Mandatory sin bin

[Tucker]

Thats just bullshit.

whats not bs is Its quite clear there is a lot of confusion over this three 6 to go sin bin rule as I stated earlier and someone even started a thread about it.
Many it seems including myself only saw this for the first time last week with sutton binning luai...it appeared to happen again today and thanks to @Tom Shines he clarified things to me without the need to call me and others that werent clear on it butthurt..sooks etc.
Anyone that questions a refs call to you is a sook.
You cant communicate like an adult..constantly denigrating others, the only reason i can see for it is to validate yourself. That seems to be the main reason you're here...to feel better about yourself.
Insecure?
Low self esteem?

Would be something like that

No.
I like to talk about Rugby Leagie and this place used to be good for that.
Nowadays it is full of conspiracy theorists and people constantly tearing the game down.
Not true footy fans.
Can’t even talk about other games without having to wade through pages and pages of people sooking and relating every single decision back to our game.
Even when we win the game threads contain hundreds of these posts.
I won’t apologise for getting the shits at that.

 

[jirskyr]

I swear I just heard on the radio that there were 3 back to back penalties to the bulldogs...

No sin bin?

Why did Jarome get binned for this vs the cowboys then?

Called the same thing myself during the match.

 

[tiger_one]

Has anyone ever heard any referee in any other game say the words "Mandatory Sin Bin" in the same context as our game?
I haven't.
Gives me "soft whistle" vibes.

 

[tig_prmz]

Called the same thing myself during the match.

I think Luai was done for the same thing 3 plays in a row.

You can be 10m offside then 4 tackles later have a ruck infringement and then another ruck infringement, it'll be fine.

Still a bs sin bin

 

[Tucker]

Has anyone ever heard any referee in any other game say the words "Mandatory Sin Bin" in the same context as our game?
I haven't.
Gives me "soft whistle" vibes.

I think the ref erred in the way he explained that sinbin.
To me it was quite simple really…the opposition was a high chance of scoring and that was being spoiled by consistent, back to back ruck infringements that were clearly intended to slow them down and break their roll on. That is a professional foul.
He didn’t need the explanation he gave…it has confused people and provided an avenue to whinge.

 

[gregjm87]

And this is where they lose us and we end up ref bashing, because instead of acknowledgding it for what it is, they are a protected species who pick and choose when they are going to apply certain rules.

I would prefer they came out and explained how exactly they believe Luai breached the rules. He stated Luai has a duty of care to not make dangerous contact when Talagi is in a vulnerable position. And that other players have been able to pressure kickers without the dangerous contact.
If he truly believes it was worthy of a penalty explaining how the contact is dangerous and what contact Luai is allowed to make instead would have done more for their credibility and helped set a standard moving forward.
As for referees being protected. I see this as exactly the same as a coach trying to support a player or simply a boss trying to support an employee. I don't think they are a 'protected species' any more than anyone in any other modern workplace.
As far as picking and choosing rules. I think the refs interpretations are pretty consistent however I also believe the overall performances are declining. They don't pick and choose when to apply rules but rather simply make a lot of errors when reffing. Unfortunately these are the best refs available as few others are putting their hands up for the role. More often than not state cup refs knock back approaches from the NRL about being promoted to the top grade (or so I'm told by a couple of nswrl refs).

 

[innsaneink]

I would prefer they came out and explained how exactly they believe Luai breached the rules. He stated Luai has a duty of care to not make dangerous contact when Talagi is in a vulnerable position. And that other players have been able to pressure kickers without the dangerous contact.
If he truly believes it was worthy of a penalty explaining how the contact is dangerous and what contact Luai is allowed to make instead would have done more for their credibility and helped set a standard moving forward.
As for referees being protected. I see this as exactly the same as a coach trying to support a player or simply a boss trying to support an employee. I don't think they are a 'protected species' any more than anyone in any other modern workplace.
As far as picking and choosing rules. I think the refs interpretations are pretty consistent however I also believe the overall performances are declining. They don't pick and choose when to apply rules but rather simply make a lot of errors when reffing. Unfortunately these are the best refs available as few others are putting their hands up for the role. More often than not state cup refs knock back approaches from the NRL about being promoted to the top grade (or so I'm told by a couple of nswrl refs).

That would make it more black and.white and not grey...they dont seem to want that b/w as it gives them less wriggle room

 

[Lestronge]

I think Luai was done for the same thing 3 plays in a row.

