Sin Bins and suspension!

[Disco]

What is everyone's thoughts in regards to an automactic 1 game suspension if a player is sinbinned 3 times in a season?

In the EPL if a player accumulates 5 yellow cards they miss a match. Now i understand this proposal is a little different in that the player and team are already penalised by missing ten minutes on the field.

However i think there does need to be a deterrent to continued grubby play.

From memory Slater has already been binned twice this year. Now theoretically he could be playing a match in the next month with two minutes left on the clock, Storm leading by 4, opposing team makes a break which he covers but then he lays all over the player committing a professional foul and getting sin binned.

So what, saved a try, minimal time left, his team win's, getting sin binned is the favourable option.....illegal play wins on the day!.

Theoretically this could play out week after week after week with no further punishment.

I think to combat against this, in the very rare case that a player cops 3 sin bins in a season they automatically miss a match, no hearing, no appeal, just one match out, thats it!

 

[firechild]

Not a bad idea. I'm not sure this has anything to do with grubby play because these days sin bins are usually related to repeat infringements, professional fouls or dissent, none of which would really come under the category of grubby play.

 

[Disco]

Yeah probably bad wording, i just mean repeat offenders need a wrap across the knuckles

 

[Tigger Madness]

Sure why not.

 

[Western_Eel]

Not really because people get sent off for stupid reasons nowdays, and i dont think you should lose a player if he holds a another player down to long in a tackle

 

[firechild]

Not really because people get sent off for stupid reasons nowdays, and i dont think you should lose a player if he holds a another player down to long in a tackle

But how often are players binned 3 times in a season? It's not like someone is going to get suspended for 1 simple infringement.

 

[El Diablo]

nope

professional fouls are probably the reason for most sin binnings and 3 of those don't mean you should also miss a match

 

[Suitman]

I think you make a valid point OP.
Problem is, the Slater scenarion could be played out on their first or second sin binning. A team could even win a grand final on the same scenario. It would be a tough rule to get right.

Suity

 

[Disco]

nope

professional fouls are probably the reason for most sin binnings and 3 of those don't mean you should also miss a match

I disagree, i think 3 professional fouls in 1 season shows a player has the mindset of using illegal play as a deliberate tactic to win.

I mean this would be a rare occasion ( i cant think of any players to cop 3 in a season) but i still think its deserving of further punishment

 

[DJShaksta]

Just quietly how funny was it hearing Cameron Smith blaming the loss on Slaters sin binning.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

Just quietly how funny was it hearing Cameron Smith blaming the loss on Slaters sin binning.

The repeat sets while he was off where the sharks couldn't buy a score took it out of the storm a bit - but kudos to the sharks for the win, their defense was in storm's face all game & effectively shut their game down in a lot of it. Slater was crook & just got clearance to play at the last minute but there's no doubt he can pull some magic out a lot of the time usually & that could be what Smith meant?

 

[shaggs]

Cam smith does nothing but whinge. Even when they win, there is always something wrong. Can't stand him.

 

[Elektrik Shock]

I think your close OP, problem is 3 sin bins effectively means the player in question has served his punishment, unlike yellow cards where its just a caution. Now, 3 citings to the judiciary (even if the player successfully fights and gets all 3 disregarded) could maybe force an automatic 1 week suspension, because that is repeated violent play.

 

[bottle]

I think your close OP, problem is 3 sin bins effectively means the player in question has served his punishment, unlike yellow cards where its just a caution. Now, 3 citings to the judiciary (even if the player successfully fights and gets all 3 disregarded) could maybe force an automatic 1 week suspension, because that is repeated violent play.

I see what you're getting at, but can't apply if the charges are dismissed because that implies innocence. Can't suspend a guy who's been found innocent three times.

 

[carcharias]

No because it gives the next team to play them an advantage.
Why do they get it?

 

[Pierced Soul]

nope stupid idea. the sin bin is the penalty. the team has one less player on the park. besides the fact you cant contest the validity of the sin bin (in eras gone past the wrong people have been binned) you cant have someone suspended because they argued with a ref, or they were constantly offside

 

[Patorick]

What is everyone's thoughts in regards to an automactic 1 game suspension if a player is sinbinned 3 times in a season?

In the EPL if a player accumulates 5 yellow cards they miss a match. Now i understand this proposal is a little different in that the player and team are already penalised by missing ten minutes on the field.

However i think there does need to be a deterrent to continued grubby play.

From memory Slater has already been binned twice this year. Now theoretically he could be playing a match in the next month with two minutes left on the clock, Storm leading by 4, opposing team makes a break which he covers but then he lays all over the player committing a professional foul and getting sin binned.

So what, saved a try, minimal time left, his team win's, getting sin binned is the favourable option.....illegal play wins on the day!.

Theoretically this could play out week after week after week with no further punishment.

I think to combat against this, in the very rare case that a player cops 3 sin bins in a season they automatically miss a match, no hearing, no appeal, just one match out, thats it!

 

[firechild]

No because it gives the next team to play them an advantage.
Why do they get it?

Going by that logic either no player should ever be suspended or players should serve their suspensions only against the team that the suspension was earned against (e.g. Tony Williams would have had to sit out the next 7 matches against Cronulla whenever they occurred).

 

[jonno_knights]

They have a similar rule in the NBA with technical fouls dont they?

I dont think there is a need for it in the NRL, and I dont agree with the way it is used in soccer because their refs use yellow cards left right and centre, and interpretations are always different at different stages of the match.

 

[Geohood]

It's not a necessary rule change... no point really at the end of the day.