The send off rule - a work around

[Northern Beaches dog]

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?

 

[Moedogg]

No team in today's day and age will ever go out with a plan to intentionally hurt a player. The tactic of fielding a reserve grader just to take out a player will never be employed. It's not the 1980s.

Players these days are professionals and watch out for themselves and would hesitate to try to intentionally cause injury to another player, they know how tough it is to reach that level and would never try to compromise someone's health and income. You do it and not only do you sit out for weeks but you will be hated by everyone in the industry and probably end up getting death threats because it gets personal.

It's simply not in the spirit of the game, players would want to lift that trophy up knowing that they outplayed the opposition and not cheapen the reward by taking out the best player, that would fuck with their conscience.

 

[TwinTurbo]

No team in today's day and age will ever go out with a plan to intentionally hurt a player. The tactic of fielding a reserve grader just to take out a player will never be employed. It's not the 1980s.

Players these days are professionals and watch out for themselves and would hesitate to try to intentionally cause injury to another player, they know how tough it is to reach that level and would never try to compromise someone's health and income. You do it and not only do you sit out for weeks but you will be hated by everyone in the industry and probably end up getting death threats because it gets personal.

It's simply not in the spirit of the game, players would want to lift that trophy up knowing that they outplayed the opposition and not cheapen the reward by taking out the best player, that would fuck with their conscience.

You are joking surely.

When Bellamy helped, via John Donahue, implement the “chicken wing” do you not think it was intended to injure opposition players?

The grapple?

Rolling pin?

Prowler?

Crusher?

Hip drop?

Chinstrap?

Cannon ball?


There was never any “hesitation” in their implementation, by the coaching staff or the players, immobilise the opposition player and if they happen to get injured, well that’s just collateral damage.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Nasheed]

Nasheed here,
It’ll be tactically used to have extra interchanges. No deal.

 

[Chris Harding]

It wouldn't work against the Bulldogs. The opposing team would have difficulty identifying our top player to be sent off.

Anyway, it wouldn't be accepted by the fans, let alone the NRL or players. Someone like Cleary could be sidelined all year.

Back in the early days of Rugby League, some teams did put in players they could afford to lose, with the intent of deliberately taking out a key player, and playing one man short against a weakened team. Wests and the Dragons were known to play that game.

We lost Les Johns from a broken jaw, when he was deliberately taken out at Belmore one year. Oddly enough, we signed the player who broke his jaw the following year.

 

[Marki]

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?

What about the more likely situation of a meathead who is lucky to be in the first grade team, gets sent off for marginal foul play and the opposition licks the lips and decides to remove to the best player in the team?

What I'm trying to say is, most send offs this year have been for marginal fouls that the NRL has decided are send off offences. They haven't really been on star players and hardly intentional (unlucky if anything).

You shouldn't have to lose a good player that's not involved in foul play, as a penalty just because of a silly rule.

 

[Malla]

In theory and practice, sending someone off or sin binning is just stupid.

Firstly, the sin bin/send off should only be applicable to professional fouls. Second, why should the team and the quality of the game be impacted because of one players negligence. The sin bin for example - 10 mins of a footy game, that's 12.5% of a footy game which is enough to totally ruin the game and count that team out. Look at the Souths v Rabbits game last year that had about 8 sin bins. Was hyped up to be the game of the year and it ended in that because the ref lost control.

Not saying players shouldn't be sent off or sin binned, they definitely should, but teams should be able to replace them.

 

[Moedogg]

John Hopoate
Danny Williams

No player would sign up to be in the same group as the above scum bags.

 

[Cappuccino]

Who has ever suggested if a player is sent off he is replaced? Wtf

 

[CroydonDog]

Interesting post NBD. I'm ok with how things are generally - but i'd like to see a 5 minute sin bin brought back as i think 10 minutes for a lot of infringements is too much.

Send offs should have to be verified by the bunker, just to make sure and sohuld only be used in pretty extreme circumstances.

 

[axeman23]

It wouldn't work against the Bulldogs. The opposing team would have difficulty identifying our top player to be sent off.

Anyway, it wouldn't be accepted by the fans, let alone the NRL or players. Someone like Cleary could be sidelined all year.

Back in the early days of Rugby League, some teams did put in players they could afford to lose, with the intent of deliberately taking out a key player, and playing one man short against a weakened team. Wests and the Dragons were known to play that game.

We lost Les Johns from a broken jaw, when he was deliberately taken out at Belmore one year. Oddly enough, we signed the player who broke his jaw the following year.

Cleary lining up to receive the kickoff first game back after being knocked out, and he sees some meat-head from the Yagoona Schooners waving at him from the opposition line with a big toothless grin...

 

[H-dog]

I’m just hopeful that Cleary gets a concussion and mandatory 11day stand down that will the be reviewed and cleared to play for the grand final

 

[BDPScarface]

If you're going to have your supporters spell out PANTHERS with letter signs, your P and A have to commit to being there every time.. especially if you lose the T and/or the H