Simple Solution For 'Deliberate' Penalties

[DiegoNT]

It is a simple misunderstanding. The next infringement in this situation would be penalty plus 10 mins in the bin. Simple card system that works well in other sports.

All well in good having a hard stance, but when ruck penalties are a fifty/fifty thing with a lot of grey areas, and it being a lottery whether you get a penalty or not , then we will see a lot of players in the bin on bullshit calls.

 

[Rod]

All well in good having a hard stance, but when ruck penalties are a fifty/fifty thing with a lot of grey areas, and it being a lottery whether you get a penalty or not , then we will see a lot of players in the bin on bullshit calls.

But they would have already given away at least one penalty (2 in my scenario) before the card is dished out. It's pretty unlikely you get 3 rough penalty calls in a row inside your own 20m zone.

If you're sitting on 2 penalties then you have to be careful that you don't do anything to make the refs give away another one. That's the consequence of poor discipline.

 

[Dogs Of War]

I'd like to see a hockey solution brought on, give the 10 in the bin, but if the team scores, then that player can come back on immediately. This would include taking a shot at 2 points, which would mean they gained an advantage. Though I suspect most teams would try and score a try.

Either way, I think you would see a reduction in these sorts of offenses, as well as bringing a pretty good variable into the game as I think most ref's would like to only influence the match marginally and would send players to the sin bin for this period knowing the player can come back on quickly potentially.

 

[Parra]

All well in good having a hard stance, but when ruck penalties are a fifty/fifty thing with a lot of grey areas, and it being a lottery whether you get a penalty or not , then we will see a lot of players in the bin on bullshit calls.

Other way is to go NFL style. Restart tackle counts and award set metres for infringements. Once a player gives away a couple of these in a row it wont be the ref's problem - the coach will yank them.

 

[GAZF]

I'd like to see a hockey solution brought on, give the 10 in the bin, but if the team scores, then that player can come back on immediately. This would include taking a shot at 2 points, which would mean they gained an advantage. Though I suspect most teams would try and score a try.

Either way, I think you would see a reduction in these sorts of offenses, as well as bringing a pretty good variable into the game as I think most ref's would like to only influence the match marginally and would send players to the sin bin for this period knowing the player can come back on quickly potentially.

Make it a 5 minute binning and that sounds great.

 

[POPEYE]

You're missing the point. Once the ref calls advantage there is no way to stop the defending team doing whatever they want for the rest of the set. They can't be penalised again. Why get back 10 if you can't be penalised? Why get off the tackled player? It would create lots of unintended consequences.

It seems to work in ESL but if you want to be pedantic why not have the referee indicate six more tackles every time there is an infringement inside the 10 instead of stopping play. . . I know who will tire first and it won't be the attacking team

 

[Meapro Ham]

It seems to work in ESL but if you want to be pedantic why not have the referee indicate six more tackles every time there is an infringement inside the 10 instead of stopping play. . . I know who will tire first and it won't be the attacking team

Do they actually use an advantage for penalties in ESL? I don't think they do. They have a different interpretation of the advantage off knock on rule than the NRL but that's a different thing to the penalty at the end of the set idea.

If you allow the ref to just restart the tackle count instead of giving a penalty that has unintended consequences too. It takes penalty goals away as an option for example. So you'd need to think through all the consequences of that.

 

[Lambretta]

Real left field idea here??

How about for say the 3rd penalty in a set of six, or for a 3rd penalty inside the 20 the offender goes off for that set of 6.

Like a power play in ice Hockey, however it is 13 v12 for just that set of 6.

Teams would stop the deliberate penalties quick smart.

Anyone??

Eddie - Once someone is awarded a penalty a new set of six starts
Therefore you can't be penalised for a third penalty in the same set of six

 

[Lambretta]

All well in good having a hard stance, but when ruck penalties are a fifty/fifty thing with a lot of grey areas, and it being a lottery whether you get a penalty or not , then we will see a lot of players in the bin on bullshit calls.

Exactly - half the time penalties are awarded not because the player is doing anything different from normal but because the referee wants to hear what his whistle sounds like

Hands on the ball for example shits me to tears. Of course the player has his hand on the ball, he's trying to prevent an offload. The defenders hand goes on the ball in 98% of tackles.

But every now and then a referee will just decide that play needs to move somewhere else and blows his whistle.

In that game yesterday, the Cowboys weren't really doing much any differently from normal. The got pinged for really pedantic shit.

If a player from my club got sin binned for something like "not standing up quite as quickly as the ref wanted - even though it was the same speed as nearly every other tackle" or "hands on the f**king ball" I'd be livid.

Look at Origin the other week. A Queensland player twitched his leg and was awarded a bullshit penalty. The NSW player wasn't even touching him yet a "lifting the leg" penalty was called. That was close to the line. Imagine getting sin binned cos an opposition player blatantly conned a referee.

