A Simpler Suspension system

[adamkungl]

This is raised partially due to the Wade Graham situation, but for what little it's worth, I'll say it's not biased by it.

The problems:

1) the NRL suspends its stars way too often for minor issues where a penalty is sufficient. We've seen it before, Cam Smith, Issac Luke, Luke Ricketson missing Grand Finals for 'Grade 1' offences. I'm not suggesting big games are weighted differently, I'm suggesting Grade 1 offences arent worth suspension time at all.

At the same time we have the laughable situation of coaches sooking about players missing club games for rep matches and whinging about depth, when the suspension system takes players away from minor shit every week. Grade 1s are accidental, borderline things that rarely result in injury. Suspensions are unlikely to result in any change of technique or behaviour here.

2) the system itself is convoluted. Bloated and complicated, and most people don't understand it.
There are, for example, 15 suspendable grades of high tackle, arbitrary points allocated to a myriad of vague offences, and a loading and carry-over points system that double dips in punishment.

3) suspension punishments don't assist the victim team in any way.

The solution:

A simpler grading system with less suspensions for low grades and more use of available on-field punishments.
Gradings:
3 grades for charged offences down from 5. Basically 1 = Careless/Accidental, 2 = Reckless/Avoidable, 3 = Deliberate/Dangerous, but tailored specifically for different offences where necessary.
An injury to the victim results in a +1 increase in grading.
High tackles are no longer grouped into 3 different types before grading.

Suspensions:
Grade 1 is a warning. 3 strikes results in a 1 week suspension. A Warning lasts for 1 year, and is not reset upon receiving a suspension.
Grade 2 is a 2 week suspension.
Grade 3 is a 6+ week suspension judged on severity.

Loading:
A first suspension has a discount of 1 week.
A 5 year suspension free period has a discount of 1 week.
A third or more suspension carries a penalty of 1 week for each.

Points system,: gone.
Carry overs: gone.

On-field:
Referees are encouraged to use sin-bin and send-off more often.
Cheating, professional fouls, repeat infringements after warnings result in a 10 minute sin-bin.
Violent play deemed reckless is given a 10 minute sin-bin.
Violent play deemed deliberate, or reckless and resulting in injury is given a full send-off.

Referees judging something 'ON REPORT' is thrown in the bin where it belongs because it makes no sense in a time when every game is filmed and scrutinsed.


Flame away

 

[Caped Crusader]

 

[gUt]

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

If you're ryles you get 6 weeks

All others can play.

 

[Lambretta]

Suspensions:
Grade 1 is a warning. 3 strikes results in a 1 week suspension. A Warning lasts for 2 years, and is not reset upon receiving a suspension.
Grade 2 is a 2 week suspension.
Grade 3 is a 6+ week suspension judged on severity.

Loading:
A first suspension has a discount of 1 week.
A 5 year suspension free period has a discount of 1 week.
A third or more suspension carries a penalty of 1 week for each.

No flaming from me - I agree. Someone get this merkin a job at the NRL

The only part I have an issue with is the length of time a warning lasts

Currently, carry over points last a frigging eternity and some minor pissy offence a year ago, means you're suspended for a second accidental pissy offence today. It's utter bullshit

If they retain carry over points they should start diminishing the first week you play

Given 100 points - then next week you drop 5. So you play 10 games and your carry over points have halved. By the end of the season they're gone

Each season lasts 20 odd games - each game many players make 50 tackles. That's 1,000 collisions in defence alone where something can go wrong. An opposition player slips on a wet surface and you catch them in the head. Utter accident - no time to pull out - but because you were lazy and caught someone high 30 odd games ago - helllloooooo suspension.

It's bollocks. The judiciary is there to keep the players from being dirty f**king violent twats and to ensure fair play. But that's not how the system works.

The penalties hang around waaay too long.

 

[adamkungl]

No flaming from me - I agree. Someone get this merkin a job at the NRL

The only part I have an issue with is the length of time a warning lasts

Currently, carry over points last a frigging eternity and some minor pissy offence a year ago, means you're suspended for a second accidental pissy offence today. It's utter bullshit

If they retain carry over points they should start diminishing the first week you play

Given 100 points - then next week you drop 5. So you play 10 games and your carry over points have halved. By the end of the season they're gone

Each season lasts 20 odd games - each game many players make 50 tackles. That's 1,000 collisions in defence alone where something can go wrong. An opposition player slips on a wet surface and you catch them in the head. Utter accident - no time to pull out - but because you were lazy and caught someone high 30 odd games ago - helllloooooo suspension.

It's bollocks. The judiciary is there to keep the players from being dirty f**king violent twats and to ensure fair play. But that's not how the system works.

