Judiciary dishing out paltry fines is no deterrent to NRL stars when player safety should be paramount by StuffsEarth

There were two players that scored a hat-trick in Round 1 of the NRL – Christian Tuipulotu for St George Illawarra and Selwyn Cobbo for the Broncos. But the only people busier than these outside backs were the match reviewers, who were left with plenty of work to do with several players copping charges for high-tackles and other misdemeanours.

In total, 13 players were charged, including Jack Wighton, who will be banned for one match and cop a $1000 fine, Tyson Frizell who escaped with a fine for a careless high tackle on Jeral Skelton and Joe Tapine who will miss two matches for a grade-two shoulder charge.

But it was Stephen Crichton’s dropping of the knees into Tuipulotu that has received the most attention.

Even though it is his second offence, Crichton isn’t going to miss any game time and will instead pay a fine of between $1800.

For the best time in sport and racing, TAB has the best app in sport and racing. Download the TAB app. TAB, We’re On. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.

Out of the 14 charges levelled on the weekend, 11 were punishable by fine of $2500 or less. Given how small these fines are, my view is that the system needs a rethink, because genuinely what is the point?

In a sport where top-tier players are pocketing high six-figure salaries (and sometimes more), can a fine really serve as an effective deterrent? I don’t think so.

It also doesn’t line up with the NRL’s focus on player safety and the on again, off again crackdowns with contact to the head. I’m genuinely confused by the approach – is contact to the head a sin-bin, a penalty, worthy of missing game time or completely missed in the heat of the moment?

I understand we want players on the field as much as possible, but at what cost?

The role of the judiciary is to deter rough and dangerous play. Fines and suspensions are used to try and curb these types of behaviours.

But for players making serious money, a fine under $2500 is pocket change rather than a meaningful deterrent. This will continue to be the case as player salaries increase and when the best paid players in the NRL, like Cameron Munster, James Tedesco, or Nathan Cleary, are earning $1 million or more a year.

A fine represents a tiny fraction of their earnings and can’t possibly be more than a slap on the wrist (unless you are Ryan Matterson who famously elected to miss game time rather than pay a small fine).

Are the players even paying the fines themselves? Or does the club help with that too?

The only effective way to deter players from misconduct, is for them to miss game time through a sin-bin or a suspension. That’s the only thing that will genuinely hurt. In the case of Crichton, he cost his team a penalty try. I would argue that’s a more effective punishment than the fine.

For rookies or fringe players who might earn less than $150,000 a season, the fine may sting more, but for the game’s big earners, it’s a drop in the ocean and completely irrelevant.

If the NRL persists with fines, the only way to make it meaningful is to increase fines or introduce a tiered fine system based on a player’s salary, creating a proportional system that holds top earners accountable in a way that feels significant to them.

That said, a place where fines can still be relevant is in the women’s game. Most players in the women’s game are not full-time professional players and their contracts are for much smaller amounts.

In this context, a fine might actually act as a deterrent. Also, given the NRLW season is still so much shorter than the men’s, it seems more appropriate to financially penalise the players rather than having them miss 2-3 games, which is almost akin to a quarter of their season.