even pursued. Conflating that with a judicial process is legal fallacy. The seat belt example was a good one and I liked it. It was a good fit at the time in 1970. It suited a population where speed was the best, there weren't airbags, drink driving wasn't even a thing and 4000 people were being killed on Aussie roads every year. But this isn't that. WHS is modernistic legislation that was bought in for altruistic purposes but really, do you think they apply in any way to League? Let's tackle Regan Campbell-Gillard at full belt one on one the safest way possible in full compliance to WHS guidelines. Nahh. Throw the book at vicious players by all means, but unless it's enforced, WHS means nothing. I don't know how Su'ualii got out of that tackle by NAS with a jaw but the simple fact is that with NAS free to play again this week, literally nothing has been done. That was an extra-judicial decision by the NRL and it sucked, and that's why so many people are in outrage right now. Look, we are coming at the same target from two directions. We want the same thing. You seem to think the solution is rules and I think it's force. Unfortunately, we are seeing neither.
Wayne Turner
Guest
That sign off is a given these days.
Ian_
Roar Rookie
I'd just make any non-trivial head or neck contact at least a penalty offence, and if there's any degree of force, or unnatural action, involved, send the player off. Don't worry about intent, just the action. Re fines etc, just make it so the most fines you can have in a season is 2 (3) and everything after that is a suspension.
Ian
Roar Rookie
Where is Graham Annesley’s consideration for player safety? I’m astounded that someone in his position defends the act by using a technicality to explain why Solomona didn’t get a suspension. It’s plain to see that there was the intent. It must be asked what influences these types of decisions and explanations.
a
Guest
They should bring back the old judiciary system idk why they changed it in the first place
Pomoz
Roar Rookie
I think the solution is not even that complicated. If the incident is deemed “foul play” then it stays on your record. Fine for the first incident, double the fine the fine for the second incident, a minimum 1 week suspension for every incident thereafter. Under this system, JWH and NAS would have been suspended for a week and two weeks respectively. Every incident thereafter will see them out for a week automatically. That will slow them down. Make the “foul play” clock work like drivers licenses and have a three year rolling basis. If you did more than two the year before you are only allowed one act of foul play before the suspensions starts. You lose one fine option for every time you breach the two incidents of foul play on a rolling three years basis. Simply put, if you are a “foul play” repeat offender, you will lose the right to be fined and get suspended automatically. You could actually apply this to all fines. You get a couple of fines up your sleeve, but repeated poor tackles and foul play incidents will see your right to fines removed. A clean record has to count for something, we just don’t need the crap JWH and NAS dish out. Robinson and Bellamy really let themselves down by ignoring this.