Immediate crusher tackle crackdown

Immediate crusher tackle crackdown to halt “concerning increase”
Author
Dan Walsh
NRL.com Reporter
Timestamp
Tue 18 Aug 2020, 07:08 PM

Crusher tackles will now draw a minimum one-game ban as the NRL attempts to curb a “concerning increase” in the dangerous tackling technique’s use.

The ARL Commission has announced a separate ‘crusher tackle’ charge has been added to the game’s judiciary code effective immediately after head of football Graham Annesley flagged several grade one offences this year that had not resulted in suspension.

Annesley identified 18 crusher-style tackle charges this year, equating to more than one per weekend of football.

The base penalties for crusher tackles will now be 200 points for a grade one, 350 points for a grade two and 500 points for a grade three.

Under the NRL’s judiciary code 100 points makes for a one-game suspension, with any offence deemed more serious than a grade three categorisation referred directly to the judiciary.

Previously an early guilty plea to a grade one crusher tackle-style offence would see a player escape suspension if they had no carry-over points.

“We have seen a concerning increase in the crusher-type tackles in recent years and the [ARL] Commission has approved stronger deterrents to reverse this trend,” Annesley said.

"Crusher tackles are dangerous and carry with them the real potential for catastrophic consequences to the tackled player.

"Despite the charges and warnings previously imposed, we have not seen a decline in offences, so it has become clear that the penalties we had in place were not sufficient.

"While we never want to see players suspended and would much prefer the offences do not occur, we have a responsibility to strike the right balance between deterrence and punishment.

“This is a serious player-safety issue and the changes are supported by the Rugby League Players Association.”

RLPA chief Clint Newton supported the move on behalf of the union but called for further education around the dangerous tackling style from the NRL to clubs and players.

“It is important that we continue to raise awareness across the playing group about the potential consequences of crusher-style tackles,” Newton said.

“We are supportive of the proposal as we believe it will help in achieving this, however any change endorsed by the commission should also be supported by further data analysis and education programs for players and coaching staff.”

Ok, so if the consequences of a crusher tackle are catastrophic then why don’t they classify the victim worthy of a HIA or NIA. It’s a joke the way the trainer runs on and does a basic/nothing assessment of the neck and then it’s play on. If the penalties are serious then the assessment needs to be treated just as serious (assessed by the team doctor). The NRL need to be transparent.

last edited by Tcat

The Eels are obviously coached to get up holding the back of their necks in tackles, seeking a crusher penalty - if this charade is to continue then players claiming a crusher should be taken from the field for an assessment period, say 15 minutes, otherwise penalties will continue to be milked.
Obviously there are also occasions when the crusher action does occur. The rise of players backing into tackles has made them open to this action when falling to the ground.

I think it’s great to eliminate the crusher. But lets also have a suspension for people found milking a penalty. The way Nathan Brown jumped back to his feet with the one for Blore was a joke.

@hammertime said in Immediate crusher tackle crackdown:

I think it’s great to eliminate the crusher. But lets also have a suspension for people found milking a penalty. The way Nathan Brown jumped back to his feet with the one for Blore was a joke.

7516519255095fdff81c3c1b3d43fbcd5ed94137.png

Slimey filth 😠

Great, now attackers that turn backwards into defenders, put themselves into dangerous positions and hold their necks will get their opponents suspended for two weeks

Stupidest rule in the game. It’s not that players are ignoring the crusher penalty - it’s that they’re being coached to milk for them that’s why there’s more crusher penalties

Expecting a whole lot more players milking for a crusher penalty in the tackle…

Oh for Pete’s sake.
This, the so called farce for blores tackle.
Packer was lucky to get off so lightly.
Two times in one game.
The bias on this site is ridiculous.

90ac2ff0-48dd-4aad-b6c2-d7e9544487e4-image.jpeg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/a1d13df39e8f582a3506178dc7d310ac

I think when players drop there weight, like Packer did, it’s fair enough to go hard on them - I know Packer didn’t land on him and lucky he didn’t.

