I'm sure there will be errors but does the threat of being removed from the field act as the deterrent we need as a means of prevention?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Sin bin/send off?
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
I would say if you do a clearly suspendable action(Franklin, Stewart, Pickett) you are out of the game, but can be subbed if a sub is avaliable.
If with that suspendable action you injure the opponent to either put him into HIA or out of the game, the opposition choose one of your players as well to sit for a commensurate period. So in the Stewart on Prestia scenario, Stewart is gone, but can be subbed + say Hawkins or Cameron or another player of Richmond's choice is out of the game and Geelong are down a rotation. Still 18 v 18 on field.
That means if you line up a key opposition player to take him out of the game illegally, you lose one of your key players from the game as well. This should alleviate any disadvantage to the team whose player is taken out by an illegal action.
So the ongoing match retains integrity as a contest, but any disadvantage now lies with the team who committed the wrongdoing. There would need to be reasonable thresholds met by the incident for it to activate this protocol. So a moderate jumper punch or other incident that s unlikely to cause injury should not trigger this protocol. The protocol should be there to protect the head and the integrity of the match.
If with that suspendable action you injure the opponent to either put him into HIA or out of the game, the opposition choose one of your players as well to sit for a commensurate period. So in the Stewart on Prestia scenario, Stewart is gone, but can be subbed + say Hawkins or Cameron or another player of Richmond's choice is out of the game and Geelong are down a rotation. Still 18 v 18 on field.
That means if you line up a key opposition player to take him out of the game illegally, you lose one of your key players from the game as well. This should alleviate any disadvantage to the team whose player is taken out by an illegal action.
So the ongoing match retains integrity as a contest, but any disadvantage now lies with the team who committed the wrongdoing. There would need to be reasonable thresholds met by the incident for it to activate this protocol. So a moderate jumper punch or other incident that s unlikely to cause injury should not trigger this protocol. The protocol should be there to protect the head and the integrity of the match.
Last edited:
In
If that was a grand final & we'd lost because our star was KO'd off the ball I'd have wanted blood.
There currently is no deterrent to stop an opposition taking out the best player & changing the course of the game.
Teams should not be able to benefit from such thuggery.
Agree. The Stewart/Prestia hit was a clear example of where the offending player should be removed from the field.
If that was a grand final & we'd lost because our star was KO'd off the ball I'd have wanted blood.
There currently is no deterrent to stop an opposition taking out the best player & changing the course of the game.
Teams should not be able to benefit from such thuggery.
Personally I say no, but that is more a reflection ever dwindling faith that the AFL doesn't actively try its hardest to influence outcomes of games without fully exposing itself.
A sin bin rule would hand way too much control to Gil and the dills.
A sin bin rule would hand way too much control to Gil and the dills.
Pointless trying to make a rule about this, they don't follow their own rules.
Would you have had Dangerfield off in the 2020 GF after knocking out Vlastuin, how about Cotchin in the 2017 PF?
Way too much open to interpretation.
What would help to stop this would be a serious sanction, Stewart should have got 8 weeks last year, and Pickett at least 4 last week. A penalty which hurts for a long period of time.
I know there is the perennial question about the Grand Final but any team which goes out and targets an opposition player in the GF runs the risk of having one of their important players targeted in the same game.
DS
Would you have had Dangerfield off in the 2020 GF after knocking out Vlastuin, how about Cotchin in the 2017 PF?
Way too much open to interpretation.
What would help to stop this would be a serious sanction, Stewart should have got 8 weeks last year, and Pickett at least 4 last week. A penalty which hurts for a long period of time.
I know there is the perennial question about the Grand Final but any team which goes out and targets an opposition player in the GF runs the risk of having one of their important players targeted in the same game.
DS
There's been a sin bin rule in NRL for years and I'm no rugby league fan, but it doesn't look to have slowed down the number of high shots. If it's introduced to protect the head from concussions, how is it working as a deterrent when it's still happening on a regular basis ?
That's not even my main problem with it. Having seen how the AFL have introduced new rules over the last five or six years, mostly without any kind of trial, just thought bubbles, I have little faith that the umpires would be given any hope of clear guidelines regarding implementation of a sin bin or send off rule.
Already we saw in R1 three shoulder charges, all graded differently causing confusion all round. Which ones were sin bin ? Which ones weren't ?
My other issue is that the AFL's current penalty system seems to be so all over the place that it's almost a nonsense. Marlion Pickett got two weeks for an incident last year that by their own grading system should have been a free kick and a fine. Whilst Paddy Cripps got off knocking a bloke out on a technicality when he really should have got three weeks. It's a mess. In Cripps' case a big Brownlow Medal sized mess (read into that what you will).
