It is easy to get a visual image of the results when an injury happens in sport.
Graphic pictures of blood pouring from someone’s face or body parts bending and setting at angles reserved for mathematics books. Images like these are an unfortunate consequence of any contact sport.
One of these gory images was captured on Thursday’s game between Penrith and Brisbane, where a head clash between Taylan May and Reece Walsh culminated in the latter’s eye enclosing as though he had had an allergic reaction to a bee sting.
A contentious penalty was given, with the ref remarking that May had a duty of care, referencing the speed at which he impacted with Walsh.
May faced no further charges, despite the NRL’s Head of Elite Football Operations Graham Annesley saying he should have.
He is quoted as saying: “There is an obligation on all defenders to ensure that they play the game with due regard for the safety of other players. It doesn’t matter whether it’s shoulder to head, whether it’s arm to head or whether it’s head-to-head. It’s the way a player approaches the tackle rather than the outcome.”
I feel that Mr Annesley is basically saying that it is a process rather than an outcome, yet is only discussing the incident due to the graphic injury resulting from the collision.
This quote represents a concerning trend within rugby league and its continued attempts to discipline every piece of contact that results in an injury.
The English Super League is having its crackdown on head-high contact. From next year, the competition will lower the highest point of contact to below the armpit, replacing the shoulder-high rules.
There has been a noticed effort to enforce stricter punishment for high contact. Across five rounds this year, there have been 39 cards issued.
The lunacy of the crackdown culminated in the sending off of Fa’amanu Brown in Round 2 of this year.
Far from a Dylan Napa flying headbutt, the head clash was a result of incidental head-to-head contact from a falling player being swung around by another lower-tackling defender, something that is unavoidable in a contact sport such as rugby league.
Rugby league has to decide what it is going to be as a sport. It can go down the rugby union path, where more cards are given than a game of UNO.
Roosters forward Brandon Smith. (Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
Every incident is replayed and reviewed in slow motion, completely missing the context in which the contact happened. Referees look to use their whistles, halting any flow from the game.
Or it can be acknowledged that these incidents happen when thirteen grown men try to ground a football past a try line defended by another thirteen men.
Rugby league is afraid of an impending Concussion Class Action Lawsuit resembling the NFL lawsuit that was settled in 2015.
The NFL agreed to a 1 billion dollar lawsuit to be paid out to over 20,000 plaintiffs over 65 years due to cognitive injuries sustained as a result of their partaking in the sport.
Such a payout would cripple the significantly less wealthy sport of rugby league. But despite both being contact sports in which head injuries unfortunately occur, the lawsuit shouldn’t be a deterrent from embracing the gladiatorial nature of the sport.
It is not an apples-and-apples comparison when reviewing the NFL’s and NRL’s treatment of concussions.
Firstly, as dramatised by Will Smith in the film Concussion, the NFL played a significant role in attempting to discredit the work of neurologists uncovering the effects of repetitive head trauma experienced by former players.
Furthermore, American football has not always taught correct tackling techniques to footballers. In both rugby league and union, you are told from a young age to bring your head to the side and use your shoulder when tackling to avoid contact with your head.
The NFL only introduced the ‘Crown Helmet Rule’, in which players were prohibited from initiating contact with the crown of their helmet, in 2010.
There is a balance between player welfare and entertainment. In an ideal world, we could get all the excitement that comes with brutal collisions without any players getting injured. But we do not live in an ideal world.
Otherwise, I’d be sipping a Pina Colada on a beach in Fiji tomorrow instead of catching a congested train at 6:30 in the morning.
The NRL has no issue leveraging these collisions when marketing the game.
The game’s own advertising videos, such as promotions for the Vegas double-header or even a State of Origin series, don’t exactly show low-cutting tackles or people jogging at a gradual pace before being brought softly to a halt.
The clips show repetitive heavy contact with players putting and being put on their backsides. No school kids are looking up textbook leg tackles in period three science.
This is not a Modus Operandi for Reg Reagan super fans harbouring for the days of fights and shoulder charges. It’s an acknowledgment that the sport is vicious, and injuries happen as a result of that.
There is no wording or interpretation of the rules that will eradicate injuries outside of turning the sport into touch football.
There is an inherent risk in playing the sport, a risk players accept.
The more we attempt to litigate every piece of contact, the greater the risk we take of erasing the essence of what makes the game so enthralling in the first place.
Christopher Higham
Roar Rookie
Overly dramatic and exaggerated response. Yawn.
souvalis
Roar Rookie
He does, but I was referring to Patten not May and the futility of fans arguing on this when even the governors read the tackle differently.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
So he needs to aim lower, to hit lower, which means his training's deficent for the modern era as defined by Annersley
Nat
Roar Guru
I was wondering if I read this right. Judging by the comments I did. Even if we ignore player welfare, CTE and future litigation the game is brutal enough as it is. Accidents do have consequences. Most players are 6ft or bigger, so the defender has about 5ft to grab legally. Mitigating circumstances is for the judiciary to decide.
