Juro
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,859
I was thinking about the general complaint with players getting put on report to face the judiciary, where the team they played don't get any benefit from the possible suspension.
For example, if Wests Tigers were playing Melbourne and Robbie Farah got hit high by Billy Slater and went off injured, Slater gets put on report but all the Tigers get is a penalty. At the judiciary, Slater gets suspended for 2 weeks. The teams that Melbourne play the following 2 weeks get a benefit of playing a weakened team.
Now, what if the NRL brought in a rule where, the next time Wests and Melbourne played, the Storm was reduced to 12 players for a certain amount of time, say 3 minutes per week of suspension. So if the player was suspended for 2 weeks, the first 6 minutes of the game, we get an advantage. It doesn't necessarily have to be Slater that is off the field (eg, what if he is injured or has moved to play for a different club). The decision would be up the the Storm coach.
Other things I was thinking about this:
1\. With the amount of time of suspension, you wouldn't want to take into account the loadings that the judiciary normally take into account when determining the length of suspension. Whether or not Slater had done it 100 times before is of no relevance to what he did to Farah. You should just take into account the severity of the individual infringement to work out the length of time in this case.
2\. If a game was of more consequence (eg a grand final), you could give a larger penalty to apply in the regular season next year.
What do you think? Brain storm or brain fart??
For example, if Wests Tigers were playing Melbourne and Robbie Farah got hit high by Billy Slater and went off injured, Slater gets put on report but all the Tigers get is a penalty. At the judiciary, Slater gets suspended for 2 weeks. The teams that Melbourne play the following 2 weeks get a benefit of playing a weakened team.
Now, what if the NRL brought in a rule where, the next time Wests and Melbourne played, the Storm was reduced to 12 players for a certain amount of time, say 3 minutes per week of suspension. So if the player was suspended for 2 weeks, the first 6 minutes of the game, we get an advantage. It doesn't necessarily have to be Slater that is off the field (eg, what if he is injured or has moved to play for a different club). The decision would be up the the Storm coach.
Other things I was thinking about this:
1\. With the amount of time of suspension, you wouldn't want to take into account the loadings that the judiciary normally take into account when determining the length of suspension. Whether or not Slater had done it 100 times before is of no relevance to what he did to Farah. You should just take into account the severity of the individual infringement to work out the length of time in this case.
2\. If a game was of more consequence (eg a grand final), you could give a larger penalty to apply in the regular season next year.
What do you think? Brain storm or brain fart??
