Over the past couple of years, the NRL has introduced so many new rules that I am genuinely struggling to keep track.
But there’s no point in introducing new rules if they are not enforced or worse, if the only consistency we can count on is inconsistency.
One area where we are increasingly seeing inconsistency is in the policing of high/late shots.
Last Friday night, in the match between the Parramatta Eels and Penrith Panthers, Bailey Simonsson was taken off the field for an HIA in the first two minutes of the game, after a high shot from Jarome Luai.
Simonsson failed his HIA and did not return. This had an impact on the game. Coaches rarely carry an extra outside back on their benches and of course, don’t plan to lose an outside back so early.
Parramatta are already stretched for outside backs and its one of their weak points for their 2024 campaign. Rather than disrupt the halves pairing or another combination on the field Brad Arthur made the decision to shift Kelma Tuilagi to centre and Morgan Harper to the wing. Penrith are a smart football team so just kept attacking that edge with great success throughout the game.
My question is, why did Luai remain on the field?
It doesn’t seem fair that a team can lose a player so early (or at any point at all) and that the only real punishment for Luai was a penalty against him. It rubbed salt into the wound when Luai was put on report a second time in the game for tripping Mitchell Moses. I understand this is no longer a ‘straight to the sin bin’ offence, but my question is why?
It’s a grubby and dangerous act, not to mention completely unnecessary.
Somehow Laui has escaped suspension, despite being put on report twice. But the result for Parramatta is more dire. Parramatta will be without Simonsson this week due to the NRL concussion protocols, which need to be in place.
It wasn’t the only incident though.
On Thursday night Taylan May rushed up and Reece Walsh’s match was over ater less than five minutes even though the contact looked accidental, it was still a case of a defender making high contact, via a head clash. The defender was fortunate enough to stay on the field but the tackled player played no further part.
There was also the late shot on Viliame Kikau last week. Briton Nikora stayed on the field but has now copped a two-week suspension.
Nikora is, to many people’s surprise not a big player. I wonder whether the outcome would have been the same if the roles had been reversed and a bigger man in Kikau put a late shot on Nikora?
When we are talking about concussion and high shots, it’s not just about applying the rules consistently for the sake of consistency.
There is probably no bigger issue facing contact sports at the moment than concussion.
In the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, there was another article about concussion and specifically seven conditions found in former footy players’ brains. It’s sobering reading and scary to think about some of the other neurological issues that were found in all six brains of former rugby league and rugby union players that were studied (including Alzheimer’s, Lewy body disease and sclerosis).
While players may have a laissez-faire approach to concussion while they are playing, thinking that they are invincible, it’s becoming clearer that protocols need to be put in place so that our game is as safe as possible for current players and for the generation of players to come.
It’s also important from a risk management perspective for sports to manage their liability when it comes to neglecting to understand the impact of ongoing collisions.
That’s where the NRL has a role as a governing body, to set standards and put practices in place. But this is only as effective as it can be with enforcement.
The beginning of the year is an opportunity for the NRL, the referees and the judiciary to work together to set the standard of expectation for the coming year.
I am underwhelmed with what I have seen so far when it comes to concussion.
I remember a couple of years back during Magic Round, when the NRL announced its ‘crackdown’ on high shots. And a crackdown it was with player after player being sent to the bin for high contact. It may have felt excessive, but in the weeks that followed the number of high shots reduced.
The problem was that the NRL didn’t stick to its guns, and we are now back in a world where its unclear to me when a player should and should not be sent off for a high shot and how we are deterring players from that sort of conduct in the future.
If it’s unclear to me, no doubt its unclear to the players and to the coaches. It’s an area where we can’t afford for that lack of clarity to become the norm.
