Sin binning shambles

[Tommy Smith]

So we go from hardly no sin bins at the start of the year to now dishing them out like free samples at a gelato festival.

The Chris Smith sin binning brought the game into disrepute. My eyes and Rugby League loving soul can not unsee THAT decision.

I'm not sure what made it more egregious. The softness of the decision standing alone or the fact that you just know the referees "square up mentality" was at play in response to the Luke Garner sin binning, which I hear was almost as farcical.

I haven't seen the Adam Blair one but apparently that was also a reprehensible decision; and it almost cost the Warriors the game.

A sin binning is a huge, HUGE call in rugby league. They can define games. So why are they dishing them out for incidents that aren't even worthy of a penalty?

For once when Gus rips into them it won't be hyperbole. The overuse of the sin bin rule with regards to "late contact" and "interference" on kick chasers in attack has seen officiating levels sink to new lows - which I didn't think was possible.

Imagine THAT Chris Smith sin binning happening in a GF with 10min to go.

I look forward to Annesley explaining these calls.

 

[mave]

Blairs one was an absurdly bad call.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Yep I'm no Blair fan ..he's not the sharpest tool in the shed .
But that was a borderline penalty at the most .
Farcical decision .

 

[edabomb]

Yep I'm no Blair fan ..he's not the sharpest tool in the shed .
But that was a borderline penalty at the most .
Farcical decision .

He actually seems pretty sharp off the field, not sure what happens when he crosses the white line.

Refereeing to the state of the game is the new norm. That Josh Morris double movement no penalty was a prime example. If his team is up 20 that's a penalty to the defending team every day of the week. Because his team is down 20odd it's back for a play the ball like the whole thing never happened.

 

[TheFrog]

I haven't seen the Adam Blair one but apparently that was also a reprehensible decision; and it almost cost the Warriors the game.

I thought Blair ambled into the path of the chaser, sin bin for sure.

That Josh Morris double movement no penalty was a prime example. If his team is up 20 that's a penalty to the defending team every day of the week. Because his team is down 20odd it's back for a play the ball like the whole thing never happened.

Ref must've said play on, that's the only way it can be explained.

 

[perverse]

My perception was that they've been handing them out like candy all year. I'm a Knights fan though, and last I heard something like 1/3rd of all sin binnings this year have been our players? I think we had a 7-8 game trot where we copper it every week.

I'm all for them using it, but agree that they're whipping it out haphazardly at the moment. I'd probably prefer that than the refs pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[yobbo84]

Both players have been charged by the MRC. That'll do me.

 

[The unknown]

The garner one was just as bad, I thought both should have been a penalty at absolute worst. But yeah the game is run by absolute skirts

 

[mave]

Both players have been charged by the MRC. That'll do me.

Souths had 2 players charged, that were not even deemed as penalties on the field vs Manly.

Something is badly wrong in the whole system.

 

[Bandwagon]

Kane Evans last week - Sin Bin for attacking a player with his chest.

 

[Vic Mackey]

The Garner one was a borderline penalty. It probably looked worse because it’s a big backrower on a half and he leveled him. However it wasn’t late, he had fully committed to the tackle before Lewis passed. It also wasn’t high and wasn’t a shoulder charge. To miss a game is obscene.

I didn’t think the Smith one was even a penalty, however it didn’t look as bad as the Garner one because Smith is a smaller guy then Matterson. Worst part was that we’d just made a break and it was only tackle 2 with the Dogs line in a shambles. I was happy to play on, not go back 40m for a penalty.

The whole thing is a total over reaction. The NRL let play makers get belted by cheap shots for years. Now just like the no punching rule they’ve come down way to hard and you basically aren’t allowed to tackle them.

 

[lazza]

If they're going to increase sin binning frequency, i rekon go for 5 in the bin and back on after points (excl first penalty goal). Much like NHL powerplays.

 

[Vee]

So we go from hardly no sin bins at the start of the year to now dishing them out like free samples at a gelato festival.

The Chris Smith sin binning brought the game into disrepute. My eyes and Rugby League loving soul can not unsee THAT decision.

I'm not sure what made it more egregious. The softness of the decision standing alone or the fact that you just know the referees "square up mentality" was at play in response to the Luke Garner sin binning, which I hear was almost as farcical.

