MASCORD: Sending players off is in the rules, so it's time to use it

Another weekend, another NRL "controversy". You journalists who are employed to write about this game need to stop dragging it through the mud. Did that tackle deserve a send off? A player off the field, a team one player short, for the rest of the game? Absolutely not. It was not a dog shot. It was not a professional foul. It was a mistimed, run of the mill tackle that ended up unfortunately causing a knock out. Anyway, disregarding that particular tackle. That's the second time this year, in six short rounds (believe the first incident was round one, but seems so long ago I can't even remember), that a swinging arm has had the wowsers calling for the send off. Seriously. There is so much negative noise right now in the NRL media space that it is incredible. Where's the informed chat about strategy, skilled players, charity work, etc.? You're right - it's nowhere. NRL media is a noise making Grinch, and a complete disgrace.

Problem with that is, a team can send out a goon who isn't that important to the team to go out and smash a player like JT or GI or any opposition key player, and although they will be punished by losing a bench spot the team whose key player has been taken out will still be worse off because they'll also be down a bench spot but have lost a far more important player. People have raised the idea of the 18th man as an injury replacement but where do you stop with that...what if two players get concussed in the same game, do you allow a 19th man, a 20th man etc? In my view, "reviving" the send-off is the only workable solution. If a red card ruins the game so much coaches will tell their players to not even risk a send-off by doing something stupid and we can all sit back and watch the game clean itself right up.

I'm going to keep writing this, if the ref thinks a player has committed a send off offence then he orders his replacement with a loss of 2 interchanges for his team. This allows 13 still on the field except when all interchanges have been used, which is normally late in the game anyway.

More like lined up his chest just below the ball, he was tackled down low, started to fall forward and made contact with the head.

You make some good points but The U.S has so much more viewership than Oz so it doesn't make too much of an impact if some people switch off. In Oz even if there is a risk that people will change channels, companies will think twice about advertising during games.

I am of the opinion that the present administration does not understand what the game is about. Its more than corporate dollars, its more than sucking up to channel 9. Its about the sport and the fans. Both are being treated shabilly. The tackle on Browne was disgraceful, and should have been treated accordingly, that is, sent off and suspended for at least 8 weeks. The NRL keep rabbitting on about concussion, but are doing nothing to prevent it. It is any wonder fans are leaving in droves. Time for a more hands on administration, that have football experience as well as admin ability.

If an offence is worthy of a suspension, then it's worthy of a send-off. The debate about send-offs should end right there. There need not be any grey areas - the system works extremely well in rugby, with the video ref assisting the on-field blokes to make an informed decision. I'm aware of only two Super Rugby red cards in the past 10 years that have been rescinded by a judiciary process. It's time for the NRL and the refs to grow a pair and put genuine deterrents in place. The frequency of suspensions and the rate of recidivism are not making the game any cleaner, or reducing the instances of foul play, compared to how it was five years ago. I'm not advocating a return to Jim Comans-style draconian measures, but there need to be serious and immediate consequences for foul play. The emerging science on the appalling long-term effects of sports-related concussions should put a rocket under administrators across several sports.

50 years, good on ya there. Am I the only one here that saw the player get bent over from the other tackler and wind up being halfway towards Frizzell's navel when he made this "high" shot? Watch it at normal speed - what's Frizell supposed to do?

Steve, I agree about your comments regarding the "Hire Car" press release. They need to develop a thicker skin and ignore the press. Time is money and waiting for taxis when managing a tight schedule is a waste of money. That said, various media identities have been sticking the boot into Smith and Grant and the "high paid" (read overpaid for that) executives they have hired. Never mind that at least two of them come from respected clubs (Souths and the Dogs, they are hardly faceless "suits") and that the NRL is a billion dollar business. I'm not sure many people understand what is required to run such a large business spread over two countries and four states. The days of the chook raffle are long gone. It's all IP agreements, digital streaming and growth through diversity now. Move on.

How the hell was it a send off? There was zero malice in it, and if jack de belin doesn't cut Tim Browne down first then frizell's arm hits him square in the chest. It's a penalty every day of the week and sure he should be suspended, but it's not malicious or intentional. It was mistimed and somewhat unlucky.