You can be 10m offside then 4 tackles later have a ruck infringement and then another ruck infringement, it'll be fine.

Still a bs sin bin

That’s not true . He didn’t even get penalised the first time . It was rouce hunt .
It went hunt, luai , luai .

 

[Lestronge]

That would make it more black and.white and not grey...they dont seem to want that b/w as it gives them less wriggle room

It’s like the reverse of “penalty broncos” . Only “tigers infringement … reason … tigers are playing too well, I’ve got 6 pineapples on the tigers loss +12”…: just kidding …..

 

[tig_prmz]

That’s not true . He didn’t even get penalised the first time . It was rouce hunt .
It went hunt, luai , luai .

not the same person, but 3 ruck infringements in a row. I heard that explanation on the radio somewhere.

 

[gregjm87]

That would make it more black and.white and not grey...they dont seem to want that b/w as it gives them less wriggle room

Potentially that is why they have chosen that wording, but is certainly a cynical viewpoint. Potentially they just looked at it and deemed it dangerous.
There are some obvious ways you could argue Luai's contact was dangerous. He didn't complete the tackle i.e. wrap his arms and take him to the ground, rather than knock him down. He used moderate to high force. I personally don't believe it was dangerous but i can certainly see it being fairly interpreted as such.
If you want to make the law that contact on a player must be a tackling motion (this is what has already been told to clubs) AND that tackle must be completed (as roughly described above) that is fine but they need to specify that. We need to see another dozen slightly different but similar tackles (which we probably won't see for the whole rest of the year to be honest as most teams now coach to not make contact) to start to see a pattern of what they believe to be dangerous.

 

[Furious1]

If there is one thing that should be put to bed straight away it is that Luai used too much force. Given that it wasn’t high, late or at the legs, there was nothing wrong with the force used. In fact I’d argue, if your not hitting someone with everything you’ve got in defence, then you have no place in the NRL.

 

[tonza]

Potentially that is why they have chosen that wording, but is certainly a cynical viewpoint. Potentially they just looked at it and deemed it dangerous.
There are some obvious ways you could argue Luai's contact was dangerous. He didn't complete the tackle i.e. wrap his arms and take him to the ground, rather than knock him down. He used moderate to high force. I personally don't believe it was dangerous but i can certainly see it being fairly interpreted as such.
If you want to make the law that contact on a player must be a tackling motion (this is what has already been told to clubs) AND that tackle must be completed (as roughly described above) that is fine but they need to specify that. We need to see another dozen slightly different but similar tackles (which we probably won't see for the whole rest of the year to be honest as most teams now coach to not make contact) to start to see a pattern of what they believe to be dangerous.

Why don't we all just cut the crap. The colour of the Guernsey was the reason Luai was penalised. Had it been last year when he was in the oppositions colours it would not have happened. The same thing in last week's game. Had it been last year, he would not have got 10 mins in the bin. Pure fact, ask Parramatta. Also, when the supposedly top referee of the NRL manufactured the result of our game against the Cowboys some time ago, you can bet that would not have happened had it been the Roosters. Fact.

 

[jirskyr]

I think Luai was done for the same thing 3 plays in a row.

You can be 10m offside then 4 tackles later have a ruck infringement and then another ruck infringement, it'll be fine.

Still a bs sin bin

He wasn't, or at least he didn't do the same thing 3 times.

I went back and watched the replay. There was a 6-again against one of the forwards, then Luai was involved in a small scuffle with Bateman where Bateman pushes him after the tackle and Luai pushes back to the head, then the next set Luai is penalised and sent for working the tackle. There's 1 official and 2 potential infringements specifically by Luai.

But also how ridiculous a proposition - you can be binned for 3 types of the same infringement, but you are fine if they are 3 different types of things? So if I do a head-high THEN lay on the ruck THEN do an escort I stay on the field, but if I lay in the ruck 3 times I go to the bin.

 

[gregjm87]

Why don't we all just cut the crap. The colour of the Guernsey was the reason Luai was penalised. Had it been last year when he was in the oppositions colours it would not have happened. The same thing in last week's game. Had it been last year, he would not have got 10 mins in the bin. Pure fact, ask Parramatta. Also, when the supposedly top referee of the NRL manufactured the result of our game against the Cowboys some time ago, you can bet that would not have happened had it been the Roosters. Fact.

Because I dont believe the colour of the Guernsey makes a difference, nor do I think we cop any more dodgy decisions than any other team. Our side unfortunately is to shit to overcome a poor call.

