A frustrated Victor Radley insists he does not need to change his tackling style despite being rubbed out for five matches and missing the opening two State of Origins for NSW as a result.
Radley on Tuesday night failed to have his high-tackle charge downgraded, copping a four-game ban for his high shot on Brisbane's Tevita Pangai.
The ban is compounded by the one week the Sydney Roosters lock had already accepted for hitting Albert Kelly high after the Broncos half kicked.
Radley is viewed by many as one of the men most at risk from the NRL's crackdown, given his style as one of the game's legitimate enforcers.
He was twice sin-binned in the Brisbane loss and placed on report four times before two of the incidents resulted in charges.
But the disappointed Roosters lock insists he does not need to change his style, taking a thinly-veiled swipe at the league's crackdown.
"I'm really confident and I'm really happy with my tackling style," Radley said after the hearing.
"I don't think my tackling style needs adjusting, I've been taught from a very young age by very good coaches a great tackling style.
"Just because they decide to change the rules midway through the season doesn't mean I have to change my tackling style.
"There's obviously situations in the game like on the weekend where I got it wrong. I can't do that. But I don't think it's my tackling style."
Radley also insisted it wasn't as simple as just making more leg tackles in the modern game.
"Tackling low isn't the answer," he said.
"I can't be premeditating tackling low and getting myself knocked out, copping elbows and hips.
"I know I can't hit the head, but tackling low isn't the answer."
Earlier, it took the three-man panel of Bob Lindner, Tony Puletua and Dallas Johnson 30 minutes to rule against the 23-year-old.
NRL counsel Peter McGrath argued in the 70-minute hearing Radley had launched at speed and with moderate force to the side of Pangai's face.
"It adds up to an unacceptable risk of injury to the face of Pangai Junior," McGrath said.
But Radley's lawyer James McLeod unsuccessfully claimed while the collision of the two bodies was significant, the contact with the head was "fleeting" and "incidental".
He also argued Pangai had remained on the field which was significant despite the arguments from McGrath.
"There is no injury," McLeod told the panel.
"Pangai Junior does not go off and you see he gets back to his feet and he has a wry smile.
"He gets up no doubt aware he has chosen to play in a contact sport with collision from time to time.
"And (he) gets on with it, in circumstances where unfortunately there was a low degree of contact to the head."