Nathan Cleary created a storm over the weekend when he accused Melbourne hooker Harry Grant of “playing for” a game-changing penalty, but in the end, he should have taken a look in the mirror first.
Cleary’s post-match rant following Thursday night’s golden-point epic has shown he is a hypocrite, as a damning vision dug up by Code Sports of the No. 7 from Penrith’s clash against the Storm last year shows he is no better than Grant.
If the 27-year-old were to cast his mind back to Round 1 last year, he did the same thing he accused Grant of doing, milking contact to win a penalty.
In 2024, the NRL announced they were cracking down on players standing next to the play the ball to make it harder for defenders to pressure kickers.
And knowing this new rule, on a fifth tackle play, Cleary ran straight into Melbourne prop Josh King, who was standing at first receiver.
After making what can only be described as minor contact, Cleary threw his arms in the air, spun around and complained to referee Gerard Sutton as Jahrome Hughes kicked the ball downfield.
In commentary, rugby league legend Andrew Johns pointed out Cleary’s “acting”.
“This is a new rule, and they’ve been quite pedantic early in the year,” Johns said.
“You can see Josh King there, he just stops.
“Nathan Cleary does his best acting. Nice spin there. But they’re cracking down on this.”
And just one week before he accused Grant of playing up for a penalty, he did what can only be descibed as ‘milking’ to win two penalties against the Knights.
On two separate occasions in the first half of the Panthers’ Round 23 clash with the Knights, Newcastle were penalised for their pressure on Cleary as he went to kick the ball on the final tackle.
Each time as Cleary kicked the ball, he threw himself to the ground and complained to the referee, who awarded him a penalty both times.
The first penalty was against Jermaine McEwen, who pushed Cleary while he still had the ball, but was still pinged.
“He couldn’t pull out of that,” Steve Roach said in commentary. While Warren Smith added, “That’s harsh”.
Then just minutes later he was back at it again.
This time, Cleary’s kicking leg came down on top of a Knights defender.
Cleary again threw himself to the ground and was subsequently awarded a penalty.
He got up with a smirk, high-fiving teammates as the Panthers continued to roll through the Knights
So safe to say Cleary is far from an innocent party in the ‘milking’ debate, which raged on over the weekend of footy action.
But his own history of ‘playing for’ penalties didn’t stop him from taking shots at Grant.
On Thursday night, the Storm star threw himself to the ground after colliding with Panthers forward Moses Leota, who stepped in front of the hooker, as he attempted to put pressure on Cleary.
The Panthers halfback ended up slotting the field goal, which would have given them a 19-18 lead. However, referee Ashley Klein waved it off, penalising Leota for being a blocker, preventing Grant from pressuring Cleary.
After Grant crossed for the winning try in golden point, he was labelled a cheat and an actor.
And Cleary’s post-match argument only added fuel to the fire.
“If that was in the field of play and you run a block shape, it wouldn’t have been an obstruction because they ruled that out if you’re typically defending at that three-man and you play for an obstruction, they don’t want that in the game,” he said.
“I don’t believe that everyone can get behind me on that field goal, and then essentially Harry played for it because he knew he was going to get the penalty.
“I don’t believe that Moses moved, so it was pretty frustrating.”
Could the NRL introduce a new measure to tackle diving?
The latest controversy also sparked a conversation around the growing number of players playing for penalties.
A possible way to address it could be with a yellow card-type system introduced, mirroring what soccer did to combat diving.
In soccer, players are cautioned if they go to ground in what the ref determines to be a play to win a free kick or penalty.
One yellow card is a warning, with the second resulting in the player being sent off.
And there is no reason with ‘diving’ spiking in the NRL, the league couldn’t bring in a similar measure, sending a player deemed to be simulating to the sin bin.
At the start of the season, the NRL put out a press release stating its desire to “minimise the incentive for players to ‘play for’ penalties.”
However, that clearly hasn’t worked with the Grant incident and Mitchell Moses’ dive the week before.
And veteran journalist Phil Rothfield believes sin-binning players deemed to be taking a dive could be the answer.
“It’s such a blight on the game, start sin-binning the players who are taking obvious dives,” Rothfield wrote in a column for Code Sports.
“I spoke to one coach over the weekend. He had this to say: ‘If a coach doesn’t tell his players to lie down, he’s not doing his job. If you don’t dive, you’re doing your team an injustice’.
“ … So the NRL bosses need to ask themselves, do we really want the play-offs – or the grand final – to be decided by a player taking a dive? And are we playing for the NRL trophy or the Academy Awards?”
