Napa sin bin

[Grapple]

A tough week for red headed NRL fans.

 

[footy75]

dumb as dog shit, no need for it.

selfish...hurting his team big time.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Fair enough on the Napa sin bin but can someone tell me why Chamber's deliberate crusher on Hayne wasn't deemed worthy of a sin bin?

 

[no name]

Fair enough on the Napa sin bin but can someone tell me why Chamber's deliberate crusher on Hayne wasn't deemed worthy of a sin bin?

It’s the same reason that Stimson’s high shot on Taylor wasn’t penalised.
The NRL/refs are so f**king dumb, the foul play binning opens up a massive can of inconsistent worms.

 

[Valheru]

Fair enough on the Napa sin bin but can someone tell me why Chamber's deliberate crusher on Hayne wasn't deemed worthy of a sin bin?

That would require consistency from the officials, a foreign concept to them.

As mentioned earlier there has been 3 sin bins this year for foul play that i know of all against the same team. I can't say i have seen every game so if i have missed one someone let me know. The chambers one is a good example but the season is littered with fouls resulting in HIAs, none of which were binned.

And then there is the dog shot crackdown from mid season onwards where there has been exactly one player (radley) binned despite any number of other similar hits being made since.

 

[Tommy Smith]

It’s the same reason that Stimson’s high shot on Taylor wasn’t penalised.
The NRL/refs are so f**king dumb, the foul play binning opens up a massive can of inconsistent worms.

100%.

Napa was sin binned earlier in the year for accidental foul play.

And yet Chambers, with the most deliberate, dangerous and malicious act of foul play, you sensed that the refs didn't even consider a sin bin!

I can't help but feel that it's because Napa's Benoit style headbutts are spectacular.

The inconsistency really is ridiculous.

Or is the rule that you can only be binned for accidental headbutts? But not deliberate crushers, or Smith's dangerous arm bar vs the Sharks, or spear tackles, or what about George Burgess' "accidental knees" that broke JWHs ribs?

Again, the refs didn't blink. Just not spectacular enough I guess.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Fair enough on the Napa sin bin but can someone tell me why Chamber's deliberate crusher on Hayne wasn't deemed worthy of a sin bin?

Didn't Hayne get up straight away? The rule stipulates that the player affected must be unlikely to take any further part in the match.

 

[Last Week]

A tough week for red headed NRL fans.

Classy.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Didn't Hayne get up straight away? The rule stipulates that the player affected must be unlikely to take any further part in the match.

He didn't get up straight away. Perhaps he should have feigned more serious injury for justice to be served.

For the perpetrators out there it must be good to know that you can try and paralyse someone; just be sure you don't succeed.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

He didn't get up straight away. Perhaps he should have feigned more serious injury for justice to be served.

For the perpetrators out there it must be good to know that you can try and paralyse someone; just be sure you don't succeed.

Drama queen.

Both dangerous tackling styles. Both penalised. One resulted in no injury, the other took a player out for the rest of the match. Those are the rules.

The consistency you and @Valheru seek is from the MRP. They basically gave Napa the green light to keep tackling players with his head by not charging him earlier in the season. Chambers got what 3 weeks? Napa got 10min off and a ticket to play the following week for breaking someone's jaw.

 

[Valheru]

Drama queen.

Both dangerous tackling styles. Both penalised. One resulted in no injury, the other took a player out for the rest of the match. Those are the rules.

The consistency you and @Valheru seek is from the MRP. They basically gave Napa the green light to keep tackling players with his head by not charging him earlier in the season. Chambers got what 3 weeks? Napa got 10min off and a ticket to play the following week for breaking someone's jaw.

No, we seek consistency from the match officials. Do you believe that there have only been 3 incidences of foul play worthy of a sin bin this season?

 

[carcharias]

Napa deserved to get sent off last night .
Sin bin was ok but it was bad.

He should get at least 4 weeks
2nd time this year
Same result.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Accidentally on purpose.

Give the swine 4 weeks.

 

[Valheru]

Didn't Hayne get up straight away? The rule stipulates that the player affected must be unlikely to take any further part in the match.

That was the rule at the start of the season. The 'dog shot' rule was introduced so that officials had the power to bin a player regardless of the result to the victim. It was specifically aimed at late hits on playmakers but can be utilised for any foul play. It has only been used against the roosters so far.

 

[carcharias]

Commentary are calling it a bad technique.
Bullshit
Great technique... if you are trying to knock blokes out with a shoulder charge to the head.

He meant it.
Dumb f**ker.

 

[Valheru]

Accidentally on purpose.

Give the swine 4 weeks.

5 weeks

We don't want him to have any chance of losing us a GF

 

[Valheru]

It

Commentary are calling it a bad technique.
Bullshit
Great technique... if you are trying to knock blokes out with a shoulder charge to the head.

He meant it.
Dumb f**ker.

It is a technique issue but more than that an IQ issue. I don't think he has the mental capacity to plan an intentional high tackle.

He is using the wrong shoulder. The player was to his right and he used his left shoulder. Not sure why.

 

[carcharias]

It


It is a technique issue but more than that an IQ issue. I don't think he has the mental capacity to plan an intentional high tackle.

He is using the wrong shoulder. The player was to his right and he used his left shoulder. Not sure why.

Ha
What a crock
He lined him up and got him straight in the face with his shoulder.
Bad technique is grabbing and missing a tackle all together.
More like the dumb arse can’t help himself.

That is about all he is known for.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

No, we seek consistency from the match officials. Do you believe that there have only been 3 incidences of foul play worthy of a sin bin this season?

In the instances you two have quoted the officials were remarkably consistent. Hayne was able to play on so penalty and on report were sufficient in accordance with the rules.

Sims and McCullough were forced out of the match so penalty, sin bin and on report were also consistent with the rules.

If you have some instances where you believe a player committed foul play with the victim forced from the field for the rest of the match and wasn't sin binned then it's on you to bring them up.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

That was the rule at the start of the season. The 'dog shot' rule was introduced so that officials had the power to bin a player regardless of the result to the victim. It was specifically aimed at late hits on playmakers but can be utilised for any foul play. It has only been used against the roosters so far.

I've not heard of this "dog shot" rule. Got a link?

And Napa was binned both times because of the existing foul play rule.