After a few eye-opening events over the weekend, NRL legend Cameron Smith has voiced his concerns about a rising trend of players going down to milk penalties. One such incident included Dragons five-eighth Kyle Flanagan against Manly. Another involved a contentious try to Sea Eagles second-rower Haumole Olakau’atu, which the NRL has now acknowledged was an obstruction.

In the Dragons’ 30-14 loss to Manly, Flanagan was part of both of those big talking points, but it was his attempt to milk a penalty by staying down after a tackle that infuriated Smith. In the sixty-first minute, the Dragons’ playmaker dived under Olakau’atu’s tackle and remained on the ground for a few moments before his team was eventually given a penalty.

Olakau’atu was placed under investigation at the time, however he was not suspended because the match review committee determined that there had been little to no contact with the head. During his team’s Saturday night loss to the Roosters, Parramatta Eels second-rower Kelma Tuilagi also fell down in an even more remarkable event. Replays showed Joey Manu tackled Tuilagi across the shoulders, but Tuilagi acted as though he’d been struck across the face in a tackle and secured a penalty for his team.

Cam Smith wants to punish athletes who take advantage of infractions.
The ball-carrier’s actions effectively tricked the officials into giving penalties even though neither of the tackles warranted them. Furthermore, Smith thinks that the NRL must take strong action against what he and many other supporters see as a worrying player simulation tendency that is permeating the game.

As the legendary NRL player stated on SEN radio, “it’s slowly crept into our game.” “I believe that it is a little bit harsh to fine someone. It’s okay to penalise the player if they try to take advantage of it. It looks awful and isn’t really good for our game.

“Players will stay down if they sense touch because they are searching for any kind of edge. Why not award the defensive team a penalty if the Bunker intervenes and determines that there was no head contact but the player is holding their head?

“Players are aware that the bunker will examine everything quickly. Introduce the HIA rule, which states that you must exit the field if you remain on the ground and do not get to your feet.” That’s exactly what occurred to Flanagan, the Dragons player, who had to leave the pitch late in the second half when he continued to lie down and grab his head.

Manly try vs Dragons was obstruction, NRL acknowledges.
During the heated 16-point defeat to Manly, Flanagan experienced other significant flashpoints. Commentators, fans, and the Dragons five-eighth were all perplexed when Flanagan appeared to be blocked by Ben Trbojevic from tackling Olakau’atu on the Sea Eagles’ second try. The Dragons were ahead 10–4 at the time, and the Sea Eagles overcame a huge deficit to win because of the bunker’s decision to give the try.

In his weekly talk on Monday, NRL head of football Graham Annesley acknowledged that the Dragons were, in fact, duped and that the try should have been overturned by the bunker. “Haumole returns through that gap after the ball crosses Ben (Trbojevic’s) back, and at this point, Ben and Kyle Flanagan make contact,” Annelsey stated.

“At this moment, it’s evident that Kyle Flanagan needs to move around Ben in order to get to the ball carrier. In the end, he manages to reach Haumole, but not well enough to save the try from going in. Ben came to a stop in the queue. He stops in the queue in addition to making contact with Flanagan’s outside shoulder. Even though he didn’t stop Kyle from getting there, there is undoubtedly an effect on how he got there and whether he might have moved to obstruct the try from being scored.

“We acknowledge that the bunker judgements regarding obstruction are contentious at times. When they examine the elements in each of these situations and make a determination, it is evidently the bunker’s judgement. Although we have examined this much more than the Bunker has, it doesn’t change the fact that, in our opinion, this attempt should have been overturned (and prohibited) based on how we have ruled on it in the past.