Opinion 44 Sin Bins in 7 Rounds ..

[B-Train]

It would help if the players actually knew what rules they were breaking when the NRL change ten different rules mid game nowadays. Most of them the players can't do anything about. Most of them look worse because the attacking player is milking it.

The NRL are dumber than I thought if they think they can "eradicate" some of these tackles. Accidents happen. Players get hit and injured. It's a violent sport. Just make it touch footy and be done with it or grow a brain and stop binning every player for everything.

The sooner V'landys, Annesley and the rest of the muppets are fired, the better.

 

[Gene Krupa]

Why weren’t the other 18 charged and were they even fined, and if only 29 of them were for foul play, what were the other 15 sin binned for ?

Maybe the sin binning was enough punishment.

 

[GrogDog]

Very simple for the NRL to place it back on the players for the issues however the way I see it we are seeing a direct result caused by the NRL.

These "hip drops" have evolved as a result of the NRL refusing to nip the "wrestle" out of the game when it first came in. Evolution in the game since that point see's us where we are today. We have gone away from low tackles and went higher and higher on the body. Happy to say, I still played when low tackles were the pinnacle of the sport, think Trevor Gillmister. First player went low and the second player went up high.

So the NRL looked the other way when the wrestle came in, they banned a few tackles that Bellamy invented but largely....they did nothing. The wrestle evolved, players went higher on the body and we got to a point where 2 players go high on the initial contact, stop the players momentum and then a third player goes low to put him on the ground. Basically, a complete 180 to tradition.

Now, the players are struggling to put the ball carrier onto the ground as they move forward, causing the third player to try and catch the legs and get him down. The hip drop is born. Same can be said about high tackles, they're the ones that let the evolution form to players needing to tackle high. Can't hit a bloke high if you're tackling around the hips!

So, the NRL are the cause of where we are now through sitting on their hands and people in charge who have never played the game. They have no idea what they are doing or even care about the sport.

So, NRL if you want players to stay on the field then clean up the issues you allowed and get your head out of the sand!

 

[maroondog72]

If they keep this shit up, the game will be done and dusted in 10 years. No one is going to watch 'battle of the sin bins' every weekend. Refs are controlling the outcomes of almost every game this year. How the fuck did match officials become the center piece of our game??

 

[Alan79]

Annesley is a stain on the game. Rather than address the issues he just blindly defends the indefensible. Nothing will ever change while he is at the helm, and it’s ridiculous his position isnt under scrutiny

He's doing exactly what he's supposed to. They know full well what they're defending is bullshit. But the idea they have is that NRL fans are dimwits who will happily buy into a lie rather than see that games are rigged and the sport is completely corrupt and a tool to take money from the unfortunate souls that still gamble on it.

The reality is that while refereeing clankers happened forever, they've never been so bad or gotten steadily worse as they have since the gambling sponsor joined. I know the original deal was giving the NRL 7% of the gambling take as well as a fixed payment. Assuming that the percentage of the take is still in play, they significantly increase the NRL income if they allow the gambling sponsor to dictate games.

I still see many people here who'd prefer not to believe it, but I can't help but look at games and think refs can't be that bad and go unpunished if they're not sanctioned to steer results in a particular direction.

 

[GrogDog]

He's doing exactly what he's supposed to. They know full well what they're defending is bullshit. But the idea they have is that NRL fans are dimwits who will happily buy into a lie rather than see that games are rigged and the sport is completely corrupt and a tool to take money from the unfortunate souls that still gamble on it.

The reality is that while refereeing clankers happened forever, they've never been so bad or gotten steadily worse as they have since the gambling sponsor joined. I know the original deal was giving the NRL 7% of the gambling take as well as a fixed payment. Assuming that the percentage of the take is still in play, they significantly increase the NRL income if they allow the gambling sponsor to dictate games.

I still see many people here who'd prefer not to believe it, but I can't help but look at games and think refs can't be that bad and go unpunished if they're not sanctioned to steer results in a particular direction.

There's no way a reasonable person makes the amount and types of errors that we are consistently seeing. I would say that out of the 8 games per weekend (and I watch alot of them) that it's up to about 4 or 5 directly being influenced for the outcome. Last year it was about 2 or 3. When you take into account the rule changes (mainly 6 agains) and then the fine to Coaches for saying anything it's fairly strong evidence. Any place that has nothing to hide doesn't need to silence it's employee's.

 

[Alan79]

There's no way a reasonable person makes the amount and types of errors that we are consistently seeing. I would say that out of the 8 games per weekend (and I watch alot of them) that it's up to about 4 or 5 directly being influenced for the outcome. Last year it was about 2 or 3. When you take into account the rule changes (mainly 6 agains) and then the fine to Coaches for saying anything it's fairly strong evidence. Any place that has nothing to hide doesn't need to silence it's employee's.

