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?
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?’
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.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Referees ought to be the big daddy on the field. A by-product of video refs and review panels is that they help to dilute the psychological authority of the referee on the field. At least, that is how it appears to me.
Sleemo
Guest
I think the laws of the game make no provision allowing a referee to sin-bin a player for foul play. It's either a send-off or a penalty (plus a report in the higher levels of the game). That's not to say that I agree with it, it's just the way it is. I think there should be provision for foul play to result in a sin-bin. It will clean up the game a lot - players will be far less likely to hit a bloke high or drive him into the ground if they know they're going to be punished there and then. Simply, any offence which leads to a player being suspended for any length of time should result in a send-off. It's simple logic - how is he punished for 80 or 160 or 240 or however many later on, yet the offence is not worth the 20 or so (for example) left in the game? Further, no punishment is served against the team who has been victimised by the foul play. No wonder referees get undermined so much when we have a system where a match review panel or judiciary can effectively say "right, this action deserves five weeks on the sideline...but the ref was right to not send him off". Makes no sense.
Gurudoright
Guest
I'm all in favour of the punishment being dealt with on the field, but if the refs aren't going to do it I want to see some advantage still go towards the team that was fouled
Kiz
Guest
That's probably one of the dumbest ideas ever sprouted on this site. Why not, if an incident warrants report then it's 10 in the bin. Advantage given at the time of the incident regardless of the judiciary's finding.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
The reporting system was brought in for cases when the referee and/or touch judges couldn't properly see an incident. It was reported so the match review panel could then view it and make a decision. For instances when the referee and touchies saw the incident they were expected to act on it. The reporting system is now just an abrogation of their duties as a referee. With the media and coaches, referees appear to be afraid to make a decision. The McKinnon incident is a classic example. Newcastle is down to 16 players but no reduction to Melbourne's numbers. Apart from a kick, Newcastle were disadvantaged while Melbourne received the advantage (the Knights down to 3 on the bench). Sin bins and send offs have become a thing of the past. To be fair, foul play should be send off and professional fouls a sin binning. Perhaps if the referees followed this mantra this may clean up parts of the game but it would only be a start. We need the refs to take control of the game, not looking over their shoulders at the media and coaches. If the referees blow a game to pieces with penalties, fair enough. Why blame the refs, they aren't the ones breaking the rules. We had many good referees in the past who refereed to the rules and there were no problems with the likes of Stone, Pearce, Holman etc.