 

[gregjm87]

Potentially that is why they have chosen that wording, but is certainly a cynical viewpoint. Potentially they just looked at it and deemed it dangerous.
There are some obvious ways you could argue Luai's contact was dangerous. He didn't complete the tackle i.e. wrap his arms and take him to the ground, rather than knock him down. He used moderate to high force. I personally don't believe it was dangerous but i can certainly see it being fairly interpreted as such.
If you want to make the law that contact on a player must be a tackling motion (this is what has already been told to clubs) AND that tackle must be completed (as roughly described above) that is fine but they need to specify that. We need to see another dozen slightly different but similar tackles (which we probably won't see for the whole rest of the year to be honest as most teams now coach to not make contact) to start to see a pattern of what they believe to be dangerous.

So I've since talked to some of my ref mates about this. They reckon Annesley is right and the clubs have explicitly been told what is and isn't acceptable.

They sent me this link as their supporting evidence.

Tackling the kicker - The dos and don'ts

NRL head of football elite competitions Graham Annesley outlines what constitutes illegal contact on a kicking player

www.nrl.com

Edit* I should note they also aren't happy they have to rule that way and believe the protection of kickers has gone to far. Their opinion was if you don't want to stand deep (giving your side advantage with on sides and kick metres you deserve to get whacked).

 

[TheClaws]

Whilst this is not related to the Luai sin binning, it did become a major issue for us in the Panthers game. The biggest mistake we make as a team is burning our captains challenge early...I would love someone to complete an analysis on penalty counts and more importantly errors for teams that lose their captains challenge early, versus when they keep it for at least 70mins. I feel that when you burn your captains challenge early the officials will tend to not give you the rub of the green, I am sure they are pissed off when a call they make on field is proven wrong on national tv and you can't prove them wrong if you can't challenge it. Also, other teams will push the parcel which will lead to errors that were really offences on field that should have been penalized and were not as the other team know you have burnt your captain's challenge. We need to be smarter about the captains challenge.

 

[Merlot]

I would prefer they came out and explained how exactly they believe Luai breached the rules. He stated Luai has a duty of care to not make dangerous contact when Talagi is in a vulnerable position. And that other players have been able to pressure kickers without the dangerous contact.
If he truly believes it was worthy of a penalty explaining how the contact is dangerous and what contact Luai is allowed to make instead would have done more for their credibility and helped set a standard moving forward.
As for referees being protected. I see this as exactly the same as a coach trying to support a player or simply a boss trying to support an employee. I don't think they are a 'protected species' any more than anyone in any other modern workplace.
As far as picking and choosing rules. I think the refs interpretations are pretty consistent however I also believe the overall performances are declining. They don't pick and choose when to apply rules but rather simply make a lot of errors when reffing. Unfortunately these are the best refs available as few others are putting their hands up for the role. More often than not state cup refs knock back approaches from the NRL about being promoted to the top grade (or so I'm told by a couple of nswrl refs).

what is the pay scale for Refs. State Cup would be chump change imo against an NRL full time gig , flying around.Are Reserve grade Refs basically used in their local area, apart from semi's etc or moved around the state ,I'm ashamed to say that is something I've never looked into when studying the game a few decades ago

 

[Furious1]

So I've since talked to some of my ref mates about this. They reckon Annesley is right and the clubs have explicitly been told what is and isn't acceptable.

They sent me this link as their supporting evidence.

Tackling the kicker - The dos and don'ts

NRL head of football elite competitions Graham Annesley outlines what constitutes illegal contact on a kicking player

www.nrl.com

Edit* I should note they also aren't happy they have to rule that way and believe the protection of kickers has gone to far. Their opinion was if you don't want to stand deep (giving your side advantage with on sides and kick metres you deserve to get whacked).

Yeah just watched it. Wasn’t late, wasn’t high, wasn’t dangerous, maybe he was vulnerable, but I’m not sure he had even kicked the ball on contact.

Anyone remember Mick Gillette who played for Balmain? He would have a field day with this. He always used to fake kick 😂

 

[Lestronge]

The fact that Annelsley made up excuses , rather than admit what was clearly a huge screw up form the touch judge , is more dangerous than anything the refs do or don’t do . Because now not only is the message that game changing F ups like that will be allowed but it means that he’s justifying and almost weaponising the refs incompetence . And in my opinion , if he’s going to sit there and feed us bullshit like he served up, then I question his integrity as well .
That was clearly a shit call all day of the week and twice on sundays .