The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Time to change suspensions

Jordan McLean's ban for his tackle on Alex McKinnon was coloured by the severity of the Knights player's injury. (AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Roar Rookie
23rd April, 2014
5

When is an advantage not really an advantage in the NRL? For too many years I have seen the referees bottle it when it comes to binning a player for a foul on another player.

What is the purpose of the sin bin in rugby league these days if the match officials are not going to use it?

I can understand that in the heat of the moment the referees may have a hint of doubt on any play and do not want to affect the game in a major way. More often than not the incident will go on report and left for the judiciary to decide the fate of the player.

But this comes back to my initial question – when is an advantage not really an advantage?

For years I have seen players commit a foul in a game, often injuring an opposition player and get suspended. But there has been no real advantage given to the team that the crime was committed against.

Two examples from this year stick out in my mind. Firstly, Jordan McLean’s seven-week suspension as a result of his tackle that has left Alex McKinnon a quadriplegic and secondly, Willie Mason’s two-week suspension for his shoulder charge against the Broncos.

I am not disputing the severity of the suspensions, just the way it is dealt out and the lack of benefit going to the team that suffered the foul. In the case of McLean, how have the Knights benefitted? Seven other clubs actually benefit because they don’t have to play Melbourne with McLean in the team. Where is the Knights advantage from that play?

In case two, Willie Mason has received a two-week suspension for a shoulder charge against a Broncos player. Again, where is the advantage that the Broncos should receive? The Knights now play the Bulldogs and Penrith in those two weeks. That is great for the Bulldogs and the Panthers, but how does this advantage the Broncos, the team fouled against?

Advertisement

Given that referees are unwilling to hand out the punishment themselves, this is my solution.

When players get suspended, they are suspended against the club they have fouled. This means in the case of Willie Mason, he is free to play this weekend but the next two times his club plays the Broncos, he is ineligible. So when the Knights play the Broncos in Round 24 this season, Mason would be suspended from playing that game as well as the next time he is due to face them.

If Mason were to sign for the Titans next season then he would have to sit out the Broncos versus Titans match to finish off his suspension.

Obviously this system can be flawed, especially in the cases of somebody who is going to retire or switch codes. It’s also problematic in the McLean case. Serving seven games of suspension over a possible three to seven years under my system is a bit ridiculous. However, I suggest with any suspension over four weeks, that half the games are reserved for the club fouled.

In the McLean case he would serve four weeks now and serve the remaining matches in the next three times he plays the Knights. This ensures that the Knights, and not some other non-related club, still get an advantage.

In the case of players who will not play the following season due to retirement, moving to Super League or rugby union, they should be made to serve their suspension as it currently stands.

Imagine if Cameron Smith lifted a Parramatta player and received a two-match ban, which team(s) should get the advantage of playing Melbourne without Smith? Parramatta or whoever is lucky enough to play Melbourne next? Why should the next team get the advantage that no other club gets just because of ‘luck of the draw?’

Advertisement

I feel this system is fairer for those clubs who week after week have to put up with their players copping head-high tackles, illegally tackles or shoulder charges. Other clubs are receiving the advantage and it is time to make suspensions fairer.

close