KFar
Roar Rookie
I was also surprised that the match Dr didn't ordered Rapana off for a HIA. If he passes, then great. But it's so inconsistent and confusing when the opposition player is clearly hurt, but isnt taken off the field He was hurt and even I could see that on the tv replay. Also, sometimes the length of time that is taken to get the Dr's decision to stop play for a HIA can be minutes after a original head clash. Most of the time the player that has had the head clash is involved in more tackles etc
Panthers
Roar Rookie
Have you seen David Fale , Albo? St.Marys boy & was a replacement in the NSW Cup team. He’s a very big centre or winger . Can run pretty well.
matth
Roar Guru
Well Walsh has a facial fracture and will be out long term. Any contact to the head has to be taken seriously. Accident can’t be an excuse anymore. If it’s an accident the ‘bad luck’ should happen to the perpetrator not just to the victim.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
i SAY GET THEM TO SIGN DISCLAIMERS AND THE WHOLE SHOW will resound to a small peep. The reason this exists because the federal govt made ''chain of responsibility' 'laws that effect the workplace and unfortunately a game of football is no longer a lark but the clubs/administrators/doctors/coaches/CEO'S AND THE OWNERS OF THE GAME nEWS lTD ARE FIRMLY IN THE crosshairs of industrial relations lawyers. That is why Rugby union put their tails between their legs....and if we continue there will be no game to watch...We will be watching soccer with no headers.
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
The only thing worse than being consistently inconsistent is being inconsistently consistent. That's pretty hard to take.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
The AFL's attempt to stop players deliberately ducking into high contact in an attempt to win a free kick (penalty) is that if you are deliberately ducking or diving to draw high contact, you forfeit your right to any high contact penalty. Accidents can happen and as it is open to referee interpretation it isn't perfect, but it has made players think twice about burrowing forward with their head down. The flip side is that players still have a right to bend down to pick up the ball and in that position they are still protected, and the onus is on the tackling player to make contact safely. NRL could benefit with a similar interpretation, tweaked slightly to allow for differences between the two codes.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Well I hope we all like court dates, because I can see plenty of them in the NRL's future
Good Grief
Roar Rookie
It could take forever if they are inconsistent every round through regular season, and then deliberately apply the rules differently for SOO and again during finals.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
“Even if the guy was falling into a tackle, the defender has to show they were not able to do anything to prevent a hit to the head.” Well, they could not attempt a tackle, that’d do it.
Good Grief
Roar Rookie
Two weeks ago people were defending Walsh’s “shoulder charge” on Daniel Tupou that saved a try. In that situation, two athletes moving at speed and as they close in on collision the defender doesn’t know if the attacking ball runner will dive low, leap high, or try to cut back inside and will have only a mid-stride fraction of a second to make any adjustment. Only by good fortune that incident didn’t end up with anyone injured. Anything could have happened with the DWZ impact on Coates miracle try on the buzzer for Melbourne’s win over NZ Warriors. I don’t see substantive difference with the Walsh injury, at the last instance May has pulled back and up to save his own face and Walsh’s cheek has smashed into May’s chin. How do we cheer for these instances when there is no injury and then whine about “duty of care” only when it goes horribly wrong. This pretence that you can plant your feet and get your head to one side to tackle Walsh of all people… you want to blame poor technique when defensive players are struggling even to get a hand on him? This is not an issue of poor tackling technique, Walsh dug in and passed the ball instead of skipping another half pace wider and passing and it caught May by surprise. Result – unfortunate, accidental head clash. The only surprise is that it doesn’t happen more often. However… had May left his feet and been in the air, recent history suggests he would have been up for a multi week suspension… Anyway, i am pleased that May wasn’t suspended. The ref’s explanation was weird, I’m pretty sure Nikora bent lower to clock his opponent in the head and was rightly suspended for that only this week.
Brian Westlake
Roar Rookie
because he cant tackle like that. If the same had occurred to Ivan's boy, he'd still be in the press conference bleating about a late, high dangerous and careless tackle.
Andy F
Roar Rookie
It may be in the event of informed consent and if the league starts making provision for long term head injuries in their accounting.