The penalties hang around waaay too long.

I can agree with that. I'm not overly concerned with the exact numbers though, my main point is that it's possible to have a system with less rules and easier to understand numbers while doing a better job than the one we have now:

Intentional High Tackle 550 650 750 850 950
Reckless High Tackle 300 350 400 450 500
Careless High Tackle 75 125 175 225 275

 

[Jason Maher]

This is raised partially due to the Wade Graham situation, but for what little it's worth, I'll say it's not biased by it.

The problems:

1) the NRL suspends its stars way too often for minor issues where a penalty is sufficient. We've seen it before, Cam Smith, Issac Luke, Luke Ricketson missing Grand Finals for 'Grade 1' offences. I'm not suggesting big games are weighted differently, I'm suggesting Grade 1 offences arent worth suspension time at all.

At the same time we have the laughable situation of coaches sooking about players missing club games for rep matches and whinging about depth, when the suspension system takes players away from minor shit every week. Grade 1s are accidental, borderline things that rarely result in injury. Suspensions are unlikely to result in any change of technique or behaviour here.

2) the system itself is convoluted. Bloated and complicated, and most people don't understand it.
There are, for example, 15 suspendable grades of high tackle, arbitrary points allocated to a myriad of vague offences, and a loading and carry-over points system that double dips in punishment.

3) suspension punishments don't assist the victim team in any way.

The solution:

A simpler grading system with less suspensions for low grades and more use of available on-field punishments.
Gradings:
3 grades for charged offences down from 5. Basically 1 = Careless/Accidental, 2 = Reckless/Avoidable, 3 = Deliberate/Dangerous, but tailored specifically for different offences where necessary.
An injury to the victim results in a +1 increase in grading.
High tackles are no longer grouped into 3 different types before grading.

Suspensions:
Grade 1 is a warning. 3 strikes results in a 1 week suspension. A Warning lasts for 2 years, and is not reset upon receiving a suspension.
Grade 2 is a 2 week suspension.
Grade 3 is a 6+ week suspension judged on severity.

Loading:
A first suspension has a discount of 1 week.
A 5 year suspension free period has a discount of 1 week.
A third or more suspension carries a penalty of 1 week for each.

Points system,: gone.
Carry overs: gone.

On-field:
Referees are encouraged to use sin-bin and send-off more often.
Cheating, professional fouls, repeat infringements after warnings result in a 10 minute sin-bin.
Violent play deemed reckless is given a 10 minute sin-bin.
Violent play deemed deliberate, or reckless and resulting in injury is given a full send-off.


Flame away

f**k you Kungl. I hate having to like things you say.

 

[thorson1987]

No flaming from me - I agree. Someone get this merkin a job at the NRL

The only part I have an issue with is the length of time a warning lasts

Currently, carry over points last a frigging eternity and some minor pissy offence a year ago, means you're suspended for a second accidental pissy offence today. It's utter bullshit

If they retain carry over points they should start diminishing the first week you play

Given 100 points - then next week you drop 5. So you play 10 games and your carry over points have halved. By the end of the season they're gone

Each season lasts 20 odd games - each game many players make 50 tackles. That's 1,000 collisions in defence alone where something can go wrong. An opposition player slips on a wet surface and you catch them in the head. Utter accident - no time to pull out - but because you were lazy and caught someone high 30 odd games ago - helllloooooo suspension.

It's bollocks. The judiciary is there to keep the players from being dirty f**king violent twats and to ensure fair play. But that's not how the system works.

The penalties hang around waaay too long.

That is exactly how it is now.

But you still have loading of a certain % of base charge depending on if its the same charge or not.

 

[Nightward]

This is raised partially due to the Wade Graham situation, but for what little it's worth, I'll say it's not biased by it.

The problems:

1) the NRL suspends its stars way too often for minor issues where a penalty is sufficient. We've seen it before, Cam Smith, Issac Luke, Luke Ricketson missing Grand Finals for 'Grade 1' offences. I'm not suggesting big games are weighted differently, I'm suggesting Grade 1 offences arent worth suspension time at all.

I strongly disagree. If anything the threat of missing out on a major game should encourage discipline leading up to it.

And given that referees are inconsistent at best with penalising foul play appropriately on the field, the MRC and Judiciary are the only ways to gain even partial redress.

Frankly Graham getting a Grade 1 careless high tackle when he clearly hung his arm out to get Thurston makes enough of a joke of the system already without saying "Oh, but that didn't deserve a penalty at all, never mind a week off..."

The Judiciary and MRC weights whether anyone was injured, whether the media is up in arms about something, and what teams were involved far more heavily than it does any other factor. Up to and including what the rules have to say, or what precedent has been set.

