Northern Beaches dog
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2020
- Messages
- 1,321
- Reaction score
- 1,680
Once a player is sent off, it is pretty much game over for the team a player down, especially under the new rules.
Essentially the game is ruined.
A common argument in the past has been to let a player come on and replace the player sent off to maintain 13 on 13. A valid criticism of this argument has been, what if it is a semi final or grand final a reserve grader gets selected with the sole purpose of rubbing out the oppositions best player, then the team who committed the offense is not disadvantaged while the opposition has its best player taken off.
Here is a work around.
Lets suppose we use the above example to get the point accross.
Lets say this weekend, in the Storm Panthers game Bellamy puts in a reserve grader with the sole purpose of taking out Nathan Cleary.
This reserve grader starts the game and clocks Cleary flush and knocks him out in the first 2 minutes. Cleary is gone for the game. The reserve grader gets sent off.
Proponents of the replace the sent off player would then allow this reserve grader to be replaced so its still 13 on 13 but the Panthers are at a massive disadvantage.
This is not fair.
NOW, how about introducing this rule?
Lets say the reserve grader clocks Cleary and rubs him out, now the Panthers captain gets to CHOOSE which Storm player gets sent off. So instead of the reserve grader that would get sent off, the Panthers gets to choose which player. Lets say they choose Munster to take no further part in the game. Munster gets sent off but he then gets replaced to maintain 13 on 13.
So while the Panthers are down a star player, so are the Storm so there is no benefit of having a tactic of taking out the oppositions best player.
So we stay with 13 on 13 and the integrity of the game has not been ruined and coaches will have no incentive to take out the oppositions best player because if they do, the opposition can choose which players can no longer take place.
There is no perfect solution, but i think it is the best solution to a bad situation.
Thoughts?
Essentially the game is ruined.
A common argument in the past has been to let a player come on and replace the player sent off to maintain 13 on 13. A valid criticism of this argument has been, what if it is a semi final or grand final a reserve grader gets selected with the sole purpose of rubbing out the oppositions best player, then the team who committed the offense is not disadvantaged while the opposition has its best player taken off.
Here is a work around.
Lets suppose we use the above example to get the point accross.
Lets say this weekend, in the Storm Panthers game Bellamy puts in a reserve grader with the sole purpose of taking out Nathan Cleary.
This reserve grader starts the game and clocks Cleary flush and knocks him out in the first 2 minutes. Cleary is gone for the game. The reserve grader gets sent off.
Proponents of the replace the sent off player would then allow this reserve grader to be replaced so its still 13 on 13 but the Panthers are at a massive disadvantage.
This is not fair.
NOW, how about introducing this rule?
Lets say the reserve grader clocks Cleary and rubs him out, now the Panthers captain gets to CHOOSE which Storm player gets sent off. So instead of the reserve grader that would get sent off, the Panthers gets to choose which player. Lets say they choose Munster to take no further part in the game. Munster gets sent off but he then gets replaced to maintain 13 on 13.
So while the Panthers are down a star player, so are the Storm so there is no benefit of having a tactic of taking out the oppositions best player.
So we stay with 13 on 13 and the integrity of the game has not been ruined and coaches will have no incentive to take out the oppositions best player because if they do, the opposition can choose which players can no longer take place.
There is no perfect solution, but i think it is the best solution to a bad situation.
Thoughts?