Having said all that, an incident where Tom Stewart ran past the ball and knocked out Prestia should be the perfect scenario for a send off rule. It's arguable that it cost us that game. Where's the disincentive not to take out the oppos best player ? That's before even considering the concussive effects of such a blow to Prestia.
Throwing a punch to the head that connects would also qualify for being sent off imo.
So yes, there probably should be a sin bin and/or a send off rule in the AFL. But, in reference to the NRL rule, will it actually act as a deterrent and stop the behaviour ? Questionable.
Finally, is the AFL professional enough to be able to accurately and fairly adjudicate sin bin and send off scenarios ? That for me would be a no. In their majesty the AFL would turn it into a can of worms. Just you wait and see.
That's not even my main problem with it. Having seen how the AFL have introduced new rules over the last five or six years, mostly without any kind of trial, just thought bubbles, I have little faith that the umpires would be given any hope of clear guidelines regarding implementation of a sin bin or send off rule.
Already we saw in R1 three shoulder charges, all graded differently causing confusion all round. Which ones were sin bin ? Which ones weren't ?
My other issue is that the AFL's current penalty system seems to be so all over the place that it's almost a nonsense. Marlion Pickett got two weeks for an incident last year that by their own grading system should have been a free kick and a fine. Whilst Paddy Cripps got off knocking a bloke out on a technicality when he really should have got three weeks. It's a mess. In Cripps' case a big Brownlow Medal sized mess (read into that what you will).
Having said all that, an incident where Tom Stewart ran past the ball and knocked out Prestia should be the perfect scenario for a send off rule. It's arguable that it cost us that game. Where's the disincentive not to take out the oppos best player ? That's before even considering the concussive effects of such a blow to Prestia.
Throwing a punch to the head that connects would also qualify for being sent off imo.
So yes, there probably should be a sin bin and/or a send off rule in the AFL. But, in reference to the NRL rule, will it actually act as a deterrent and stop the behaviour ? Questionable.
Finally, is the AFL professional enough to be able to accurately and fairly adjudicate sin bin and send off scenarios ? That for me would be a no. In their majesty the AFL would turn it into a can of worms. Just you wait and see.
Last edited:
Dangerfield? Highly unlikely as he knows he wouldn't have been sent off. Cotchin? Doubt it as he crouched for the bump so it was a fair bump.
Tom Stewart? Nah, don't think so, took out Prestia and they won the game.
Now, an 8 week suspension might focus the mind a bit more.
DS
I think any player would think twice if they had a fear of being sent off in a game because it could cost their team the game.
It happens in other sports. Don't see why ours is any different whatsoever.
YeOldeTiger observed above that it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent in Rugby.
In any case, what's different? How about the gross incompetence of the umpires. Add in the farce that is the ARC. To finish off the inconsistency of the MRP should be enough to scare anyone off trusting the AFL to do anything really.
DS
Huh? They have cleaned up that game enormously in recent years by cracking down hard on sin binning & heavy suspensions. It's almost been overkill but it has had an impact.
Well said ToO.
IIRC Alastair Lynch went all TV Ringside in his final match in a Grand Final.
Won the fights.
Lost the match.
He got 10 weeks I think.
He retired and never had to serve out the penalty.
An example of the thuggery not helping the team.
The Stewart hit on Meatball still infuriates me.
Always been a fan of the send-off. Last year, the hit on Prestia was a classic example of why it is necessary. Stewart snipes him and Prestia is down and out. Then Stewart goes on to help his team win the game, disadvantaging Richmond. They don’t win that game if Stewart goes off. Then he gets suspended for a few games but it is cold comfort as he misses games against rival teams, which could potentially disadvantage Richmond further. Unfair outcome.
Sin bin a few players and force their team to play 17 against 18 for 20 minutes and the sniping will end immediately.
Sin bin a few players and force their team to play 17 against 18 for 20 minutes and the sniping will end immediately.
Dangerfield should have been sin binned in that game.
The Cotchin hit looked relatively innocuous at the time. I have seen that game replayed a few times. Shiel is hit by Cotchin and then runs into Astbury a few minutes later.
In principle I agree with a sin bin, but it is the incompetence of the adjudicators, on and off the ground, that puts me off.
DS
I've sitting been here clicking "like" on opposing views. I agree that the sin bin is overdue. But I also think most of the sniping is gone. But, I also agree with DS that the problem with it is the Umps. No way do they send off Danger for that hit, they didn't even award a free kick. Cotch would have splinters, so would Marlion.