If you want to fix the system, I'd suggest starting there. Once consistency has been established, perhaps then you can look at tweaking the system.

 

[Perth Red]

I'd just bring the sin bin in at the time of the offence on the field and that's it, unless really bad then it would be a sin bin and reported for further action. The fact the team getting fouled gets little benefit but the team the following week does is unfair. If Graham had have been binned for 10 minutes for the high tackle Sharks are punished for his indiscretion, may well have lost that tight game and the player and Origin doesn't get harmed disproportionality for a grade 1. Same with lifting tackles or other foul play. use the bin and stop the one match suspensions.

the only down side to this is it does require the merkin refs to make correct decisions on the field.

 

[TheDalek079]

Ricko should have been given a medal for smashing that grub Fien. Instead he missed the grand final

 

[adamkungl]

If you want to fix the system, I'd suggest starting there. Once consistency has been established, perhaps then you can look at tweaking the system.

That's exactly where I am starting. No system that has 15 different shades for "high tackle" is ever going to be consistent week to week.

 

[Nightward]

That's exactly where I am starting. No system that has 15 different shades for "high tackle" is ever going to be consistent week to week.

On the other hand no system that starts with "deliberately hanging out your arm to target the head of an opposing player isn't even worth issuing a warning for" should even be considered as a starting point.

Even if the "consistent" response to that is "no warning, barely even worth a penalty, play on."

 

[adamkungl]

On the other hand no system that starts with "deliberately hanging out your arm to target the head of an opposing player isn't even worth issuing a warning for" should even be considered as a starting point.

Even if the "consistent" response to that is "no warning, barely even worth a penalty, play on."

Pretty sure I said a Grade 1 would in fact be worth a Warning.

 

[Nightward]

Pretty sure I said a Grade 1 would in fact be worth a Warning.

Your original post strongly implies that you feel Wade Graham's offense isn't worth being classed as a Grade 1 under your system.

You certainly say it's not worth a week off at all.

 

[ek999]

No flaming from me - I agree. Someone get this merkin a job at the NRL

The only part I have an issue with is the length of time a warning lasts

Currently, carry over points last a frigging eternity and some minor pissy offence a year ago, means you're suspended for a second accidental pissy offence today. It's utter bullshit

If they retain carry over points they should start diminishing the first week you play

Given 100 points - then next week you drop 5. So you play 10 games and your carry over points have halved. By the end of the season they're gone

This is exactly how it works now

 

[Valheru]

I 100% agree.

The RLPA are trying to get a system introduced where grade 1 charges don't result in 'big games' being missed which is completely ridiculous. All games need to be treated equally and the thing that needs to change is the system itself, grade 1 equalling no suspension regardless of what the next game is, is the obvious solution.

You will still get players trying to downgrade from 2 to 1 for big games but it won't be a problem if the judiciary implement something they have never done, consistency.

 

[BroncosMan]

I strongly disagree. If anything the threat of missing out on a major game should encourage discipline leading up to it.

And given that referees are inconsistent at best with penalising foul play appropriately on the field, the MRC and Judiciary are the only ways to gain even partial redress.

Frankly Graham getting a Grade 1 careless high tackle when he clearly hung his arm out to get Thurston makes enough of a joke of the system already without saying "Oh, but that didn't deserve a penalty at all, never mind a week off..."

The Judiciary and MRC weights whether anyone was injured, whether the media is up in arms about something, and what teams were involved far more heavily than it does any other factor. Up to and including what the rules have to say, or what precedent has been set.

If you want to fix the system, I'd suggest starting there. Once consistency has been established, perhaps then you can look at tweaking the system.

This. The system is fine. It's just the ridiculous way the MRC select the type of offence and apply a grading.

If there are 15 levels of high tackle and Graham's was a 1 on that scale, I'd hate to see a 15.

 

[adamkungl]

Your original post strongly implies that you feel Wade Graham's offense isn't worth being classed as a Grade 1 under your system.

You certainly say it's not worth a week off at all.

No, Grade 1 is fine.
I don't think Grade 1s should be worth suspensions straight up, and the carry over points and previous loadings are a double dip that often ensures they are.

1 of the 3 members of the judiciary didn't think it was worth a charge.
The charge (75 pts) without loading and carry over points isn't worth a week.

 

[Caped Crusader]

On the other hand no system that starts with "deliberately hanging out your arm to target the head of an opposing player isn't even worth issuing a warning for" should even be considered as a starting point.

Even if the "consistent" response to that is "no warning, barely even worth a penalty, play on."

Did you even read Adams post or were your eyes so full of tears because JT was the victim?