Napa sin bin

[Perth Red]

Clearly wasn't reckless as he wasn't charged so I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Or they deemed sin binning sufficient which I really hope is the case as it is the ideal outcome. Reckless foul play equals sinbinning and no ban, much better outcome than the bs on report and miss a week.

 

[mave]

So if he wasn't charged, why was he sin binned?

 

[Perth Red]

So if he wasn't charged, why was he sin binned?

Commonsense? Hard to believe for the judiciary but you never know!

 

[Unscrupulous]

Or they deemed sin binning sufficient which I really hope is the case as it is the ideal outcome. Reckless foul play equals sinbinning and no ban, much better outcome than the bs on report and miss a week.

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand that there's no correlation between on-field punishment and off field punishment? Lol?

 

[Perth Red]

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand that there's no correlation between on-field punishment and off field punishment? Lol?

I’m saying I’d rather see a player punished at the time and the team fouled against get the benefit rather than the team the following week. Napa’s stupidity cost his team the game arguably, punishment enough I’d say.

Anyway we see it differently and youre in the minority so that’ll do me on this one.

 

[nick87]

I can not f**king believe what I’m reading here, how on earth can any of you f**king idiots think it says Yanny?

Sort your f**king lives out..

 

[Unscrupulous]

I’m saying I’d rather see a player punished at the time and the team fouled against get the benefit rather than the team the following week. Napa’s stupidity cost his team the game arguably, punishment enough I’d say.

Anyway we see it differently and youre in the minority so that’ll do me on this one.

Yes but what you'd rather is irrelevant.

 

[Valheru]

Which is good, as I said I’d much rather see players binned and no ban than stupid one match bans for reckless tackles. Having said that I do think he was very lucky not to get a week off when you look at the history of how reckless tackles have been dealt with in the past.

He was binned for foul play which, according to the rules, can only be done in the case of a reckless act which by definition means the act committed is worth a grading. The MRP found he had no case to answer.

So either the ref got the binning qrong or the MRP got the review wrong.

10 pages too late, but honestly if he knocks himself out the Broncos merkins hip it's no issue and the words "leading with the head" are only mentioned to have a dig at his shit tackling technique

This

Incidentally, that is exactly what happened to Opacic.

 

[Valheru]

There is some interesting commentary on tackling and running technique here. Apparently Dylan has to run with his head tilted back and arms outstretched in front of him.

 

[Dav0c]

He was binned for foul play which, according to the rules, can only be done in the case of a reckless act which by definition means the act committed is worth a grading. The MRP found he had no case to answer.

So either the ref got the binning qrong or the MRP got the review wrong.

This. It was reckless.

 

[Tommy Smith]

There is some interesting commentary on tackling and running technique here. Apparently Dylan has to rin qith his head tilted back and arms outstretched in front of him.

The 'thriller' technique.



Still less ridiculous than the call to penalise and sin bin Napa last night.

 

[Life's Good]

There is some interesting commentary on tackling and running technique here. Apparently Dylan has to run with his head tilted back and arms outstretched in front of him.

 

[Tommy Smith]

*edit* wrong thread!

 

[Maximus]

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand that there's no correlation between on-field punishment and off field punishment? Lol?

Umm onfield punishment has always reduced the punishment

Dismissed Players
41A. (1) Subject to sub-Rule (2), in any case where:
(a) A Player has been dismissed from the field of play during the course of a Match (other than a Pre-Season Trial Match) in the NRL Competition or the National Youth Competition; and
(b) The Player is charged with an offence or offences arising out of the incident in relation to which he was dismissed; and
(c) The Player subsequently pleads guilty or is found guilty of that offence or offences;

then, in order to reflect the period during which the Player was absent from the field of play in consequence of his dismissal, the Player shall be entitled to a reduction in the demerit points that would otherwise have been allocated to him, which reduction shall be equivalent to the number of whole minutes the Player was absent from the field of play.

https://www.qrl.com.au/siteassets/d...e-of-procedure-2017---final---qrl-edition.pdf

So maybe the MRC has taken this into account.

 

[Valheru]

Umm onfield punishment has always reduced the punishment

Dismissed Players
41A. (1) Subject to sub-Rule (2), in any case where:
(a) A Player has been dismissed from the field of play during the course of a Match (other than a Pre-Season Trial Match) in the NRL Competition or the National Youth Competition; and
(b) The Player is charged with an offence or offences arising out of the incident in relation to which he was dismissed; and
(c) The Player subsequently pleads guilty or is found guilty of that offence or offences;

then, in order to reflect the period during which the Player was absent from the field of play in consequence of his dismissal, the Player shall be entitled to a reduction in the demerit points that would otherwise have been allocated to him, which reduction shall be equivalent to the number of whole minutes the Player was absent from the field of play.

https://www.qrl.com.au/siteassets/d...e-of-procedure-2017---final---qrl-edition.pdf

So maybe the MRC has taken this into account.

Nope

It was deemed he had no case to answer. They can only reduce a punishment in line with time spent off the field if they actually charge him.

 

[Unscrupulous]

Umm onfield punishment has always reduced the punishment

Dismissed Players
41A. (1) Subject to sub-Rule (2), in any case where:
(a) A Player has been dismissed from the field of play during the course of a Match (other than a Pre-Season Trial Match) in the NRL Competition or the National Youth Competition; and
(b) The Player is charged with an offence or offences arising out of the incident in relation to which he was dismissed; and
(c) The Player subsequently pleads guilty or is found guilty of that offence or offences;

then, in order to reflect the period during which the Player was absent from the field of play in consequence of his dismissal, the Player shall be entitled to a reduction in the demerit points that would otherwise have been allocated to him, which reduction shall be equivalent to the number of whole minutes the Player was absent from the field of play.

https://www.qrl.com.au/siteassets/d...e-of-procedure-2017---final---qrl-edition.pdf

So maybe the MRC has taken this into account.

Nup

 

[skeepe]

He was binned for foul play which, according to the rules, can only be done in the case of a reckless act which by definition means the act committed is worth a grading. The MRP found he had no case to answer.

So either the ref got the binning qrong or the MRP got the review wrong.

Or you don’t know the rules. I’m going with that one.

 

[Maximus]

Nope

It was deemed he had no case to answer. They can only reduce a punishment in line with time spent off the field if they actually charge him.

Or they decided he had been punished for his actions so no need to punish further.

The point was that on field punishment does in fact affect off field punishment which Unscrupulous wanted to pretend doesn't happen.

 

[Unscrupulous]

"He got binned so we won't charge him" doesn't happen. Cheers.

 

[Maximus]

"He got binned so we won't charge him" doesn't happen. Cheers.

That's because this is the first sin bin we've seen for foul play.

So we could actually have a 100% record for all you know.