Robert Hicks: RFL made head contact law revisions to help referees and for clarity

Fa'amanu Brown found out he had no charge to answer by the match review panel despite a red card

Amendments to the head contact framework have been made to help officials make calls and for clarity, says Rugby Football League director of legal and operations Robert Hicks.

Nu Brown saw red for Hull against Warrington after an accidental clash post-first-contact with Ben Currie.

Now, referees will apply the framework only to initial contact in a tackle.

"Sanctioning doesn't always have to be at the top end," Hicks told the 5 Live Rugby League Podcast.

"Such as a dismissal and match bans. There has to be a graduated theme through that, and so we think by putting the word initial back into that first question it gives referees greater flexibility to use their rugby league knowledge.

"And, for players to understand that we're not here to just say that everything in life is going to be black and white and perfect."

The professional game framework itself was brought in for 2024 to give referees clear guidance as to how head contacts should be penalised during a match.

Now, following the change, in a flow-chart like diagram, officials first pose the question - 'was initial contact made with the ball carrier's head/neck on contact by the tackler's upper or lower limb, shoulder, head or other body part?'

If the answer is 'yes' then the next step is - 'was it forceful or dangerous?' If so, the recommendation is a red card unless there are mitigating factors.

These include; the player bending at the waist or knees in a clear attempt to reduce tackle height and a tackled player losing height to bring about the head collision, players making a definite attempt to reduce tackle height, reactionary initial contact in which the tackler releases their opponent instantly, and head contact indirect or secondary - such as Brown's collision with Currie.

If those are met, then the tackle can instead prompt a sin-bin. If not forceful or dangerous, then a sin-bin or penalty could be sufficient, particularly with mitigation.

"Head on head contacts are the biggest issue in relation to concussion for players of tackler and ball carrier," Hicks - himself a former experienced referee - added.

"That was meant around initial contact into a tackle, we did accept there were always things that would happen within a tackle that would be outside the framework that would be part of the mechanics of the moving feast that a rugby tackle is."

The case of Nu Brown examined

One of the main reasons for the revision of the law following Friday's Super League game is that video referee Liam Moore had been unable to rule away from the framework because that opening question of whether contact was initial or not did not exist.

All Moore could do was take into account all of the contact, and apply the framework to everything within that sequence of play.

"He looked at the framework and went through it and said - it is head contact, it clearly has to be forceful - I mean, Ben Currie ends up with a significant gash and stitches so no one can deny it's forceful, he knows 'head-on-heads' are the one thing we're trying to reduce, and then goes - where's the mitigation?" Hicks continued.

"Nu's upright in the tackle, his head is up and the ball carrier hasn't done anything that would have been out of the ordinary, so he was probably left in an invidious position where he's actually having to recommend a red card and without that word initial in there had no way of saying - there is mitigation and this is a rugby league incident.

"We've always said, if we put people into a position where it needed a review then we would do that, that's what we've tried to do and clarify that

"Hull were very magnanimous, Tony Smith has been a great supporter of what we're trying to achieve, James Clarke [CEO] -I've spent a number of times on the phone with him and he's engaged."

Much of the work done around reducing head contact centres on the need to ensure the game is as safe as it can be from a player welfare perspective in addition to the cost implications of the necessary insurance following a hike in premiums.

Yet there is still an appreciation that rugby league is a physical, collision sport and that is one of its key components for fans, players, former players and coaches alike.

"This is all about player safety but similarly we can't eliminate every risk from the sport and we don't want to make rugby league something that it's not," Hicks added.

"We're on a fine balance here and this is right for us to go forward and change."