Tinkering with the send off rule

[Burwood]

The mid-game outcome of Sonny Bill William's send off during Sunday's game has seemingly polarised league fans into the following two categories:

1. He took out an opposition player with a reckless tackle (accidental or not) and should have been sent off;
2. It was a bad tackle, but Johns' injury was unfortunate and should have been irrelevant to his punishment from the referee.

Under the current interpretation of the rules, I personally believe that SBW was unfairly sent off and should have remained on the field. The tackle looked bad, but it was not bad enough for him to be sent off. However, I also see it as being unfair that the actions of a player can result in one team having to play a man down, and the only in-game 'compensation' that they receive for this is a free interchange.

What do people think about an injury to a player as a result of an illegal high/dangerous tackle being considered by the referee when they need to decide whether to send an offending player off or not? I'm starting to come around to the idea that if a player is forced to leave the field with a serious injury that is the direct result of a dangerous tackle, it is unfair for their team not to receive a more fitting form of compensation.

Keeping this in mind, I think that the NRL needs to look at tinkering the current send off rule to help avoid situations such as the one we saw last weekend. Here are some possibilities that I have considered:

1) Players currently cannot be sin binned for a dangerous tackle, so maybe introduce a rule where they can spend 10-15 minutes in the bin, but later re-enter play.

2) The severity of the injury can be considered by the referee when deciding whether to send player off or not. If the tackle itself isn't bad enough to warrant a direct send off under the current interpretation, but a team has gained an unfair advantage from the penalty, then the player is gone. The injured player is not allowed to later re-enter play even if their condition improves.

3) The offending team loses the use of a number of their interchanges. Maybe 1 for each half of football left in the game.

4) A combination of the above, i.e player spends 15 minutes in the bin, and team loses two interchanges.

So do people think that the current rules need to change, and if so how? Or are they happy with how things are?

 

[keeney]

Leave it the way it is, the ref reacted poorly, obviously affected by the crowd and the injury. Injury is part of the game, and if that results from a fairly benign if illegal passage of play so be it. That's the judiciary's role, and if there was no malice, there's no reason why the player should be sent off. Particularly in this incident.

 

[griff]

way too complicated

bring back 5 and 10 minute sin bins for foul play. If a team has only 5 minutes where they have the numerical advantage this would actually add to the excitement as they go all out to score, like with power plays in the NHL.

Maybe also keep the send-off rule, so the player is allowed to play no further part in the match, but allow him to be replaced after 10 minutes. This would mean refs wouldn't be so squeamish about using the send off for players that deserve it, as it wouldn't mean the side is a man down the whole game.

 

[Nightward]

I think head-high tackles and dirty play in general needs to be tidied up, or refereed with equanimity. At the moment, certain players and clubs have the ability to make tackles (and interfere afterwards) with impunity. Yet, anyone else tries those tactics, and blam; penalty.

The head-hunting on Hodges, Inglis, Lockyer, and others is pretty blatant, but usually draws a shrug and an, "Eh. They've got to get used to being targeted."

But now? ZMOG! NadreW JnoHS HAV BIN HERT! SEND HMI OFF!!11elventy.

Cleaning up of kickers on the last play also needs a good going over, but that's a rant for another day.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I think this was just poor judgement on the ref's part. I guarantee the next player to commit a dangerous tackle on a less well known/intregral player causing injury, will not be sent off. Watch for it.

If it were any other Newcastle player carried off on Sunday afternoon, SBW would have played a full game before fronting the judiciary.

 

[Raider_69]

Leave it the way it is, the ref reacted poorly, obviously affected by the crowd and the injury. Injury is part of the game, and if that results from a fairly benign if illegal passage of play so be it. That's the judiciary's role, and if there was no malice, there's no reason why the player should be sent off. Particularly in this incident.

end thread right there. Spot on keeney.

 

[Burwood]

Leave it the way it is, the ref reacted poorly, obviously affected by the crowd and the injury. Injury is part of the game, and if that results from a fairly benign if illegal passage of play so be it. That's the judiciary's role, and if there was no malice, there's no reason why the player should be sent off. Particularly in this incident.

I agree that the ref made the wrong decision, but why should a team that loses a player end up being disadvantaged while the offending team receives no in game penalty? SBW's tackle had no malice in it (only an idiot would argue that he intended to hurt Johns), but nonetheless it was reckless. I am not saying any tackle that causes injury should result in punishment, just the ones that the referee deems to fall between careless and intentional dangerous tackles.

bring back 5 and 10 minute sin bins for foul play. If a team has only 5 minutes where they have the numerical advantage this would actually add to the excitement as they go all out to score, like with power plays in the NHL.

Maybe also keep the send-off rule, so the player is allowed to play no further part in the match, but allow him to be replaced after 10 minutes. This would mean refs wouldn't be so squeamish about using the send off for players that deserve it, as it wouldn't mean the side is a man down the whole game.

These are the sort of ideas that I am after! Your first idea is very similar to mine, with the key difference being the time spent on the sidelines. It is ridiculous that a player can be sin-binned for holding down in a tackle too long, but if they take a player's head off with a reckless tackle they will only get put on to report. How does that help the team that is now down a player?

