Rule change required?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Rule change required?
Unlike some codes, we don't have an order off or sin bin for blatant reportable offences that the umpires see.
Do we want order off or sin bin, or stick with the current system of MRP that advantages other teams the following week(s) by rubbing out players in future not the current game(s)???
A half way option would be to not introduce sin bin or order off/red card, but automatic 50's for deliberate dog acts like Merrett and Rich last night.
Thoughts?
Do we want order off or sin bin, or stick with the current system of MRP that advantages other teams the following week(s) by rubbing out players in future not the current game(s)???
A half way option would be to not introduce sin bin or order off/red card, but automatic 50's for deliberate dog acts like Merrett and Rich last night.
Thoughts?
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- saintdooley
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2006 2:32pm
Re: Rule change required?
No.
"Another storied win in Robert Harvey's career. They say he is the embodiment of their motto of strength through loyalty, and on the day he became just the tenth man to play 350 league games the saints reward him with a seemingly impossible victory."
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10934
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3375 times
- Been thanked: 2342 times
Re: Rule change required?
Yeah....because the current system as you said "advantages other teams the following week(s)"
The AFL added the rule that doubles your suspension during the GF, so wouldn't you think the next logical step is to sin bin or red card players that blatantly and intentionally injure their opponent?
Just like the play on after a behind is kicked, the 50m penalty, the interchange infringement, and the gradual elimination of the bump, all these rule changes took time for players and fans to adapt to, but they are now all generally accepted as part of the current game.
The AFL added the rule that doubles your suspension during the GF, so wouldn't you think the next logical step is to sin bin or red card players that blatantly and intentionally injure their opponent?
Just like the play on after a behind is kicked, the 50m penalty, the interchange infringement, and the gradual elimination of the bump, all these rule changes took time for players and fans to adapt to, but they are now all generally accepted as part of the current game.
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Rule change required?
LEAVE THE BLOODY RULES ALONE !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re: Rule change required?
Yep, let's keep the clock running for out of bounds and ball ups. No free for kicking it in the full. Go back to the 15 metre penalty.Eastern wrote:LEAVE THE BLOODY RULES ALONE !!
What do you think Eastern?
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10369
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 183 times
- Been thanked: 694 times
Re: Rule change required?
So swallow gets sent off and Judd plays on?
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8574
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 525 times
- Been thanked: 1526 times
Re: Rule change required?
dragit wrote:We could get a dog show judge in specifically to call any dog acts.saintspremiers wrote:automatic 50's for deliberate dog acts
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Re: Rule change required?
I was also thinking about this after the game yesterday. Sin bins or a card system, few sports don't have a rule that can remove a player from a game. They probably have looked at it but maybe thought that the umpires judgement can be a little hit and miss and not worth the outrage of the follwing week if it was the wrong call. But am all for it. Another negative with a sin bin would be flooding while player is off which the AFL don't want. And a red card system where a player cant come back on reduces bench numbers and I dont think the AFL want that either trying to reduce injuries.
Re: Rule change required?
Cant wait until one of our guys are sent off and then we see the decision is wrong. SP thread will start with that greasy bloke is ruining footy.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Mon 06 Aug 2007 1:53pm
- Location: SE Queensland
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Mon 06 Aug 2007 1:53pm
- Location: SE Queensland
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Rule change required?
The Jones "fencing" was not that bad. I was sitting very close to that incident, and I believe Jones slipped as much as he was shoved towards the fence.
The Merrett effort looked deliberate and also looked ordinary at the game. I havent seen a replay yet.
The Merrett effort looked deliberate and also looked ordinary at the game. I havent seen a replay yet.
Re: Rule change required?
the game died when they stopped using the place kick.saintspremiers wrote:Yep, let's keep the clock running for out of bounds and ball ups. No free for kicking it in the full. Go back to the 15 metre penalty.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6531
- Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2011 4:52pm
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 1206 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
Re: Rule change required?
So if they don't get sent off you can deck the umpire like the collinghood d**khead did in the reserves years ago and can keep playing? You won't play for 10 years but you can still play in that particular game. That doesn't make much sense.
As ex-president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
St Kilda - At least we have a Crest!
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
St Kilda - At least we have a Crest!
Re: Rule change required?
Jacks Back wrote:So if they don't get sent off you can deck the umpire like the collinghood d**khead did in the reserves years ago and can keep playing? You won't play for 10 years but you can still play in that particular game. That doesn't make much sense.
Or you get reported like Kosi last week and are told to leave the ground and then get let off. I aint going out on a limb here but i doubt any player would do what Bourke did that day. It isnt local footy.
- cowboy18
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5795
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:05pm
- Location: in my duffle coat
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Rule change required?
dragit wrote:We could get a dog show judge in specifically to call any dog acts.saintspremiers wrote:automatic 50's for deliberate dog acts
- magnifisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7833
- Joined: Sun 02 May 2004 2:52am
- Has thanked: 209 times
- Been thanked: 561 times