Diving in the NRL.

[Perth Red]

Was just asking a question.

He definitely binned him because he believed Munster was going to have to go off the field. That doesn't mean he didn't deserve to be binned. It is what it is.

Or maybe he binned him because it was a careless and reckless clothes line? Maybe Munster stayed down as he just got smacked in the mouth by radley? Maybe if radley didn’t clothes line an opposition star player we aren’t talking about it now? But yeh it’s all munsters fault lol

 

[Valheru]

Or maybe he binned him because it was a careless and reckless clothes line? Maybe Munster stayed down as he just got smacked in the mouth by radley? Maybe if radley didn’t clothes line an opposition star player we aren’t talking about it now? But yeh it’s all munsters fault lol

The root cause is Radley's actions, no doubt.

I'm not sure why you are so desperate to believe he would have been binned if Munster didn't stay down appearing that he would possibly be out of the game. He literally went off and then returned on the first tackle.

 

[Canard]

No one is saying he didn’t deserve the sin bin. Merely asking would he have been sent if Munster didn’t go down. More than Roosters fans are asking the same question but hey, we’re being over privileged by asking.

So you don't believe it was worth a binning then? (You must if you only believe that the players reaction is the only determining factor)

 

[Perth Red]

The root cause is Radley's actions, no doubt.

I'm not sure why you are so desperate to believe he would have been binned if Munster didn't stay down appearing that he would possibly be out of the game. He literally went off and then returned on the first tackle.

he had to, it’s the new rule. That wasn’t his choice to go off and come straight back on.
Neither of us could possibly know what the ref would do if Munster had got straight back up, and having been smacked square in the face by radley I’d have been surprised if he did bounce straight back up!

 

[The_Frog]

Momo got the same charge & Dearden just played on.

Not the same charge. Momo got Dangerous Contact Grade 2 which is 300 base, Radley got Careless High Tackle grade 2 which is 200 base. Radley has priors which bumps him up.

 

[Canard]

The root cause is Radley's actions, no doubt.

I'm not sure why you are so desperate to believe he would have been binned if Munster didn't stay down appearing that he would possibly be out of the game. He literally went off and then returned on the first tackle.

I fail to see how that has any relevance to the binning.

If you think there was no force in that Radley shot you have lost touch with reality.

It's a 2 week suspension for f**ks sake

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

So you don't believe it was worth a binning then? (You must if you only believe that the players reaction is the only determining factor)

Who said any of that? I’m saying it may - just may have influenced the ref’s decision to sin bin. We’ve seen countless times a player get put on report and penalised only with a suspension given by post review committee later

 

[Canard]

Who said any of that? I’m saying it may - just may have influenced the ref’s decision to sin bin. We’ve seen countless times a player get put on report and penalised only with a suspension given by post review committee later

Like I said there is a really simple tactic to combat this.

Don't clothesline opposition players.

 

[MugaB]

Like I said there is a really simple tactic to combat this.

Don't clothesline opposition players.

But thats not tommy would have wanted, bring back the biff

 

[Vee]

And, as if to emphasise the OP, DCE takes another dive.

 

[typicalfan]

Who said any of that? I’m saying it may - just may have influenced the ref’s decision to sin bin. We’ve seen countless times a player get put on report and penalised only with a suspension given by post review committee later

I'd like to see sin bins = discount at the judiciary. Punish the player during the actual game.

 

[Johns Magic]

I'd like to see sin bins = discount at the judiciary. Punish the player during the actual game.

I like this idea in theory, but I think it would bring in grey areas around context of the game.

A tight game? Yeah sure.

A dead game with one side up by 20 with 10 minutes to go? No, the dangerous tackle should not escape or reduce suspension because the grub goes and gets an early ice-bath.

Could cause a lot of headaches at the judiciary trying to compare situations.

 

[simmo05]

I'd like to see sin bins = discount at the judiciary. Punish the player during the actual game.

Huge discounts. In the game is where the actual punishments should happen!

 

[Knight76]

An illegal high shot etc should be penalised and sin binned or sent off if appropriate.

Unfortunately I believe refs do manage games. At the Knights v Cronulla game there were several comments made by the ref which made me take note. One was a comment from the ref about "Good footy?" Asked in a questioning tone. Not sure the quality of the footy is the refs concern. Another was a comment from the ref saying they are entering the last 10 minutes so their focus changes, workrate still high but just a change of focus".

Anyway, my point is refs will avoid penalties in circumstances to keep the game flowing. We all want free flowing footy and I hate a stop start penalty fest. Im not paying to watch the ref and will whinge about how we were dudded like any other fan of any team after the game.

But lets let the refs do the job. Players faking it and staying down to stop play need to be made to leave the field for 5 minutes to assess a physical injury, or for the hia.

Another great example was that grub punch to the back of the head of Crichton on the ground. Angus stays down, but as soon as the ref blows time off he is up laughing and telling the opponent he is gone. Not a good look.

I dont know of a good solution though.

 

[Saxon]

Watch a few Storm games. I couldn't be f**ked re watching footage to find examples for you.

In other words you're talking out of your arse.

 

[Leber]

This should be called the Josh Reynolds thread.

 

[davi]

I could be wrong, but I think on field refs are not allowed to penalise on a video replay unless its a reportable offence. It was worse a couple of years ago there were dives all over the place. The best one was Isaac Luke got a slap on the face and took a dive to get his team Souths a penalty against the Cowboys. The penalty won the game for Souths as it was in golden point. Luke admitted after the game he took a dive.

 

[Bazal]

The most shocking thing out of this thread is that there a still people our there who don't realise Cam Munster is a germ and a cat...

 

[typicalfan]

I like this idea in theory, but I think it would bring in grey areas around context of the game.

A tight game? Yeah sure.

A dead game with one side up by 20 with 10 minutes to go? No, the dangerous tackle should not escape or reduce suspension because the grub goes and gets an early ice-bath.

Could cause a lot of headaches at the judiciary trying to compare situations.

I'm not sure someone is going to deliberately grub because they can get 3 weeks instead of 4. In the end it's only going to be marginal things that would make a significant difference.

Maybe they would but I'm sure a player with that attitude will end up rubbed out of the game due to suspension anyway.

 

[Johns Magic]

I'm not sure someone is going to deliberately grub because they can get 3 weeks instead of 4. In the end it's only going to be marginal things that would make a significant difference.

Maybe they would but I'm sure a player with that attitude will end up rubbed out of the game due to suspension anyway.

I’m not saying they would be a deliberate grub because the suspension would be reduced.

I’m saying that a grubby act in the 70th minute of a dead game could just mean the guy goes to the sheds 10 minutes early, then plays next week. Where is the punishment in that?

Do we then get players fronting the judiciary and arguing what the context of the game was at the time and should the suspension be reduced or not as a result?

Or do we get refs making judgement calls about whether to bin players or not, based on whether they should cop a suspension?

Do we get the Eels arguing that their player should avoid suspension because he got binned, and when a Sharks player got binned for the same offence in a tight game he avoided suspension?

I am just playing devil’s advocate. In theory I agree I’d prefer the player to get punished in the game he committed the act in. But that is if the game is a live contest.