However, leading lawyer Nick Ghabar is vehemently opposed to the move. Ghabar is the legal eagle players turn to when contesting charges at the judiciary, acting for the majority of clubs because of his high success rate.

Ghabar usually keeps a low public profile, but expressed his concerns about the ramifications of what he described as "policy on the run".

"This crusher crackdown is going to bring some people undone," Ghabar said. "The system isn't broken, but they keep tinkering with it. It's unfair to change it on the run.

"At the higher end [of gradings] it's not a good look, but if you're going to change the low-end penalty mid-season, it can't be fair.

"Then we're going to have players missing finals games simply because they had a clean record, but you've changed it leading into the back end of the season.

Loading

"It's pretty unfair if you do it mid-season because we've been operating for more than half a season where there has been one set of rules and now players have to operate under a different set of rules. And you are still going to apply loadings and still apply carry-overs from the previous system. They are having their cake and eating it, too."

There have been 16 charges for crusher tackles in the first 12 rounds, with Jake Friend and Lachlan Croker attracting charges on Thursday and Friday night respectively.

"The matter is currently being reviewed by the commission," said NRL head of football Graham Annesley. "Unfortunately, the incidence of this type of tackle is increasing rather than decreasing. We have an obligation to player safety to ensure the appropriate deterrents are in place."

The NRL's latest crackdown on crushers comes a year after their previous one. Head office changed its match review process in June 2019 so that all crusher tackles deemed reckless or intentional are referred directly to the judiciary panel.

However, Ghabar said the tendency for the ball carrier to back into the defence would lead to an increase in players being sidelined unnecessarily.

"There's only a limited range of things a player can do in those circumstances," Ghabar said. "It's reactionary. We had a decent system for a while and we're taking this reactionary approach for no good reason.

"If it's serious, charge them with a grade three or refer them to the judiciary. There's no reason for you not to do that.

"They have a system they have trumpeted as being flexible and it's working. Why do they feel the need to change it just 12 months since they last changed it for this particular issue.

"You shouldn't have people missing games, they should cop a penalty that they can learn from."

Having defended players in countless judiciary hearings, Ghabar is in a unique position to provide an insight into the system. He believes it is already stacked too heavily against the defendant.

Loading

"I don't think they really understand the onus issue – the onus being on the judiciary counsel to prove [a charge]," he said. "That's what players are struggling with at the moment.

"What gets me at the moment is that although the player doesn't have to prove anything – the judiciary counsel has to prove their case – unless you go in there with a strong argument, you're no chance.

"Even if judiciary counsel's case is weak and you have a strong argument, it seems the odds are stacked against the player."