Sin Bin

[LineBall]

Agree, 5 would be used more often. I like Pops idea of it using up an interchange as well.

 

[ed-grimley]

You can't have sin-binning for relatively trivial offences when violent acts just get put on report.

 

[POPEYE]

You can't have sin-binning for relatively trivial offences when violent acts just get put on report.

Why not, sin binning has nothing to do with suspension, which is why they differentiate . . . not guilty is not worth a sin bin, guilty is worth more

 

[myrrh ken]

you still have the send off (ha ha?)

 

[Iafeta]

Bravo. Epic. A 2004 resurrection. Well played

 

[Uncle Kraka]

I saw who posted the thread and got excited that Kiwi was back. RIP Kiwi

 

[Perth Tiger]

What about a power play type scenario.

First penalty inside the 20M is ok, second penalty in the same passage of play and the player is sent behind the in goal for the reminder of the passage, either the attacking team scores or loses possession through an error or the end of the set turn over. If the attacking team gets a repeat set then the player in the power play box has to stay off.

If the defending team gives away a third penalty then they have two players off, a fourth penalty and another goes off etc.

If the attacking team loses possession or scores then all the players come back on.

This way you are penalizing a team for giving penalties away on purpose in the 20 but then not really spoiling a portion of the game as with the 10 minute sin bin as the team with 10 then simply resorts to 5 fit ups and time wasting to get the player back.

 

[Knight76]

I like the idea Perth Tiger, but can't see it happening. I'd still support 10 in the bin for repeated penalties being given away in the 20m attacking zone.

 

[DiegoNT]

I saw who posted the thread and got excited that Kiwi was back. RIP Kiwi

Plot twist, Davi is Kiwi

 

[ed-grimley]

Why not, sin binning has nothing to do with suspension, which is why they differentiate . . . not guilty is not worth a sin bin, guilty is worth more

So a player who holds another player back gets time off the field while a player who knocks a another player out illegally stays on? He may be ultimately be suspended but that's irrelevant if the game is a GF.

 

[T-Boon]

So a player who holds another player back gets time off the field while a player who knocks a another player out illegally stays on? He may be ultimately be suspended but that's irrelevant if the game is a GF.

Maybe just give him 5 as well.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

How about only a 5 minute bin and it counts as an interchange . . . if you want the coaches to really sit up and take notice

This is how I'd like the send off to work. Player gets sent off, team still has 13 on the field but one less interchange player to use

 

[davi]

This is how I'd like the send off to work. Player gets sent off, team still has 13 on the field but one less interchange player to use

Nope, because that neglects the disadvantage of a player been sent off if the player who has been sent off injuries a opposing player who can't come back on the field.

 

[AJB1102]

I liked the idea but I'd doubt we'll ever see the interchange used to punish a side. Coaches wouldn't like it, therefore players wouldn't like it therefore the RLPA wouldn't let it happen because "player workloads, burnout" etc.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

Nope, because that neglects the disadvantage of a player been sent off if the player who has been sent off injuries a opposing player who can't come back on the field.

Sin Bin & Send Off are dead now so that argument doesn't hold a lot of water. At least this would increase their use when they are warranted.

 

[POPEYE]

So a player who holds another player back gets time off the field while a player who knocks a another player out illegally stays on? He may be ultimately be suspended but that's irrelevant if the game is a GF.

Not rocket science ol' mate, if a referee puts someone on report it means he's not sure how to punish other than a penalty. I'll give you the cost of a phone call . . . give Archer a ring and ask him why referees don't send players on report to the bin

 

[ed-grimley]

Not rocket science ol' mate, if a referee puts someone on report it means he's not sure how to punish other than a penalty. I'll give you the cost of a phone call . . . give Archer a ring and ask him why referees don't send players on report to the bin

Referees are reluctant to sin bin any player for anything considering the potential to change a game, but if they do you'd want to think it wasn't for something trivial.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I think it should be. If a player goes on report he has to be replaced (costing an interchange) and he can't come back for 10 minutes.

If a player commits a worse offense he is ejected from the game and is not replaced on the field.

I like the idea of deliberate fouls and a penalty box situation. So if the opposition team scores he can come back on. Otherwise it is 5 minutes.

 

[siv]

5 min sin bin was brought in for repeat infringements

3 penalty in a row and player should spend 5 in the bin

Simple

Use the rules the way they were intended

 

[T-Boon]

This is how I'd like the send off to work. Player gets sent off, team still has 13 on the field but one less interchange player to use

thats not bad.