The NRL have moved to clarify their position on defenders placing pressure on kickers after a pair of penalties created controversy over the course of Round 9.
In what has been just one of many seeming crackdowns from the NRL and their match officials this year, pressure on kickers has been scrutinised to a higher level than ever before, coming to a head over the weekend when Nicho Hynes received a penalty for an almost simultaneous tackle by second-rower Coen Hess during the Cronulla Sharks' win over the North Queensland Cowboys.
That came just 48 hours before Sean Keppie was penalised for a push on Tanah Boyd where little to no contact appeared to be made during the Manly Sea Eagles' loss to the Gold Coast Titans at Brookvale.
Speaking at his weekly footy briefing, the NRL's head of football Graham Annesley referenced a memo from July 2021 which referenced four key areas referees should be looking for in relation to penalising defenders hitting kickers after the ball had left the boot.
"There has been a view expressed that the NRL and the referees have gone overboard with the protection of kickers, and this goes right back to a directive that came from the [ARL] commission," Annesley said.
"You can see this is from July 2021, and it talks about protecting kickers. There are a few key points to come out of this which I've tried to summarise in terms of what do we mean when we talk about protecting kickers?
"What it really comes down to is there are four things the referees are really looking for.
"One is whether it's late or not, and contact with kickers after the ball has been kicked won't always be deemed to be late, the second one is high obviously, if there is contact with the head or neck, everyone knows that contact with the head or neck is a no-no these days, so that's another factor they look for.
"The danger of the contact. Is there an unacceptable risk of injury as a result of that contact, and the final point, which was largely the focus of the memo [from July, 2021] that I just referred to was this issue of vulnerability. That's where one or both feet are off the ground, or a player is off balance."
Speaking specifically to the two examples on the weekend just gone, Annesley explained that both had to be penalised given where they fell under the memo, siding with the match officials who had made the decisions.
"[In the Hess on Hynes example] everyone talks about "that's not late, he's already committed to the tackle", but again, think about the four factors. It's obviously not high in this case, but have a look at the risk of injury, but also the vulnerability. Hynes has both point off the ground [when Hess makes contact]. It's around the waist, but he is off balance and he lands heavily on the ground," Annesley said, explaining the penalty on Hess.
Annesley revealed the Keppie penalty for his push on Tanah Boyd after the ball had left the boot garnered more attention and criticism, however, suggested the push wasn't necessary, and could have left Boyd staring at a number of different injuries if he didn't land as safely as he ultimately did.
"This one [Keppie on Boyd] did receive a fair amount of criticism. What we saw in real time was a push. From a rear angle, I'm the first to admit there isn't a lot in the push, but is the push even necessary?" Annesley said.
"Again, he [Boyd] is a foot off the ground at this point where the push takes place. He lands on one leg, off balance because he has been pushed, he then falls to ground, and there is a whiplash effect as he hits the ground.
"The impact of a player who is off the ground, both feet off the ground, pushed, has no ability to recover from that, no one knows what the outcome of that tackle is going to be. How he is going to land. Whether he is going to land badly on an ankle, injure a knee, hit their head on the ground. Again, it's all of those factors that the match officials are looking for."
Annesley said the perceived crackdown on pressure against kickers was not the NRL overreacting.
"There is a difference [between a safe hit and a dangerous one]. It's not the referees being pedantic, it's not the NRL overreacting. When a player is off the ground and put on the ground from that position of being vulnerable in mid air, everyone loses control of the outcome, and it's too late after a player lands awkwardly on his head, after he lands awkwardly on his ankle, and does ligament damage or breaks an ankle, or does an achilles or a knee. You name it, anything that can happen when you fall on the ground awkwardly," Annesley said.
"That's what it's about. It's about trying to protect players. Let's face it. One of the tactics in trying to take kickers out without high contact or overly vigorous contact is to make sure that the kicker can't chase. To make sure that they can't put players in front of them onside and it's just not necessary. It's unnecessary. You can still apply kick pressure without the risk of injury, and that's what we are trying to prevent."
“Speaking at his weekly footy briefing, … Graham Annesley referenced a memo from July 2021”
It’s a shame no-one asked him why it has taken nearly two years for the refs to have acted on it. The words may have been written a long time ago, but I think someone (maybe GA, maybe someone else) has been in the referees’ ears for the last few weeks, and that is the reason for the new/renewed focus.