NRL to crackdown on dangerous crusher tackles, says Graham Annesley
After an astonishing increase of the dangerous ‘crusher tackle’ in 2020, NRL head of football Graham Annesley has revealed he will push for a crackdown before catastrophic injury strikes.
NRL
Don't miss out on the headlines from NRL. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Get ready for a crusher tackle crackdown.
In a move that can’t come soon enough, NRL head of football Graham Annesley has revealed he will personally take the matter to the Australian Rugby League Commission to discuss tougher new penalties.
It follows an astonishing increase of the dangerous wrestling manoeuvre this season, with 16 so far in just 12 rounds.
That compares to a total of 12 last year across the entire season, meaning the number of crusher tackles has more than doubled.
In 2018 there were only 18 charges all year.
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 >
There was also another spate over the weekend where four more players copped grade one charges.
Unbelievably, under the current match review process, none of those players will sit out a single game through suspension because the early guilty plea takes the charge below 100 points.
But there is a growing fear that if it is allowed to continue there could be a catastrophic neck or spinal injury.
Canterbury’s Jeremy Marshall-King was the latest player charged on Monday for a grade one crusher tackle on Parramatta’s Blake Ferguson.
This followed three charges to Warriors players after their game against the Tigers, while Penrith’s Moses Leota escaped a charge for a sickening incident that wasn’t deemed serious enough by the match review committee.
Annesley would not pre-empt what the Commission might do but conceded it was time to consider tougher penalties.
Whether that be by increasing the base penalty for a dangerous contact charge (head/neck), or even making a new charge specific for crusher tackles, it remains to be seen.
“I am going to talk to the Commission about that,” Annesley told News Corp on Monday.
“If we in the administration think that the penalties under the current structure of the charges are not sufficient then that is something we can deal with.”
Annesley said the NRL gave a direction over the summer for the match review committee to look more closely at these tackles.
But it is unclear if the increased number of charges is directly related to the fact the match review committee has become more vigilant, or that players are simply doing more crusher tackles because the penalty is not a big enough deterrent.
Some experts argue there have been more crusher tackles because attacking players are running backwards into the defensive line to make more post-contact metres.
But surely that is not a defence for allowing a tackle that could potentially break someone’s neck to continue with such weak punishments.
MORE NRL STORIES
NRL What’s the Buzz: Mal Meninga call on Cameron Smith’s future | Saint, Sinner, Shoosh
Melbourne Storm’s struggles proof 2020 NRL premiership will never have an asterisk
NRL What’s the Buzz: Kangaroos v All Blacks exhibition game unlikely to happen in 2020
“Whether the penalties are sufficient or not, that is something I want to discuss with the Commission,” Annesley added.
“One thing I like to do is not pre-empt what decision the Commission might make.
“I need to put all the facts and figures together along with some examples and have that discussion with the Commission.
“Obviously it is something we don’t want to see in the game.
“I think some of them are worse than they look because the players head pops out rather than have the force come down on the back of his neck.”
When it was argued that could be the result of luck more than good management, Annesley agreed: “That is true.
“But it is a bit like a high tackle. You can’t charge a player with a high tackle if he hits him just below the neck. You can only charge on what happens, not what could have happened.
“I take your point. If they do go wrong it is a much more serious incident and potentially dangerous.
“That is why I want to talk to the commission about whether the penalties are sufficient or not.
“One of the things the match review process has to do is provide the necessary deterrent. If the deterrent isn’t working we need to have a look at that.”