Eels Blogs

The NRL concedes Nelson Asofa-Solomona should have copped a far more serious punishment than the slap on the wrist handed out by the match review committee.

DISLIKES

The NRL believes Melbourne’s Nelson Asofa-Solomona should have been sin binned and be facing up to two weeks on the sideline for a high shot on Parramatta’s Makahesi Makatoa.

Instead the Storm forward has accepted an early plea on a grade one careless high tackle charge, which only attracts a $1,000 fine.

But on Monday, the game’s head of football Graham Annesley revealed the match review committee deemed Asofa-Solomona’s contact with Makatoa’s head as ‘low to moderate’, a ruling ‘NRL management’ did not agree with.

Annesley said Asofa-Solomona should have been charged with a grade two careless high tackle.

Under the NRL’s new judiciary system, a grade two careless high tackle carries a two week suspension if found guilty or one week on the sideline if an early plea is taken.

“Our view of this particular incident is that we think the referee should have put Nelson in the sinbin for the incident and we are confident that the match review committee has been through the right process, that they have considered all the right factors but we don’t think they have placed enough emphasis on the the degree of force,” Annesley said.

“They have assessed the level of force as low to moderate, in management we are of the view that the level of force was more than that.

“We think that level of force was enough to push the charge into the grade two category.

“In this particular instance, we feel the circumstance of the tackle should have warranted a grade two charge. The match review felt a grade one for the reasons they have indicated. We disagree with them on this account.

Match review committee manager Luke Patten released a statement explaining ‘a clear and quick drop in height’ from Makatoa contributed to Asofa-Solomona making contact with the head of the Eels forward.

“A high tackle by Melbourne Storm player Nelson Asofa-Solomona on Eels player Makahesi Makatoa in the 53rd minute was reviewed and charged,” Patten said.

“The contact was made by player Asofa-Solomona’s right arm to the back part of Makahesi Makatoa’s head as he was falling to the ground. In relation to the key grading indicators, we assess the force as low to moderate with player Makahesi Makatoa falling backwards, player Asofa-Solomona contributing to the force in the tackle.

“Player Asofa-Solomona’s actions were deemed as careless whilst the risk of injury was assessed as low, with player Makahesi Makatoa getting to his feet and playing the ball quickly.

“There is a clear and quick drop in height from Makahesi Makatoa as he is tackled by two other Storm players, this mitigating factor was taken into account when assessing the final grading.”

The key grading indicators used by the match review committee include force, risk of injury and intention. Those factors then have to be graded as low, moderate or high.

The match review committee then must consider a number of aggravating or mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors include injury to a player, direct contact to the head and neck, no ability for the player to protect themselves.

Mitigating factors, which were used to lessen the charge for Asofa-Solomona include other players impacting the outcome, contact not being direct and the attacking player dropping significantly in the tackle.

Annesley was also quick to point out that while he did not agree with the grade one charge, the NRL was not ‘critical’ of the match review committee process.

“We’re not critical of them for the process they went through or the way they have applied their thought processes to all of the factors required to consider under our rules. We don’t agree with their judgement in relation to the degree of force, we believe it was greater than they have adjudicated,” Annesley said.

— Fatima Kdouh

PAUL CRAWLEY’S TAKE

Parramatta are privately filthy over the grading of Nelson Asofa-Solomona’s shocking high shot on Makahesi Makatoa.

The controversial tackle has also highlighted glaring inconsistencies over what constitutes a sin bin and what doesn’t after Asofa-Solomona stayed on the field after being placed on report during Parramatta’s win over Melbourne.

Many feel it’s a blatant unfairness relating to the haves and have nots in the competition.

Every bit as puzzling as the handling of the tackle during the game was the match review committee’s decision on Sunday to deem Asofa-Solomona’s tackle a grade one careless, allowing him to escape with a $1000 fine with an early guilty plea.

That decision has enraged the Eels.

What the NRL can’t allow is to have it continuing to appear as though there are rules for some and rules for others when it comes to who gets sin binned, cops suspensions and who doesn’t.

And how on earth anyone could argue Jaydn Su’A’s high shot on Dale Finucane on Thursday was more worthy of a sin bin than the incident involving Asofa-Solomona on Makatoa on Saturday is beyond me.

In Su’A’s case, the St George Illawarra enforcer clearly hit Finucane high, and while it was careless rather than intentional, under the current guidelines it was certainly worthy of sin bin consideration.

Yet it was not in the same ball park as Asofa-Solomona’s inexcusable attack on Makatoa that was not sin binned.