The NRL has reignited fears players will lay down for penalties after declaring the Canberra Raiders were rightly denied a penalty try because Sebastian Kris wasn't hit in the head hard enough.
In an explanation that will divide fans and fuel concerns about diving, the NRL admitted there was "obvious" contact with Kris' head when he was on the verge of scoring in a Friday-night cliffhanger.
Defender Dallin Watene-Zelezniak then knocked the ball out of Kris' hands, prompting a frustrated Raiders coach Ricky Stuart to lament the decision to play on after his side lost to the Warriors in golden point.
NRL head of football Graham Annesley highlighted the incident at his weekly briefing on Monday, but bizarrely said because Kris' head wasn't rocked back from impact, no penalty was warranted.
The Raiders were on the wrong end of a similar decision against the Warriors last year, when Matt Lodge was accused of laying down to get a match-winning penalty.
Stuart was gobsmacked by Annesley's explanation of the Kris incident.
"Graham and I have been mates for years and I have a lot of respect for him, but I don't understand what he's suggesting here," Stuart said.
"On one hand he's saying there was obvious contact with the head, but on the other hand he's saying it's not a penalty. What does he want Seb to do - lay down and put his head in his hands? Do we want to promote that?
"Do we want players to start acting as though they're injured? That's not what our game is about.
"If you get hit in the head it's a penalty no matter how much force there is. Unfortunately there are accidents, but I see accidents like that penalised in every other game.
"I get criticised for whingeing, but I've got to stick up for my players."
Stuart said the team had moved on and was only focused on getting their top-four hopes back on track ahead of a clash with the Knights on Saturday.
But the NRL has opened the door for head-contact confusion. The Raiders were trailing 8-6 at the time, but a penalty try would have put them in front at the break.
The referee ruled no try, and the bunker deemed the contact was incidental.
Annesley pointed to the lack of head movement from Kris as proof the contact was minimal, but in doing so he may encourage players to dive to win penalties.
"The point I wanted to make here ... it all happens very quickly and it wasn't until replays were shown that it's obvious that there is some contact with the face of Kris as he attempts to get the ball across the line," Annesley said.
"The question is about the contact with the face of Kris and did that warrant any further action.
Match Highlights 🎥 - #NRLWarriorsRaiders
— NRL (@NRL) July 21, 2023
A Shaun Johnson golden point field goal has helped the Warriors make it three on the trot, overcoming a gutsy Raiders comeback to win 21-20. pic.twitter.com/9JX65vAbdw
"It's hard to see what contact is there but you can see his hand kind of slide down what looks like his face, then he hits his arms or his hand hits the ball.
"Everyone knows what the game's attitude is to high tackles and high tackles with any significant force.
"The real question here is what is the level of contact and what is the significance of that contact.
"I'd ask you to look for any impact [on Kris' head]. Normally you would see when there's significant impact on a player from a high tackle, you will see a response from the ball-carrier's head.
"It will move, it will be pushed backwards or sideways depending on the force. But if you look at Sebastian's head here as the contact is made, it doesn't move."
The explanation has exposed a grey area in the NRL's rulings. Is contact with the head deemed a penalty irrespective of the force? Or is high contact only high contact when a player's head is rocked backwards?
The confusion has forced players and coaches to hit out in previous seasons, including Adam Reynolds claiming "people are diving and milking" by laying down and waiting for penalties after accidental contact.
Stuart has been urging the NRL to take away the incentive for players to lay down for almost a decade.
"I'm not suggesting that there hasn't been some incidental contact. There clearly has," Annesley said.
"So in the view of the bunker ... that's incidental contact but not forceful in its nature and the impact on Kris, the movement of his head, the arm hit the ball which caused possession to be lost.
"I know people will say any contact with the head should result in a penalty or a penalty try, as has been suggested [by Stuart].
"But if this was in general play, I put it to you that there would be no action on this incident. And if there wouldn't be any action in general play, why should there be action on it in trying to score a try. Effectively, it's a loose carry.
"We have no reason to disagree with the opinion of the bunker in this particular incident."
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
