Paul Kent: Nothing wrong with a bit of gamesmanship, but at what cost?
Shaun Johnson’s explanation via social media that the alleged ‘biting’ incident involving Kevin Proctor was all a bit of mix up has raised a bigger issue for the game, says PAUL KENT.
NRL
Don't miss out on the headlines from NRL. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Today’s sermon begins in 1945, which requires only a cursory glance to identify as vastly different to the modern age, both in form and content.
Video replays were at a minimum, for one. And teeth, apparently.
St George was playing Newtown this afternoon in 1945 and Dragons prop Bill McRitchie reeled from the scrum, in fact much the same as Shaun Johnson reeled from a tackle last Saturday, with a similar moan escaping his lips.
“For God’s sake, let go,” McRitchie wailed, or words to that effect.
“He f---ing bit me,” said Johnson, the modern interpretation.
Kayo is your ticket to the 2020 NRL Telstra Premiership. Every game of every round Live & On-Demand with no-ad breaks during play. New to Kayo? Get your 14-day free trial & start streaming instantly >
Unlike Johnson, who at best could reveal a red mark on his arm to support his claim, McRitchie had blood from his ear streaming down his neck and staining his white jersey and, if you listen to folklore, a piece of his earlobe missing.
The referee called out Bluebags prop Frank “Bumper” Farrell, the well decorated policeman in his working hours who was somewhat of an enforcer in his recreational hours, it emerged, and sent him off.
Thankfully for McRitchie this was some years before ear rings became fashionable for men.
MORE NRL NEWS
Kent: Why didn’t Proctor deny bite claims on the field?
Revealed: Shocking NRL links to Seibold smear campaign
Anyway, later at the judiciary Farrell argued he could not have bitten McRitchie’s ear for the simple fact that when the two teams met in the first round McRitchie was responsible for a stiff arm on Farrell so savage it snapped his teeth, leaving nothing but the stubs which were later removed by a dentist.
For the return encounter he had left his false teeth in the dressing room, so couldn’t possibly have bitten McRitchie’s ear.
The judiciary went away to consider that the same way the judiciary on Tuesday night went away to consider Johnson’s reversal in form.
On Tuesday the Cronulla halfback wrote a message on Instagram claiming, well, it was all just a big mix up.
It had already been noted Johnson and the offender, Kevin Proctor, were New Zealand Test teammates and Johnson was now agreeing with Proctor, saying there was not bite at all.
“Maybe the force I had against his open mouth with my arm could have been the reason I felt what I did,” he wrote, exonerating Proctor.
“In the heat of the moment I reacted the way I did and I can’t change that, no way did I think he would get sent from the field but I did think we’d get something for it.”
In effect, Johnson was at the very least admitting to gamesmanship, hoping to get something like a penalty for his complaint, and there is nothing wrong with that.
What effect this had on the judiciary panel members and their decision will never be fully known but, regardless, Johnson will be punished today.
He broke strict NRL rules forbidding players from publicly commenting on the judicial process before it is heard. Proctor will also face sanction.
The game must also decide today whether there are bigger matters at stake.
The score was 12-all when Proctor got sent off, the Titans right in it with 23 minutes left, and seven minutes later the 12-strong Titans were down 30-12 to Cronulla.
So Johnson’s ploy worked, but at what cost?
After watching ARL Commission chairman Peter V’landys scramble to salvage the broadcast deal during the COVID suspension earlier this year, revealing once and for all how beholden the players’ financial welfare is to Australia’s two big media companies, and the positive publicity generated, what damage did Johnson’s mistaken allegations cause?
Biting is unsavoury at the best of times, one of the few non-negotiables in the game. Importantly, it is viewed much differently outside the game than from within, where a certain understanding is sometimes afforded.
Should the NRL consider Johnson’s ploy as simple gamesmanship, or reputational damage?
For three days it was part of the NRL narrative.
Players making frivolous allegations were once dimly viewed at the judiciary panel.
The game was ultimately empowered to enforce sanctions against players who made frivolous accusations on the field, some in the name of gamesmanship, who then either rescinded them or refused to support them at the judiciary when called as a witness.
MORE NRL NEWS
Broncos cop huge sanctions for pub saga
Maguire tips his hat to ‘priceless’ Tigers veteran
Certainly the game can’t erase the embarrassment, and so today must decide, the same as it was forced to do all the way back in 1945 when the NSW Committee voted 15-12 to exonerate Bumper Farrell.
A man couldn’t possibly remove part of the earlobe with just his gums, they voted, no matter how bloodthirsty he was for revenge.
This sounded all very reasonable until some of Bumper’s police colleagues later began to tell of him cracking walnuts with his gums.
Against that, what hope did an earlobe have.
Originally published as Paul Kent: Nothing wrong with a bit of gamesmanship, but at what cost?