NRL says players need to take responsibility amid diving debate

NRL head of football Graham Annesley has urged players to take more responsibility for their own actions amid the diving debate.

Parramatta’s Maika Sivo is attended to after being tackled during the match against Melbourne Storm. Picture: Phil Hillyard

NRL head of football Graham Annesley has put the onus back on players to accept responsibility for their own actions as the diving debate and revised crusher tackle rules create a series of fissures across the coaching fraternity.

The crusher and diving debates simultaneously became talking points after an incendiary night at Bankwest Stadium, where Parramatta coach Brad Arthur and his Melbourne counterpart Craig Bellamy butted heads over a series of incidents.

Two Melbourne players – Cooper Johns and Albert Vete – were placed on report for crusher tackles. Both were exonerated by the match review committee on Friday. Eels forward Marata Niukore wasn’t placed on report but was charged by the match review committee for a crusher tackle on Tom Eisenhuth.

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 >

Arthur bristled after the game when it was suggested winger Maika Sivo may have stayed down to milk a penalty when he was put in an awkward position by Johns. Bellamy intimated there may have been some milking involved.

Annesley wants players to end the debate once and for all by accepting their share of responsibility.

“My comments are not specifically in relation to last night as this is an issue that comes up on a regular basis,” Annesley said.

“It’s extremely difficult for anyone other than a player claiming he is injured to know whether he is in fact, injured or not.

“Referees are not doctors and are certainly not in any position to tell a player he is feigning injury. The bunker and match review committee similarly have very little prospect of determining injury based solely on video review.

“In general, players have an ethical responsibility not to abuse rules put in place to protect them from injury. Suggestions of having players spend mandatory periods of time off the field if they claim they are injured from these types of tackles will only open the door to abuse of the interchange rule.

“The bottom line is, players always have a duty to accept personal responsibility for their actions as their own integrity and credibility is at stake.”

The milking debate has been exacerbated because of the greater impost now caused by judiciary charges around the crusher tackle. There is widespread support for eradicating the practice from the game, but concern at the same time that the changes may result in players being sidelined for what amounts to an accident.

“I think it’s great that we’re cracking down on the crusher because it could be very, very dangerous and something that when you’re looking at the back of the spine and the neck you do not want that extent of an injury to a player,” Canberra coach Ricky Stuart said. “We have to be very careful though because we have a situation at the moment where a lot of attackers back into the defensive line as well.

“And we‘re finding an exorbitant amount of penalties now given with players getting into that position. Yes, we have to eradicate the tackle but we’ve also got to be very, very mindful of players milking a penalty out of it, because you’ve got a player’s short-term career on the line.

“I think if there is a concern over a crusher tackle, I think that it should be like the HIA. A player is taken off for 15 minutes to assess the injury.”

Souths coach Wayne Bennett was unequivocal as he addressed the issue. Bennett watched backrower Ethan Lowe get sidelined earlier this season after he was the victim of a crusher tackle.

“People get serious injuries from that tackle so I can’t understand why you want to apologise for it or why you want to make an excuse about it,” Bennett said.

“The reality is if it’s a crusher tackle, it’s a crusher tackle – the judiciary will make that decision if you’re not sure about it and we’re going to have to live with the consequences.”