I'd love to see the flow of money vs the refereeing. I think there'd be direct correlation between referee howlers and the potential profit margin when they completely rule out one team winning by refereeing them out of games. You can offer odds that are an incredible enticement to bet on the losing side if you can virtually guarantee who it'll be ahead of the game by owning the refs.

 

[Dognacious]

So the question is … out of 44 sin bins, 29 were for foul play, with 26 of those charged by the match review committee.

Why weren’t the other 18 charged and were they even fined, and if only 29 of them were for foul play, what were the other 15 sin binned for ?

I guess for things like professional fouls.

 

[D0GMATIC]

Not only are refs ruining the game but I can't stand players deliberately staying down from a fairy tap just so the bunker can look at it

I hate it too, but while ever the game rewards it, players will do it

 

[D0GMATIC]

Graham Annesley had defended the number of sin bins in the opening seven rounds, putting the onus back on the players to stop breaching the rules if they want to stay on the field.

There have been 44 sin bins already this season, up from 28 at the same stage last year, with six players marched for 10 minutes in the two games on Friday night.

There must have been something in the water at Cronulla and Brookvale because three players in each game were sent from the field at different stages because of hip-drops, high tackles, ruck infringements and late hits to vulnerable playmakers.

View attachment 68644

Data released by the NRL shows that we’ve seen the most games decided by 0-6 and 7-12 points since 1908, highlighting how one brain snap by a player can cost his side two competition points.

Of the 44 sin bins this year, 29 were for foul play, with 26 of those charged by the match review committee.

The penalties have played a huge role with 35 tries scored by the team with 13 players, while the team reduced to 12 men has scored 14 tries.

“The players have to comply, and there are standards that they all understand that they need to comply with,” Annesley said.

“One of the frustrating things from our point of view in the administration of the game is that we still see players making decisions that are not necessarily in their best interests or the best interests of their team in the hope they’ll get away with something.”

View attachment 68645

It was a big weekend of talking points, with Annesley urging players to make better decisions after Newcastle’s Lachlan Fitzgibbon was lucky not to be penalised for a needless late hit on Nathan Cleary that could have resulted in a three-point field goal.

The NRL’s head of football was happy with the officiating, including the decision to not award Lindsay Collins a try even though the Roosters were adamant the ball had scraped the line against the Sharks.

He also had no issue with Campbell Graham’s try against the Dolphins, even though replays showed he may have pushed Euan Aitken off the ball.

44 sin bins, we've had 4

 

[NQ Dog]

If they stop changing the rules the players and fans could keep up.
There was nothing wrong with the rules pre 2000.

 

[J_Cooper]

How can annnesley defend this when Origin will be reffed very different and they get away with a lot more. It should be reffed exactly the same as a normal regular game. It’s actually embarassing.

 

[King Gus]

So the question is … out of 44 sin bins, 29 were for foul play, with 26 of those charged by the match review committee.

Why weren’t the other 18 charged and were they even fined, and if only 29 of them were for foul play, what were the other 15 sin binned for ?

The league is run by clowns

 

[Dognacious]

Where else have i heard of an administration that fucks up, and then suppresses anyone saying anything about it, and punishes detractors?

Russia maybe?

 

[wendog33]

I'd love to see the flow of money vs the refereeing. I think there'd be direct correlation between referee howlers and the potential profit margin when they completely rule out one team winning by refereeing them out of games. You can offer odds that are an incredible enticement to bet on the losing side if you can virtually guarantee who it'll be ahead of the game by owning the refs.

Yes good point. Maybe the margins is where they profit by manipulating the blow outs.

Anyone see Brian Cranston in Jerry and Marge Go Large...in the movie the lottery office gained more profits by going into cahoots with him lol.

 

[SPEARTAKVIDREFS]

He's doing exactly what he's supposed to. They know full well what they're defending is bullshit. But the idea they have is that NRL fans are dimwits who will happily buy into a lie rather than see that games are rigged and the sport is completely corrupt and a tool to take money from the unfortunate souls that still gamble on it.

The reality is that while refereeing clankers happened forever, they've never been so bad or gotten steadily worse as they have since the gambling sponsor joined. I know the original deal was giving the NRL 7% of the gambling take as well as a fixed payment. Assuming that the percentage of the take is still in play, they significantly increase the NRL income if they allow the gambling sponsor to dictate games.

I still see many people here who'd prefer not to believe it, but I can't help but look at games and think refs can't be that bad and go unpunished if they're not sanctioned to steer results in a particular direction.

Ive read may of your posts in the past Alan so I know your very disheartened by what has happened to the sport and your takes on gambling.