I haven't seen the Adam Blair one but apparently that was also a reprehensible decision; and it almost cost the Warriors the game.

A sin binning is a huge, HUGE call in rugby league. They can define games. So why are they dishing them out for incidents that aren't even worthy of a penalty?

For once when Gus rips into them it won't be hyperbole. The overuse of the sin bin rule with regards to "late contact" and "interference" on kick chasers in attack has seen officiating levels sink to new lows - which I didn't think was possible.

Imagine THAT Chris Smith sin binning happening in a GF with 10min to go.

I look forward to Annesley explaining these calls.

Nailed it imo. Haven't seen the Blair one but heard it was poor, penalized on reputation perhaps?

Happy with the Garner one, the Smith one was disgraceful, worse because it came from the bunker.

 

[Vee]

Both players have been charged by the MRC. That'll do me.

Smith? Spare me. MRC decision makers are as bad as those in the bunker. If they were dogs, you wouldn't feed them.

 

[TheFrog]

Both players have been charged by the MRC. That'll do me.

The MRC and the Judiciary for that matter answer to the same person as the refs/bunker. This is the entire problem. The refs make a blue, the MRC and Judiciary are expected to defend it. An independent appeals body is needed.

 

[Zadar]

If they're going to increase sin binning frequency, i rekon go for 5 in the bin and back on after points (excl first penalty goal). Much like NHL powerplays.

I agree, if a try is scored, the player comes back on.

 

[Vee]

The Garner one was a borderline penalty. It probably looked worse because it’s a big backrower on a half and he leveled him. However it wasn’t late, he had fully committed to the tackle before Lewis passed. It also wasn’t high and wasn’t a shoulder charge. To miss a game is obscene.

I didn’t think the Smith one was even a penalty, however it didn’t look as bad as the Garner one because Smith is a smaller guy then Matterson. Worst part was that we’d just made a break and it was only tackle 2 with the Dogs line in a shambles. I was happy to play on, not go back 40m for a penalty.

The whole thing is a total over reaction. The NRL let play makers get belted by cheap shots for years. Now just like the no punching rule they’ve come down way to hard and you basically aren’t allowed to tackle them.

Agree with your last two paragraphs.

Disagree on Garner. Not sure if he was committed or not but that's irrelevant, it was late imo. He had time to pull out and didn't.

Edit - I've only seen it once, on my phone. Just my gut live call.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

These binnings for "late hits" on playmakers are the ones that are killing me at the moment. Not only are they ridiculously over the top but they also clearly show that whoever is driving this crackdown at the moment has zero understanding of the mechanics of defense and has obviously never played the game.

The Garner hit was a prime example of my point... Garner was fully committed to the tackle. That's 110 kgs of forward moving at pace... He can't just stop on a dime. It's not his fault that the player he tackled decided to turn his back and at that point, Garner isn't necessarily looking straight at him anyway. He's turning his head to one side preparing to make the tackle. So.. His view of the tackled player is obstructed and to make matters worse, the player being tackled has turned his back so Garner has zero chance of seeing when the ball has been released. Still... Garner probably senses that a few people have been binned for hitting playmakers with their backs turned and he makes every effort to pull out. He puts his chest out as a bumper and applies the brakes but by that stage, its too late. Momentum does what momentum does and he levels Lewis, basically with a chest bump a fraction of a second after the ball is passed. I mean, the ball is still in the air ffs.

Anyone who has played a bit of footy and made a few tackles knows that Luke Garner did everything he could... Probably even beyond what you would expect a player in that situation to even be able to do, to pull out of that tackle and yet he still ended up in the bin.

It was an outrageously stupid decision and a clear blight on that game.

 

[Vic Mackey]

Agree with your last two paragraphs.

Disagree on Garner. Not sure if he was committed or not but that's irrelevant, it was late imo. He had time to pull out and didn't.

Edit - I've only seen it once, on my phone. Just my gut live call.

Fair enough, I thought Garner was committed. Even if he wasn’t as @Different kind of Rabbit mentions below Lewis turned his body away from Garner, the ball was completely hidden from him. It sets a very dangerous precedent, if the ball is hidden from defenders sight are they not allowed to tackle just in case the ball has been passed?

I’m all for protecting the play makers from cheap shots however they have taken it way too far.

 

[siv]

Yes a team yesterday conceeds 9 penalties in a row and no sin bin for repeat infringements