I also like your idea of a team not having to play with 12 men. Cut them down to a 3 man bench to even things out a bit, as playing a man down is far too much of an advantage in the modern game.

 

[Burwood]

And can we stop with the "it was Johns and he's a protected species" argument. I don't really care who the player injured is, if they end up unconcious for 2-3 minutes as a result of a reckless tackle then there needs to be a viable option for the referee to award some form of in-game compensation.

 

[Jobdog]

Or how about the player who "commits" the act of foul play, resulting in an opposing player being taken from the field, then the player who committed the act of foul play then HAS to be replaced and can no longer take a further part in the game until such time as the injured player returns. This way, worst case scenario, both teams keep 13 on the field, but only have 3 interchange players with which they can interchange.

 

[Burwood]

Or how about the player who "commits" the act of foul play, resulting in an opposing player being taken from the field, then the player who committed the act of foul play then HAS to be replaced and can no longer take a further part in the game until such time as the injured player returns. This way, worst case scenario, both teams keep 13 on the field, but only have 3 interchange players with which they can interchange.

That would work well until a player like Inglis knocks out Tanner*. I'm sure the coach would be in the dressing room telling Tanner that he isn't allowed back on the field

* Assuming Tanner ever gets a run in first grade again.

 

[Tom Shines]

Any tackle that would normally be just a report gets a 5 minute bin.
Any thing more serious (like the Sonny William Williams tackle) gets a 10 minute bin.

 

[keeney]

I agree that the ref made the wrong decision, but why should a team that loses a player end up being disadvantaged while the offending team receives no in game penalty? SBW's tackle had no malice in it (only an idiot would argue that he intended to hurt Johns), but nonetheless it was reckless. I am not saying any tackle that causes injury should result in punishment, just the ones that the referee deems to fall between careless and intentional dangerous tackles.

It's the same as questioning why fate should make a team lose a player to an ACL in the first couple minutes, or be down to a 1 man bench by the end of a game. Injuries are part and parcel, they're big lads.

If there isn't any malice, then why should a player and consequently their team be punished for an accident? They'll get penalised, and there is the judiciary too, surely those suffice?

 

[Burwood]

If there isn't any malice, then why should a player and consequently their team be punished for an accident? They'll get penalised, and there is the judiciary too, surely those suffice?

How about when a player goes in to make an attempted shoulder charge and it goes wrong? They weren't trying to deliberately hurt the player and the tackle itself is not illegal, but they know that there is a high risk associated with trying to pull it off. If the shoulder charge does go wrong then they should be held to some form of accountability during the game. Same goes for players who run into tackles with a swinging arm and clenched fist.

As it stands, these sort of tackles are very rarely deemed to be send off offences. If the NRL is serious about player welfare then they need to look at ways of stamping out the action. I can pretty much guarantee that players will be more reluctant to attempt these dangerous tackles in they run the risk of letting down their team mates during the match itself. I'd rather see a player held accountable for their actions during the game and then receive a slightly more lenient suspension from the judiciary then be able to continue on through the game practically unpunished while the opposition suffer the loss of a player.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

tbh I think the current rules already prohibit gutless numpty refs from sending off big name players for innocuous offences, but that won't stop them doing it.

 

[leaguegod692]

way too complicated

bring back 5 and 10 minute sin bins for foul play. If a team has only 5 minutes where they have the numerical advantage this would actually add to the excitement as they go all out to score, like with power plays in the NHL.

Maybe also keep the send-off rule, so the player is allowed to play no further part in the match, but allow him to be replaced after 10 minutes. This would mean refs wouldn't be so squeamish about using the send off for players that deserve it, as it wouldn't mean the side is a man down the whole game.

i agree 100% with the 5 and ten minutes sin bins for foul play

i believe send offs should be for intentional things, like knee's to the head and king hits etc but a careless high tackle aint a send off, 5-10 minutes in the bin, if he does it again send him off

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Send-off rule should stay as is.

However a player who is sent off should be forced to do 10 laps of the field before he can enter the sheds.

 

[The Engineers Room]

There is an easy solution and it is go back to 5 minutes in the bin for foul play for offenses that are not bad enough for a send off. If a player returns and commits another such offence or a professional foul it is a mandatory send off.

All professional fouls (deliberate penalties aimed at tampering with the other teams in attack or defence) should remain at 10 minutes.

 

[simon says]

There is an easy solution and it is go back to 5 minutes in the bin for foul play for offenses that are not bad enough for a send off. If a player returns and commits another such offence or a professional foul it is a mandatory send off.

All professional fouls (deliberate penalties aimed at tampering with the other teams in attack or defence) should remain at 10 minutes.

Agreed.

 

[brokendigit]

If the NRL are serious about eliminating foul play, this is what they should do;
Do away with send-offs. If a player is suspended, then his team plays for that number of weeks down by one player (out of 17).

Using the current example (Sonny Bill Williams), Canterbury would be playing the next two weeks minus one bench player.

It sounds over the top, but coaches would quickly figure out that tackling around the legs (remember those days?) is a much better option.

With the ball being 'locked up' less often, more open play is the end result.

Either that, or leave it as it is - it's not a bad system as it stands...