The thing I cant get my head around is how the NRL would profit from 'rigging' games.
Example being with the rule changes, its less likely than ever for a bottom 4 team to get an upset. I think its quite predictable to see who is going to win in a game these day more so than say 10 years ago. The odds with betting generally reflect this.
So how does say Souths winning over Dogs benifet betting agencies or the NRL?
or am I missing something with your take on gambling?

 

[wendog33]

Where else have i heard of an administration that fucks up, and then suppresses anyone saying anything about it, and punishes detractors?

Russia maybe?

When you analyse it, it really verges on corruption and suppression of the truth in many cases.

Remember when Greenburg asked the media to stop criticising the game and talk it up instead?

Ok yes the media are vultures but wow fix the ref and officiating problems first before killing the publics faith in the game.

 

[D.O.W.]

In summary.

NRL admin- We're not the ones fucking it up by randomly trying to crack down on something to justify our positions. It's the players who should alter the way they play a game that needn't have changed much since 1908.




I wasn't around back then. But it's a different, harder to follow game with numerous grey areas in rules that often defy logic. I honestly don't like the game anymore. I might feel different if we ever get a level playing field. But whenever I watch more than a few minutes of any game now, I'm usually of the opinion that one team gets screwed. Unfortunately I think we cop it every week. Other teams might be in the same boat, but I don't try to watch other teams every week so can't say for sure.

This is the biggest issue with the NRL hierarchy, they come out with a specific objective like magic round last year targeting head highs and sending off half of the starting rosters saying “get used to it” leveraging player safety etc…. Then flake after a bit of criticism. They’re knee-jerky and weak as piss under pressure.

Same with the hip drop, one freak injury and they start policing this “hip drop” (which is a standard tackle by the way, always has been) sin binning all and sundry, all of a sudden, no sin bins.

even the six again rule, it almost vanished after Andrew John’s criticised it during a game, but in that game, the team kept laying on the tackled player…the multiple six agains were justified. The NRL let’s the lunatics run the asylum.

 

[1967]

Ive read may of your posts in the past Alan so I know your very disheartened by what has happened to the sport and your takes on gambling.

The thing I cant get my head around is how the NRL would profit from 'rigging' games.
Example being with the rule changes, its less likely than ever for a bottom 4 team to get an upset. I think its quite predictable to see who is going to win in a game these day more so than say 10 years ago. The odds with betting generally reflect this.
So how does say Souths winning over Dogs benifet betting agencies or the NRL?
or am I missing something with your take on gambling?

I mentioned this before, I don’t feel the Nrl are about rigging the game for gambling profits. I feel their focus is on making sure they have an exciting TV product and spectacle, I believe it’s in their best interests to make the game both exciting and controversial, that’s why we’re noticing the influence the ref’s have on the results as opposed to just quietly policing the game, that $1 billion TV media contract feeds a lot of teat sucklers.

I feel they’re also very wary of the rich and powerful and making sure they keep them happy, have a look at the clubs up the top, then look at who owns/runs them, then also ask yourself why those clubs also have the most talented players in the game playing for them, how can the Roosters afford an on paper $15 million dollar team? … no one knows, because the Nrl are to scared to go to these rich and powerful blokes and ask them.

To answer your question, IF, the gambling side of things was rigged, I don’t believe it would come from the high up people running the Nrl, it would most probably come from those a lot further down the pecking order.

And it wouldn’t be about how they’d benefit from Souths beating the Dogs because the odd’s on that would probably be $1.10 v $4.50 very few would bet head to head at those odds.

It’s about the variables, 13 +, muliti’s etc. that’s where the bigger money goes.

If there’s big punters money like $10k, $20k on Souths to beat Dogs by under 12 points, binning a player to push the score up over 13, cashes in.

There’s multiple ways to rig something because there’s various ways to bet on the game, it’s all about where the big money sits…. with the microphones in the ear it’s easy to control, “hey mate, just go back 5 tackles, pretty sure Preston just injured a player via a hip drop, give him 10 in the bin will ya mate” …

All just hypothetical opinions … everything could be above board and we’ve just coped 7 years of bad luck …

The way forward is to get better, out score the opposition to the point bad decisions don’t make a difference and our odds are $1.10 .

 

[Dogs Of War]

So the question is … out of 44 sin bins, 29 were for foul play, with 26 of those charged by the match review committee.

Why weren’t the other 18 charged and were they even fined, and if only 29 of them were for foul play, what were the other 15 sin binned for ?

Slowing down the game. Or the one they tried on NRL360, for why Olam got sent to the bin, was cause the ref warned them the next act of foul play would be going to the bin. 1 set later Olam smashes DCE after he kicked the ball, normally just a penalty, but due to the warning it was 10 in the bin.

I've got no problem with the sin bins. If your going to clean up the game a bit, then you need to penalise players and they will learn and pull there heads in. I think players/coaches were hoping it would stop like previous crackdowns, but this one is going nowhere and I'm sure by the end of season we will see a change in technique.