‘Should have been a charge’: Players on notice after May escapes action
NRL head of football Graham Annesley has warned that any player who makes a similar tackle to the one by Panthers centre Taylan May which left Broncos fullback Reece Walsh with a fractured eye socket is likely to face a judiciary charge.
Annesley confirmed that senior NRL officials were of the belief May should have been charged by the Match Review Committee over the head clash with Walsh in the opening minutes of last Thursday night’s match at Penrith.
May was penalised and placed on report but escaped any further action as the Match Review Committee decided that the clash of heads was accidental.
However, Annesley said that May’s actions could have been deemed careless or reckless because of the increased risk of a tackle going wrong when defenders jam in at speed to put pressure on an inside player with the ball.
“It doesn’t really matter whether it’s shoulder to head, whether it’s arm to head or, in this case, whether it’s head to head, it’s the way a player approaches the tackle,” Annesley said at his weekly media briefing.
“There will be accidental head clashes in our game that don’t require action, but in this case the actions of the tackler have elevated the risk of injury.
“Players jumping out of the line, cutting in to try and shut down the play – often at high velocity, with very little margin for error – can lead to a tackle going horribly wrong.
“This is the area where the administration of the game believes that this particular incident should have resulted in action from the Match Review Committee.
“In our view, there is an obligation on all defenders to ensure that they play the game with due regard to the safety of other players.
“We are firmly of the view that it did reach the bar for a charge.”
Annesley said there was no issue with the way the match officials handled the incident on the field, but he would have been equally satisfied if May had been sin-binned.
Had the sin bin been used, the Broncos could have activated 18th man Tristan Sailor to replace Walsh but because the star fullback passed a HIA they were unable to do so.
“The 18th player was something that the [ARLC] Commission brought in to cater for specific circumstances that increase around concussion,” Annesley said.
“It’s a matter for the Commission, at the appropriate time, to consider whether that rule needs to be reviewed or not, but that’s the rule as things currently stand.”
Sharks forward Dale Finucane was suspended for two matches in 2022 after being found guilty of dangerous contact following a head clash with Stephen Crichton and clubs were warned last season about the risk of defenders jamming in.
A memo sent to clubs after last year’s Round 5 matches stated in part:
“An analysis of match review data over 85 games of the 2023 Telstra Premiership has identified a concerning number of tackles that have gone wrong involving defenders moving up and in, to shutdown expansive attacking raids, often in potentially scoring situations.
“When these tackles do go wrong, it usually involves a collision at high speed intended to shut-down the play.
“However, due to the way these tackles are being approached in some instances, even the slightest mis-judgment may result in an arm or shoulder making contact with the head or neck of an opponent.
“In most cases, the defender also turns their body just before impact, increasing the risk of shoulder to head contact.
“All players have an obligation to avoid unnecessary, forceful contact to the head or neck of an opponent.
“If the target area of a defender is on or above the ball, or around the shoulder area, the risk of the contact to the head or neck of the ball carrier increases.
“A judgment error of only a few centimetres at high speed may be the difference between an effective tackle or a potentially serious offence.
“Defenders need to carefully consider their intended target area if they are to reduce the risk of the tackle going wrong.”
While the memo was specifically about shoulder to head contact, Annesley said it equally applied to head clashes caused by defenders jamming in at high speed.
“The Match Review Committee, as we understand it, reached their conclusion of no further action on the basis that it was an accidental head clash and, as such, didn’t reach the threshold for a careless or reckless type action,” he said.
“Now, the view of the administration on this is that we think that it does reach that threshold of careless action, at least.
“No-one’s trying to hurt anybody, obviously, but they’re taking an additional level of risk by coming in at high velocity.
“Often the contact happens after the ball’s been passed, as it did in this case, and the outcome is that you just kind of lose control.”
Leave a Reply