Sin Bin

[Jeba]

Righto, as a result of the Mat Rogers sin binning against us on Friday night, there seems to be a new agenda and that is to relook at the sin bin rule.

http://www.nrl.com/NewsViews/LatestNews ... fault.aspx

So what do you think the rule should be?

I don't think the 10 minute rule should be scrapped. But I do think the 5 minute rule should still be bought in. And then make it 10 minute sin binning for foul play, and 5 minutes for a professional foul.

However, what I don't like is the suggestion of the offender being able to come back on after points are scored. Think of it this way. 10 minutes to go in the game, Queensland are down by 18 (so obviously this is a VERY hypothetical situation) and Luke O'Donnell gets sin binned 10 minutes for a spear tackle on Darius Boyd. NSW are down to 12 men for the rest of the game. Queensland gets the ball, and NSW know they are much better off defending 12 points when they have 13-on-13 than defending 18 points when they have 12-on-13. So in a simple "misunderstanding" in defence, they let Queensland score so that Luke O'Donnell can get back on the field and the task is much easier when both teams have the same number of players on the field.

So in summing up, my solution is:

-5 minutes for professional fouls (so Mat Rogers would've gotten 5 minutes)
-10 minutes for foul play (bad high tackles, spear tackles if not send-off worthy, grapples etc).

What is your solution?

 

[Flutterby]

I agree with you Jeb - they need to bring back the 5 minute sin bin

 

[OXY-351]

However, what I don't like is the suggestion of the offender being able to come back on after points are scored. Think of it this way. 10 minutes to go in the game, Queensland are down by 18 (so obviously this is a VERY hypothetical situation) and Luke O'Donnell gets sin binned 10 minutes for a spear tackle on Darius Boyd. NSW are down to 12 men for the rest of the game. Queensland gets the ball, and NSW know they are much better off defending 12 points when they have 13-on-13 than defending 18 points when they have 12-on-13. So in a simple "misunderstanding" in defence, they let Queensland score so that Luke O'Donnell can get back on the field and the task is much easier when both teams have the same number of players on the field.

That example doesn't make much sense to me. Why would they be better off letting in a try to allow them to defend a 12 point lead, with 13 on 13, when they could try and defend an 18 point lead with 12 on 13, and the worse that's going to happen is that if QLD do score, they'll end up defending a 12 point lead with 13 on 13 anyway? QLD need to score to win anyway, and if they do, NSW will be back to 13.

I agree in principle that coming back on after points are scored is a bad idea, but the example makes no sense as an argument for not coming back on, which I guess is why NSW would probably attempt to do it, so maybe your argument is correct.

 

[Nashy]

I think the rule needs to be more open. There are too many times when an offence should have the player punished. Use it for more stuff.

Head high tackles are usually a penalty, and if bad enough, a send off. So the players never get punished, because most of the time, a send off is far too harsh.

 

[Jeba]

I just re-read my example, man I must have been drunk. You're right that makes no sense!!!!

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

i read it and realised, but then was sad that someone else had pointed it out already :(

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

I think the rule needs to be more open. There are too many times when an offence should have the player punished. Use it for more stuff.

Head high tackles are usually a penalty, and if bad enough, a send off. So the players never get punished, because most of the time, a send off is far too harsh.

+1

 

[Black Philip]

I think the rule needs to be more open. There are too many times when an offence should have the player punished. Use it for more stuff.

Head high tackles are usually a penalty, and if bad enough, a send off. So the players never get punished, because most of the time, a send off is far too harsh.

+1

Also agree with this.

I realise it's been said a few times but how O'Donnell didn't get binned for his spear tackle on Boyd in origin 2 I will never know.

 

[Nashy]

I think that should have been a flat out send off to be honest.

 

[ningnangnong]

I think that should have been a flat out send off to be honest.

Yep, there was clear intent to throw Boyd on his head. It wasn't accidental. Definite send off.

 

[Ffs...]

However, what I don't like is the suggestion of the offender being able to come back on after points are scored. Think of it this way. 10 minutes to go in the game, Queensland are down by 18 (so obviously this is a VERY hypothetical situation) and Luke O'Donnell gets sin binned 10 minutes for a spear tackle on Darius Boyd. NSW are down to 12 men for the rest of the game. Queensland gets the ball, and NSW know they are much better off defending 12 points when they have 13-on-13 than defending 18 points when they have 12-on-13. So in a simple "misunderstanding" in defence, they let Queensland score so that Luke O'Donnell can get back on the field and the task is much easier when both teams have the same number of players on the field.

That example doesn't make much sense to me. Why would they be better off letting in a try to allow them to defend a 12 point lead, with 13 on 13, when they could try and defend an 18 point lead with 12 on 13, and the worse that's going to happen is that if QLD do score, they'll end up defending a 12 point lead with 13 on 13 anyway? QLD need to score to win anyway, and if they do, NSW will be back to 13.

I agree in principle that coming back on after points are scored is a bad idea, but the example makes no sense as an argument for not coming back on, which I guess is why NSW would probably attempt to do it, so maybe your argument is correct.

It doesn't make any sense, precisely why NSW will utilise this tactic in all 3 games next year. [icon_razz1

I like the way you had it though Jeb. I'm ok for the player to come back on from a professional foul if the other side scores, or 5 mins. But for dirty fouls 10 mins regardless.

But even straight out 5/10 is fine with me. The good thing about the 5 min rule is that it will get used more liberally, which means either the game will open up more as players either set a spell for 5, or get the hell off the tackled player (and god forbid stay onside when defending their goal line)