 

[siv]

3 ruck penalties in a row should be a 5 mn sin bin

Simple

Just as it was for 3 hooking penalties when hookers were marched

 

[T-Boon]

Exactly - half the time penalties are awarded not because the player is doing anything different from normal but because the referee wants to hear what his whistle sounds like

Hands on the ball for example shits me to tears. Of course the player has his hand on the ball, he's trying to prevent an offload. The defenders hand goes on the ball in 98% of tackles.

But every now and then a referee will just decide that play needs to move somewhere else and blows his whistle.

In that game yesterday, the Cowboys weren't really doing much any differently from normal. The got pinged for really pedantic shit.

If a player from my club got sin binned for something like "not standing up quite as quickly as the ref wanted - even though it was the same speed as nearly every other tackle" or "hands on the f**king ball" I'd be livid.

Look at Origin the other week. A Queensland player twitched his leg and was awarded a bullshit penalty. The NSW player wasn't even touching him yet a "lifting the leg" penalty was called. That was close to the line. Imagine getting sin binned cos an opposition player blatantly conned a referee.

This is so true. Ruck penalties are always so arbitrary and also so influential. Under the ten metre rule the game is won and lost too often on the ruck speed and interpretation and who can manipulate this.
The game needs to get back to more one on one. I think one on one tackles should be rewarded by allowing three markers and the benefit of any doubt in terms of penalties and three man tackles should be punished by allowing only one marker.

 

[POPEYE]

Do they actually use an advantage for penalties in ESL? I don't think they do. They have a different interpretation of the advantage off knock on rule than the NRL but that's a different thing to the penalty at the end of the set idea.

If you allow the ref to just restart the tackle count instead of giving a penalty that has unintended consequences too. It takes penalty goals away as an option for example. So you'd need to think through all the consequences of that.

You're right, the ESL has apparently discontinued saving the penalty until a stoppage. I still think it's better than sending players to the bin unless they're a repeat offender

 

[blaza88z]

I actually think it's a tactic, they do it a lot, Roosters did it too from memory when they were a defensive unit

It's the reason why teams are electing to take the 2 a lot more these days

 

[Parra]

Exactly - half the time penalties are awarded not because the player is doing anything different from normal but because the referee wants to hear what his whistle sounds like

Hands on the ball for example shits me to tears. Of course the player has his hand on the ball, he's trying to prevent an offload. The defenders hand goes on the ball in 98% of tackles.

But every now and then a referee will just decide that play needs to move somewhere else and blows his whistle.

In that game yesterday, the Cowboys weren't really doing much any differently from normal. The got pinged for really pedantic shit.

If a player from my club got sin binned for something like "not standing up quite as quickly as the ref wanted - even though it was the same speed as nearly every other tackle" or "hands on the f**king ball" I'd be livid.

Look at Origin the other week. A Queensland player twitched his leg and was awarded a bullshit penalty. The NSW player wasn't even touching him yet a "lifting the leg" penalty was called. That was close to the line. Imagine getting sin binned cos an opposition player blatantly conned a referee.

Poor refereeing is a separate issue. Games are won or lost now due to these poor decisions. That is a worse outcome that a binning and it is happening now.

Is there a worse name in sport than 'sin bin'? Bunker is bad, sin-bin sounds like a teenage nickname for something. Up there with shaggin' wagon.

 

[juro]

We currently have the situation where players are given 10 in the bin if they deliberately slow down the play from a line break, trying to give their defence a chance to reset.

What is the difference between this professional foul and these other deliberate penalties?

 

[Parra]

When does that happen?

 

[Dragonwest]

Call the first penalty. Quick call of 'next one bin", let the attacking team tap soon as they like.

DON'T call the captain over, it is insane that this hasn't been stopped by the refs boss.

 

[DiegoNT]

We currently have the situation where players are given 10 in the bin if they deliberately slow down the play from a line break, trying to give their defence a chance to reset.

What is the difference between this professional foul and these other deliberate penalties?

Even then the refs stuff it up majorly!
It's supposed to be a sin bin when a player deliberately gives away a penalty, not if a try scoring situation is unfolding. So we have situation where players make a break, and the covering defender gets penalised and sin binned on very dodgy penalties (like a burgess strip that is later found to be a case of an attacker simply dropping the ball for example) because it was a try scoring situation, where on other occasions a cover defender is obviously deliberately giving away a penalty but stays on the field because there wasn't an obvious try scoring situation.
Professional Fouls come down to whether a player deliberately gives away a penalty, in any situation, and has nothing to do with the probability of a try being scored.

 

[Parra]

The term is cynical play.

It is one thing to give away a technical penalty. Another to give one away for a strategic reason. This is a refs call.

 

[RufusRex]

by definition a professional foul is a deliberate penalty and the 10 minute bin has always been there for it .. Refs don't have any guts though ... The game needs more send offs and more sin bins and not more gutless officiating.

The thing with a send off is this

give the teams copping the shit the advantage.