Napa sin bin

[lockyno1]

Lewis, Gould and Vautin all said exactly the same thing.

Gould thinks NOTHING is a penalty (especially when it's against the roosters and Panthers). Can't wait for him to never commentate again.

The other two have just gone with Gould's rant.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Was he binned for the tackle or for carrying on like a bellend when the ref put him on report? The tackle was reckless, clearly lead with the head (whether it was intentional or not I don't know), and had a sickening result. If he was binned for dissent I don't have a problem with it, but if it was for foul play I wish we could get some consistency with the use of the bin.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Here's another angle of the incident

 

[Danish]

Every head clash must now be a sin bin

 

[aqua_duck]

So let me get this right, just in the past 12 months we've had players get done for grade 2 and 3 shoulder charges, grade 2 reckless high tackles, and a reckless high tackle so bad it was referred straight to the judiciary without charge and yet not one of those players was sin binned (nor sent off). The tackle itself you can argue about intent or not but it's the use of the sin bin in this manner which absolutely makes no sense to me and has not been used in this way for well over a decade.

 

[mave]

The only consistent thing about the NRL is it's own complete lack of consistency.

And that, seemingly, will never change.

Dangerous tackle, yes.
Reportable offence, yes let the MRC sort it out.
Sin bin, well from May 2018 onwards, apparently yes as well. I look foward fo all reportable offence being binned for 10 going foward.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Giant overrated grub. Correct decision to remove him from the game for a period of time on that basis alone.

 

[simmo05]

So in hindsight, Andrew Johns should have been sent off after recklessly attacking goddards fists with his head?

 

[carcharias]

I wonder if it had been Thaiday on Cronk
Would roosters fans still be calling an injustice?

Ref was probably correct this time and wrong most other times if you were to play by the rules.

 

[Canard]

Probably the biggest lie perpetuated by Broncos fans with respect to this incident is that the Roosters are "competition heavyweights"

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Probably the biggest lie perpetuated by Broncos fans with respect to this incident is that the Roosters are "competition heavyweights"

Don't blame us, blame the Rugby League media.

 

[Card Shark]

The tackle itself you can argue about intent or not but it's the use of the sin bin in this manner which absolutely makes no sense to me and has not been used in this way for well over a decade.

No player ever gets sin binned for high shots, ever!!!

They go on & get a week’s suspension but the team he offended against gets no benefit, sometimes being worse off if their player is injured.

If this is the norm now, I guess I’m ok with it but could’ve chosen a different scenario to start the enforcement of the rule.

Sutton just doing something obscure to benefit the flailing Broncos.

 

[Spot On]

Gould thinks NOTHING is a penalty (especially when it's against the roosters and Panthers). Can't wait for him to never commentate again.

The other two have just gone with Gould's rant.

Of course they have.

 

[Fangs]

Disgraceful call.

Lodge made a near identical tackle 5 minutes later. No head clash? No worries mate here's a meat pie for you.

 

[Nerd]

No player ever gets sin binned for high shots, ever!!!

They go on & get a week’s suspension but the team he offended against gets no benefit, sometimes being worse off if their player is injured.

If this is the norm now, I guess I’m ok with it but could’ve chosen a different scenario to start the enforcement of the rule.

Sutton just doing something obscure to benefit the flailing Broncos.

Like giving the penalty count to the Roosters 11-6...

 

[Valheru]

I wonder if it had been Thaiday on Cronk
Would roosters fans still be calling an injustice?

Ref was probably correct this time and wrong most other times if you were to play by the rules.

There wouldn't have been a sin bin if it was the other way around.

 

[Nerd]

The sin bin is available at the referee’s discretion.

I thought it should have been a straight send off personally.

Yep thought he was lucky to only be sin binned.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

There wouldn't have been a sin bin if it was the other way around.

 

[Nerd]

The slowmo's and still shots are absolutely pointless - Sims changes his angle and compacts his frame just before contact - without doing this Napa's head is to the right of his upper body and he gets tackled across the top of his chest. Whilst Napa's technique at times can let him down there was nothing wrong here, just Sims saw Napa bolt at him and tried to avoid it but ended up making it worse, accidents happen.

The refereeing was your typical overreaction, but they'll never give up a chance to blow their whistle in this league so good for them.

Whether Sims steps him or not makes no difference. You can't as a tackler make contact with an attackers head accident or not. To those calling it a head clash it appears that Napa was intent on jamming his head into Sims melon and probably should have been sent off.

 

[butchmcdick]

SECTION 15
PLAYERS MISCONDUCT

1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
...
(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.
...



Discuss...

So any head clash when making a tackle and it’s a send off

I look forward to the refs continuing this interpretation for the remainder of the season