The Tyson Frizell tackle deserved a send-off. He lined up the Canterbury player's head, that's where he was looking and he didn't miss. It was an old-fashioned "coat hanger." The fact that the tackle was put on report and Canterbury were left a man short for the rest of the match was completely unfair. If the referees are not prepared to send players off, in these circumstances, an 18th man should be allowed so the non-offending team is not left a man short. However, the fairest way, and to send a message that foul play will never be tolerated, is simply to send the offender off. I am also extremely concerned about how the video ref is used. I'll get to that in a moment. We really only need 1 referee on the field at any time. Having 2 refs is causing confusion in the game with different interpretations being applied simultaneously for the entire game. Go back to 1 ref on the field and rotate that ref with the 2nd ref during the game to ensure the referees can effectively keep up with the pace of the game. Now for the video ref. it is absurd the way it is being used/not being used. There is absolutely no consistency. One of the flash points in the Canterbury/Souths debacle was a clear infringement on one of the Morris twins at the end of the game and it was ignored. The video ref should be used at all times and not just because a player goes down. Fans constantly question if a player is playing for a penalty, rather than playing within the spirit of the game. The video ref should monitor all play and advise the referee whenever foul play is detected, or it is obvious that an on-field decision is wrong. No need for replays or holding up play. Now that's another issue that's driving me nuts!!!!! The NRL to me, at the moment, is the greatest form of running football that's really lost it's way. We no longer have the spontaneity and flow that set the game apart from games like NFL and Rugby Union. To be honest, it is just plain boring. The game is not about processes and procedures it is about ball movement, about the impact of forwards trying to gain the ascendancy, it is about footballers, like the magnificent Johnathan Thurston, showing us their magic week in and week out. It is not about 20 minutes of video replays during a game while decisions are made. Just get on with it, then I'll be interested again. I watched on YouTube the final of the USARL from last year and it was a pleasure to watch. It was hard, tough, excellent skills, good ball movement and played in a wonderful spirit. Everything that I look for in Rugby League. PS I've been watching this great game for over 50 years!!!!!

I would like to suggest 2 options here Option 1: If you committ a crime like Frizell etc then you get sent off immediately, no questions asked. And when the MRC looks at your case, they take 50 points off because you have effectively missed part of a game already Option 2: If you committ an offence thats deemed worthy of being put on report, you go to the sin bin for 10 minutes or until the opposition scores a point, whichever occurs first.

Disagree sporty spice. I doubt channel 9 or foxtel have any influence. Basketball and ice hockey are two sports in North America that rate incredibly well and maintain a high audience throughout the games despite the use of 2 min powerplays in ice hockey or the utterly unwatchable cynical fouling at the end of a basketball match. In Ice hockey in particular people love the powerplay as it increases the opportunity for scoring in a 6 v 5 format. No one cahnges the channel People wouldn't switch off here if the referees utilised the bin more, in fact people would be excited about the additional scoring chances that will emerge. The problem lies with the fact the referees are afraid to use the bin or send off's because they fear being demoted for a week or two if they were wrong, or if they aren't getting the full support from the administration for enforcing the rules more. If the NRL admin and Graham Annesley would publically support the refs for more strict applications of the bin, we'd see more bin and TV crowds would still stay high.

When did reckless become not foul play it was a send off every day of the week too much BS has crept into the game I like 13 on 13 so agree with send off but replace player after 10 minutes and have less players on the interchange

Just think of the best player in your team playing against Frizell in the Grand Final and then ask yourself if things have to change.

I disagree, we don't need smaller punishments we need to start using the ones we already have.

It seems obvious to use the sin bin more often. I also wouldn't mind the ice hockey rule if it is sin bin for cynical \ professional foul

Maybe they need a 5min send off as well as the 10min and permanent send off? In Hockey we have Green Cards (Min. 2mins), Yellow (Min. 5mins) and Red (Min. Remainder of game). As an umpire, a minor offence that just needs them to cool their jets can be dealt with with a 2min suspension, not a major impact to game but still a penalty to team

Or alternatively you could have something like ice hockey where if a player is sent to the penalty box aka sin bin for their punishment time( i.e 10 minutes in league), and the other team scores the rest of that time is void as the other team has gained that advantage. If the other team doesn't score in the 10 minutes, the sin bin player come back on like normal. This way the impeded team gains an advantage but the penalised team don't get the game taken out off the hands. At worst they are down a try.

What about the player who twice put his leg into the scrum to feed the ball, no penalty.