BUT - there are far too many accidental ones that come from players reversing into tackles, and these are the really frustrating ones that get milked constantly.

@Needaname said in Immediate crusher tackle crackdown:

Oh for Pete’s sake.
This, the so called farce for blores tackle.
Packer was lucky to get off so lightly.
Two times in one game.
The bias on this site is ridiculous.

90ac2ff0-48dd-4aad-b6c2-d7e9544487e4-image.jpeg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/a1d13df39e8f582a3506178dc7d310ac

That ones a clear as day crusher. The issue is when players back themselves into defenders and drop down on purpose and hold their necks milking it. 90% of the time it’s the attacking player causing the crusher.

The NRL are opening Pandoras box here,i expect even more faking injuries from certain teams to gain an advantage(parra especially).

@TonyTiger said in Immediate crusher tackle crackdown:

The Eels are obviously coached to get up holding the back of their necks in tackles, seeking a crusher penalty - if this charade is to continue then players claiming a crusher should be taken from the field for an assessment period, say 15 minutes, otherwise penalties will continue to be milked.
Obviously there are also occasions when the crusher action does occur. The rise of players backing into tackles has made them open to this action when falling to the ground.

I am sure the Eels have a training session where they lay on the floor and practice holding there necks and coached for facial expressions of pain … also this throwing both arms up after every tackle now that really is becoming boring .

@JoshColeman99 said in Immediate crusher tackle crackdown:

@Needaname said in Immediate crusher tackle crackdown:

Oh for Pete’s sake.
This, the so called farce for blores tackle.
Packer was lucky to get off so lightly.
Two times in one game.
The bias on this site is ridiculous.

90ac2ff0-48dd-4aad-b6c2-d7e9544487e4-image.jpeg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/a1d13df39e8f582a3506178dc7d310ac

That ones a clear as day crusher. The issue is when players back themselves into defenders and drop down on purpose and hold their necks milking it. 90% of the time it’s the attacking player causing the crusher.

Yeah exactly…

Players backing into the tackle should get an instant ‘HELD’ call upon being grabbed. There needs to be a way of discouraging that running style. Can of worms they’ve just opened up is ridiculous.

The other one which bugs me is the 3rd man in tackler. Very dangerous considering the ball carrier often doesn’t see the 3rd man coming and can’t brace himself. It’s causing too many injuries.
Maybe a new rule which states the 3rd man in can’t initiate contact below the waste.

@Aesopian said in Immediate crusher tackle crackdown:

@JoshColeman99 said in Immediate crusher tackle crackdown:

@Needaname said in Immediate crusher tackle crackdown:

Oh for Pete’s sake.
This, the so called farce for blores tackle.
Packer was lucky to get off so lightly.
Two times in one game.
The bias on this site is ridiculous.

90ac2ff0-48dd-4aad-b6c2-d7e9544487e4-image.jpeg https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/a1d13df39e8f582a3506178dc7d310ac

That ones a clear as day crusher. The issue is when players back themselves into defenders and drop down on purpose and hold their necks milking it. 90% of the time it’s the attacking player causing the crusher.

Yeah exactly…

Players backing into the tackle should get an instant ‘HELD’ call upon being grabbed. There needs to be a way of discouraging that running style. Can of worms they’ve just opened up is ridiculous.

The other one which bugs me is the 3rd man in tackler. Very dangerous considering the ball carrier often doesn’t see the 3rd man coming and can’t brace himself. It’s causing too many injuries.
Maybe a new rule which states the 3rd man in can’t initiate contact below the waste.

They’ve started penalising the ‘hip drop’ tackle in judiciary where the third man in tackles around the waist or lower and pretty much puts all their weight on the attacking player. Caused a few injuries this year

Aaron Woods’ value suddenly skyrocketed.

“Backing into the defensive line is now encouraged? That sounds like my music!”

Recent Topics

Support our community by clicking here and joining our Forum Support Scheme