Get ready for some sizzling NRL action, folks! The 2026 season is already causing a stir, and we're only two games in. The hot topic? You guessed it - high tackle charges and the inconsistency that has coaches, players, and fans alike up in arms.
Consistency: The Elusive Buzzword in NRL
In the world of NRL, 'consistency' has become a loaded term. And it's not just coaches and players who are throwing it around - commentators are joining the chorus too. But here's where it gets controversial... what does 'consistency' really mean when it comes to high tackles?
Let's rewind to the season opener. Penrith's star halfback, Nathan Cleary, was initially banned, only to have the decision reversed. The outcome? A grade two high tackle charge reduced to grade one. Cleary's father and coach, Ivan, had a closed-door judiciary hearing, and the result was a downgrade. But was it the right call?
Ivan Cleary had this to say: "I represented him because it was quite obvious that it wasn't direct contact to the head. Maybe the NRL needs to upgrade their review system."
The NRL has yet to comment on Cleary's remarks, but the discrepancy between referees, the match review committee, and the judiciary is a recurring issue. It's a debate that never seems to end, and it's already reared its head in 2026.
In the season opener, Braidon Burns of the Cowboys was binned for a high shot on Kalyn Ponga. But here's the twist: Tyson Frizell of the Knights wasn't binned for a similar tackle earlier in the game. The match review committee slapped Burns with a grade two charge, resulting in a two-game ban.
And this is the part most people miss: in the very next game, Stephen Crichton of the Bulldogs appeared to make shoulder contact with Setu Tu of the Dragons. Crichton was penalized, but not binned. And when the match review committee's charge sheet came out, Crichton's name was nowhere to be found.
Billy Slater, the Storm legend, had this to say: "I'm surprised Crichton didn't cop any charge. You've got a duty of care to players who are defenceless under those big kicks. The only protection they have is the rules of the game."
Dragons coach Shane Flanagan was left scratching his head too. When asked about consistency, he was cautious: "You can write your words and put my name underneath, but there were at least six or seven high tackles that went unpunished. Disappointing, but you're right about the inconsistency."
The NRL's high tackle crackdown of last season was a controversial move, leading to 18 sin bins in a single round. While regression to the mean was expected, the issue of perception remains. What the Bunker and match review committee see is often at odds with what everyone else sees.
Head office needs to address this issue sooner rather than later. The last thing they want is for this debate to hijack the news cycle again next Monday.
So, what's your take on this hot-button issue? Do you think the NRL needs to tighten up its consistency, or is this all part of the game? Let us know in the comments!
