Simple Solution For 'Deliberate' Penalties

[Perth Red]

In SL team gets a formal warning and next is in the bin. None for this Soft NRL "I may take tougher action" which they never do nonsense.

And on the point of deliberate foul play can't believe the refs let Cronulla walk off the mark at play of ball so much putting the markers offside. Don't think I saw Luke Lewis play the ball all game on the mark.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

How do you judge a "deliberate" penalty from a normal penalty? Yes sometimes it looks obvious, but outside of the extreme end it's a very grey area that can only lead to inconsistency.

Players always are going to try and get away with a little more close to the line, but a lot of them wouldn't be thinking of intentionally giving away a penalty.

More advantage to the attacking team on the run I don't mind for a penalty but extra punishment for the defending team based in refs guessing intent will only create inconsistency and an increased amount of botching about it.

 

[thorson1987]

If they just went hard and started sin binning every time it'd stop in a hurry. It'd be painful to watch for a fortnight then all the crap would stop.

Get out of here with that common sense solution.

 

[POPEYE]

Why don't the refs let the set go on and if the attacking team don't score then give the penalty. Better then killing momentum with the bs pep talk.

What a great idea . . . surprised no-one's thought of it before . . . dearie me

Doesn't matter a tuppenny f**k whether the infringement was deliberate or not does it

 

[Broncos thats my team]

If a team or player gives away more then a couple of penalties in the red zone then they should go to the bin, and if not just one player then the skipper should go to the bin.

 

[siv]

5 min sin bin was used for repeat infringements

Not sure why it went out of vogue

We now only get warnings

 

[Surely]

Award the penalty if the team takes the two it's restarted with a goal line dropout by the offending team

 

[Meapro Ham]

Why don't the refs let the set go on and if the attacking team don't score then give the penalty. Better then killing momentum with the bs pep talk.

Only problem with that is the remainder of the set could become pretty farcical. Once the ref has signalled advantage there is no incentive for the defending team to follow the rules for the rest of the set. They can't be penalised again so they're going to do whatever it takes to stop a try.

It's a bit different to Union where there is the chance the advantage will expire so there is some incentive for the defending team not to cheat once the ref has signalled advantage.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

Put the points for a penalty kick up a point...
Might make taking the kick worth it, game resumes and your advantage is the ball is kicked back into your possession from kick-off.
And it might make deliberate penalties costly enough to stop them?

 

[Pierced Soul]

5 min sin bin was used for repeat infringements

Not sure why it went out of vogue

We now only get warnings

somewhere along the line the refs had trouble differentiating between holding up 1 hand or 2 hands for the bin signal so they just made it 10min bins. the refs then decided they were worried what coaches would think so dont use it so they dont get criticised. so we subsequently have a scenario where the bin only gets used a week after an outrage has occurred where the ref hasnt used the bin where they should.


what worries me about the lack of a 5 min bin is that greenberg said earlier this year there would be no looking at bringing the 5min bin back. i guess if theres enough public pressure he may consider it, but it's hard to understand why its been missing for so long. i also think if the 5min bin came back, refs would feel more comfortable in sending players to the bin for niggly shit (i.e. ennis) instead of this push and shove crap we have now

 

[Parra]

In union do they do anything to discourage the attacking team basically having a few free plays at throwing the ball around like crazy people?

I assume a knock on / loss of possession would come back for the penalty?

No.


Yes.


They don't tend to throw the ball around like crazy. They usually keep attacking - they just wont kick. It is a good way to maintain momentum and can be done anywhere on the field, not just near the opponents goal line.

 

[T-Boon]

I generally like the ideas here. I would combine the compulsory use of the bin for repeat infringements and the playing advantage idea.
One problem is that as soon as the rule is brought in the coaches will be thinking of ways to cheat it and I would expect that will mean a huge increase in the milking of penalties in the 20 metre zone.

 

[Packy]

Penalties inside the 20 should be an additional set instead of a stoppage. So if the Cows give away a penalty on the 3rd tackle, the Sharks now have 9 in a row.

Teams would stop it fkn quick smart.

The only issue is our refs are too geniused and gullible to be left with this in their hands.

 

[POPEYE]

Only problem with that is the remainder of the set could become pretty farcical. Once the ref has signalled advantage there is no incentive for the defending team to follow the rules for the rest of the set. They can't be penalised again so they're going to do whatever it takes to stop a try.

It's a bit different to Union where there is the chance the advantage will expire so there is some incentive for the defending team not to cheat once the ref has signalled advantage.

Sounds good, but no, in reality there's not enough time to continue infringing again and again, the threat of another set of six only when momentum has stopped should deter even the most addle-brained idiot. Instead of a penalty all the ref has to is signal six again . . . much harder to defend than attack

 

[DiegoNT]

A see a huge flaw in the playing advantage idea.
Say you are a defending line but you are struggling to get your line set, so in the first tackle you slow the ball down and you don't care if you give away a penalty (it'll help you bet your line set anyway). The refs call advantage and you know there'll be a penalty at the end of the set no matter what happens.
So that means for the rest of the set you can lay on the ball and slow the ruck down to a standstill. You are going to get a penalty at the end of the set anyway so why bother letting any team get anything close to a quick play the ball.

 

[Rod]

A see a huge flaw in the playing advantage idea.
Say you are a defending line but you are struggling to get your line set, so in the first tackle you slow the ball down and you don't care if you give away a penalty (it'll help you bet your line set anyway). The refs call advantage and you know there'll be a penalty at the end of the set no matter what happens.
So that means for the rest of the set you can lay on the ball and slow the ruck down to a standstill. You are going to get a penalty at the end of the set anyway so why bother letting any team get anything close to a quick play the ball.

Teams don't really do this in Union though because they're more loose with their dishing of yellow cards than league. If a team is attacking under a penalty advantage and a defender came in and have away another obvious penalty more often than not he'd be in the bin plus the original penalty.

I think some sort of combination of the advantage rule and the threat of a 5 minute sin bin could work in the NRL.

 

[Jason Maher]

The simple solution to most things blighting rugby league: Russian roulette.

 

[Meapro Ham]

Sounds good, but no, in reality there's not enough time to continue infringing again and again, the threat of another set of six only when momentum has stopped should deter even the most addle-brained idiot.

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.

 

[Meapro Ham]

A see a huge flaw in the playing advantage idea.
Say you are a defending line but you are struggling to get your line set, so in the first tackle you slow the ball down and you don't care if you give away a penalty (it'll help you bet your line set anyway). The refs call advantage and you know there'll be a penalty at the end of the set no matter what happens.
So that means for the rest of the set you can lay on the ball and slow the ruck down to a standstill. You are going to get a penalty at the end of the set anyway so why bother letting any team get anything close to a quick play the ball.

This is a good example of the kind of unintended consequences that would result from an advantage rule

 

[Parra]

This is a good example of the kind of unintended consequences that would result from an advantage rule

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.