TPC
Roar Rookie
Totally disagree. May had bad technique, that's why he smashed Walsh in the head. No matter what the reason - and I know mistakes happen - hit the head and you get penalised/sent off. It's the only way technique will improve and footballers won't become mentally unrecognisable as they get older. It's easy for the armchair commentators to bemoan the change, but they're not get smacked in the head.
souvalis
Roar Rookie
'It’s the way a player approaches the tackle rather than the outcome.” Compare that to Patten's view on the approach; “In the lead up to impact, player May plants both feet with both arms down by his side in an attempt to make a body tackle. “He does not lead with his shoulder or head unlike other previous incidents. “Once the ball is passed by player Walsh, both players react to the imminent contact resulting in both players leaving the ground and accidentally clashing heads. “The MRC does not see player May rotate his shoulder or raise his arms in an attempt to go through with the tackle.' “They do not consider his actions to be either careless or reckless.” Called as he saw it and punished according to how he's been trained.
Albo
Roar Rookie
You go ahead and enjoy your touch footy then ! But watch out for any accidental head clashes .
Blink
Roar Rookie
Probably the dumbest piece of writing I've seen in a while. You have to be particularly thick not to notice the effect of head injuries on past players. Namely poor life in later years, loss of memory and early death due to head injuries from playing contact sport. Those of limited intellect can't see it. Mays effort would get him red carded and a 4-6 week ban in Union. Even if you're pretending to be serious about eliminating head contact, thats the line required. Obviously the challenged writer loves to see blood and guts spilled to get his thrills. i prefer to see quality players playing every week.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
“There is an obligation on all defenders to ensure that they play the game with due regard for the safety of other players. It doesn’t matter whether it’s shoulder to head, whether it’s arm to head or whether it’s head-to-head. It’s the way a player approaches the tackle rather than the outcome.” I think the author's completely missed the direction the NRL wants the game to go which is summed up by Annerseley's statement above, In effect he's saying the defending player has to do all he can to minimize the chances of an attacking player being hurt before he makes contact. He's not for a second saying all contact will be penalized or players will be rubbed out if they cause an injury to another player. He's putting players on notice to do everything they can to avoid hitting guys high. Yes, rugby has handed out plenty of yellow and red cards and guess what, the number of high hits has decreased significantly but the level of hard hits has not. People also seem focused on the litigation aspect but completely fail to talk about the brain scrambling effects high hits can have on sports people. Why is it unreasonable to ask guys to use better technique and aim lower in tackles? Maybe it might mean footy players can enjoy a better quality of life when they retire, rather than reading about those who died through the effects of CTE
souvalis
Roar Rookie
According to the data, visuals and laws of the game the man responsible for judging the legality of tackles as interpreted by Luke Patten, the May hit was non punishable... as was the hip drop tackle that put Toby out for 6 weeks. We're spitting in the wind.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Look I absolutely love the physical nature of our game . I love the big hits highlight reels and I accept absolutely that you will never get truly accidental head contact out of our sport without destroying it . BUT, surely no one enjoys head clashes , surely no one enjoys a blind sided player smashed in the head with a shoulder? So , can we do anything to mitigate against accidental head contact ( note I have not seen deliberate head contact in a long long time ) ? Well yes we can . If the laws and interpretations deem the tackler has a responsibility not to hit a player in the head we can go from there. Doesn't mean every head contact is a bin or send off. We will still have degrees of force and mitigating circumstances but surely if we reduce severe head contact by say 25 percent it's a good deal all round. And the game will still retain its character.
Don
Roar Rookie
So…in essence you don’t like the penalties being applied for contact with a player’s head, and it seems you don’t want to see anything enforced when a player makes no attempt to avoid contact with the head? The May contact on Reece Walsh was reckless and high. Sure, there is genuine accidental contact when a ball carrier slips etc. But as a code they are still better to penalise it, put it on report, and argue it at a tribunal, than to overlook it as “incidental” and “could not be avoided.” If you go into a tackle upright on a ball runner you have a significantly higher chance of making contact with the head. That is not “accidental” the tackler made the decision to try to tackle that way, so it is a “reckless” decision. I love the heavy contact and big hits, but also accept that if the game does not move to penalise high contact, of all kinds, and further enforce HIA rules and mandatory stand downs, there will be litigation and the game will lose.
Tony
Roar Guru
A great piece of writing James. I think you nailed it.