NRL rule change: sin-bins for foul play

[Danish]

Except you know, the rules already allowed for Napa to be binned.

Given the explanation given by the NRL, that’s clearly not the case

 

[LineBall]

sarcastic?
or what?

I know off topic - but I'm being genuine. The attacking team shouldn't be gifted an extra set if a defender makes the effort to charge down a kick, but can't regather.

 

[LineBall]

I would like to see them trial penalty advantage as they do in Union. Have the ref hold his arm out to signal advantage and let them play the rest of the set. Might see some adventurous play from teams knowing they can chance their arm without any risk.

 

[The Engineers Room]

They need the 5 minutes in the bin back and use that for all on report offenses. Then only the worst ones get 10 or a send off.

 

[Timmah]

Given the explanation given by the NRL, that’s clearly not the case

At the time or the latest one?

The rules in place at the time of the Napa binning were clear that the referee had the discretion to do so.

 

[Vee]

They need the 5 minutes in the bin back and use that for all on report offenses. Then only the worst ones get 10 or a send off.

Interesting option, worth discussing. 360 last night made the point that if the MRC and judiciary had done its job and given the late hitters 3 weeks each time and more for worse, we wouldn't be putting it on the discretion of the referees to make split second judgements.

Perhaps the Bunker could be used to recommend sinbins after they examine the footage.

 

[Saxon]

I would like to see them trial penalty advantage as they do in Union. Have the ref hold his arm out to signal advantage and let them play the rest of the set. Might see some adventurous play from teams knowing they can chance their arm without any risk.

F*ck no.

 

[Danish]

At the time or the latest one?

The rules in place at the time of the Napa binning were clear that the referee had the discretion to do so.

I quoted you the NRL’s own words that stated that until this change, referees could not sin bin someone for foul play unless the fouled player left the field.

Sims did not leave the field, but Napa was sent

 

[Timmah]

I quoted you the NRL’s own words that stated that until this change, referees could not sin bin someone for foul play unless the fouled player left the field.

Sims did not leave the field, but Napa was sent

The NRL's own rule book allowed for Napa to be sin binned at the time, whether you accept that or not. It's fact.

 

[Danish]

The NRL's own rule book allowed for Napa to be sin binned at the time, whether you accept that or not. It's fact.

So what section of the rule book did they announce was now changed?

Was the article written by the NRL and posted by you in the OP wrong when it stated that until this change players could not be sin binned for foul play unless the fouled player left he field?

 

[Danish]

The NRL's own rule book allowed for Napa to be sin binned at the time, whether you accept that or not. It's fact.

Here is the direct wording from page 11 of the NRL’s 2018 laws and interpretations guide:

* Foul Play – A player will be sin binned for foul play in circumstances where, in the opinion of the Referee, the foul play does not warrant sending off, but is serious enough to place the player on report, and the player injured from the foul play is unlikely to take any further part in the game.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/nrl-laws-and-interpretations-2018.pdf

So a player can only be binned if the fouled player is injured and unlikely to return to the game i.e. they’ve left the field and probably won’t come back on.

Sims did not leave be field, and Napa was still binned.

I don’t know why you are trying to argue that the very rule change that has just been announced that you started the thread about was actually already in place

 

[Timmah]

Here is the direct wording from page 11 of the NRL’s 2018 laws and interpretations guide:

* Foul Play – A player will be sin binned for foul play in circumstances where, in the opinion of the Referee, the foul play does not warrant sending off, but is serious enough to place the player on report, and the player injured from the foul play is unlikely to take any further part in the game.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/nrl-laws-and-interpretations-2018.pdf

So a player can only be binned if the fouled player is injured and unlikely to return to the game i.e. they’ve left the field and probably won’t come back on.

Sims did not leave be field, and Napa was still binned.

I don’t know why you are trying to argue that the very rule change that has just been announced that you started the thread about was actually already in place

One page prior is where Napa was done (from the same document you linked):

 

[Danish]

One page prior is where Napa was done (from the same document you linked):

View attachment 20846

That is interesting, as it seems the section on when the sin bin can be used directly contradicts the section you posted.

Not surprising that a document produced by the NRL would do that I suppose....

 

[Timmah]

Something we can probably both agree on

 

[Eion]

That is interesting, as it seems the section on when the sin bin can be used directly contradicts the section you posted.

Not surprising that a document produced by the NRL would do that I suppose....

They are a circus. Have closed door discussions with the refs, encourage them to use the rules at their disposal and then actually back them publicly....in spite of what the Tele and media pressure you to do.

For a tough guy sport, the NRL are full of weak merkins.

 

[Jason Maher]

The laws of the game allow complete discretion to the referee to use a caution, sin bin, or send off for any act of misconduct. Clearly the NRL must have overridden this at some point with an NRL-specific rule that the sin bin could not be used for foul play, otherwise this "change" changes nothing and is pure signalling.

That is interesting, as it seems the section on when the sin bin can be used directly contradicts the section you posted.

Not surprising that a document produced by the NRL would do that I suppose....

Timmah is quoting from the international laws of the game. Your quote is from the specific NRL rules and interpretations. This answers my question above. The NRL overrode the rules as written with a needless rule that only serves to complicate things, and have now rescinded the override under pressure.

 

[Danish]

Something we can probably both agree on

Haha without doubt.

No wonder the refs struggle when the actual book they are supposed to be following can’t even be consistent

 

[Saxon]

Timmah is quoting from the international laws of the game. Your quote is from the specific NRL rules and interpretations. This answers my question above. The NRL overrode the rules as written with a needless rule that only serves to complicate things, and have now rescinded the override under pressure.

Nope, both quotes are from NRL LAWS & INTERPRETATIONS 2018 which is the link that Danish posted. NRL - contradicts itself in the space of ten lines of text.

 

[Timmah]

Timmah is quoting from the international laws of the game. Your quote is from the specific NRL rules and interpretations. This answers my question above. The NRL overrode the rules as written with a needless rule that only serves to complicate things, and have now rescinded the override under pressure.

No, I literally said in my post I quoted directly from the same document Danish linked (NRL Rules and Interpretations 2018), and literally one page before the Sin Bin page.

The NRL have literally contradicted themselves within the same document and now have doubled down with a change to a rule that already (technically) existed.