Tony the VIC pirate
Agree with all these comments. You could add the Sezer and Rapana incident as well. Forceful contact last year was sin bin but went unpunished in the game. Let's see the rest of the rounds games and I'm sure someone will get sin binned for the same incident. The fans just want consistency and this feeds the "scripted" talks
zonecadet
Roar Rookie
Exactly! I did not think you're allowed to drag defenders off your man at any point. Playing the Storm the other week, I was bemused to see the Storm penalised for the block on the tackle five kick after seeing Penrith do it unpunished for the last 4 seasons. Too funny. The NRL, making it up as they go.
zonecadet
Roar Rookie
If this is a problem area of the game surely Mr Man of Action Peter V'landys can just come in and lay down the law and fix it up instantly? I mean he's done so much super-smart stuff already hasn't he? The fact that he hasn't, or doesn't, tells me the NRL is trying to have their cake and eat it too. Violence sells the game (especially to new gamblers apparently) but concussion protocols show you care. Reece Walsh was not tackled he was collided with, after passing the ball. The defender did not back out, he did not brace, he actually leapt off the ground and took the odds of whacking Walsh seeing as he was 'committed' to contacting him anyway. Maybe he knows he has a hard head, who can say? He certainly looked tough after the event so he looked, to me, to have achieved his aim, intimidation. The name of the game as someone who is playing his 300th game this weekend has exhibited for years now. Tackles have to involve arms and wrapping action. Every time.
Andy F
Roar Rookie
The issue they have is the whole “manliness” machismo, tough game argument from uninformed commentators and pundits. Any full contact code that doesn’t strictly enforce rules to minimise head contact is just looking for trouble. The league authorities are basically doing the bare minimum to avoid criticism now. It won’t protect them from a class action in the future particularly given the clinical findings and literature available on the subject now. Same goes for the overlooked shoulder charges and head contact when trying to stop a try. In union the forwards diving head first at the ground when 5 metres out (head well below their hips) is seriously dangerous long term and, imo, a blight on the modern game. Defenders have no option but to contact the head and referees do nothing to stop it. It will be the next major issue.
Andy F
Roar Rookie
Agreed. They probably need to introduce the no tackle above the sternum rule that they’ve done in union.
Glory Bound
Roar Rookie
Why would a player arch their back, aim their head and brace for impact jimmmy? It seems to go against all instincts for basic self-protection. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... then it is probably a Rooster if not a Panthers folliwing coach's orders.
Bobby
Roar Rookie
Great article, Mary. If these two incidents occurred to another NRL team, then there would have been further punishments, but clearly, the NRL and the media have their favourites. And therein lies the problem, on the field there’s no level playing and off it, no one in the mainstream is calling out these inconsistencies. Ultimately, if this continues it will ruin the game and it will be hard to attract future interest as seemingly the officials, NRL and the media have already decided the result. Why bother tuning in or spending time and money going to the game when it’s already predetermined? It’s hollowing out the essence of sporting competition i.e., fair play and unpredictability. I’ll never know whether these incidents were intentional or not, but players (across all codes) have no problem intentionally injuring opposition players, absolutely none! Penrith probably would have won both these games, but they’ve massively benefited from foul play on two occasions and other the teams have not only lost a key player for the actual match but will have them unavailable for the next one too!
Good Grief
Roar Rookie
Following on, I suggest consistent application it is impossible for a number of the intentional rule changes in recent times and we can see this in pretty much every single game from the one ref, never mind between games over a round or across a season. Meanwhile there is almost zero policing of tackled players moving off the mark well after the held call (which takes markers out of play) and forward passes from dummy half are hilariously frequent and astonishing when a ref finally calls one back. We have new rules for baulking a catcher and for shielding a kicker but still zero consistency for obstructing kick chasers from opportunity to compete for a ball in the air. And… this maddening inconsistency in rule interpretation and enforcement is being intentionally increased at a time when the game is now being promoted to a US audience. How can these rule changes and inconsistency of application possibly support global growth into new markets, and particularly gambling markets. It seems incoherent and arbitrary to me, particularly when we get to SOO and finals (and Vegas) and the games are obviously refereed differently.