Should we bring in a Sin Bin?

[GrumpyOne]

The felling of Mav Weller got me thinking.

That action had the potential of having the Saints down one player for all but ten seconds of the entire match. Yet the punishment benefits all the teams that the Filth play in the next two or three rounds, and not the Saints. Where is the justice in that?

It was only by chance that the odds were evened up by the injury to Maxwell later in the quarter.

There should be a more immediate punishment given when a player is put out of the game by a reportable act. My suggestion is that the responsible player has to serve say a ten minute spell in the Sin Bin, whilst his team is forced to play one player short for that period of time.

Any comments?

[saintbrat]

as supporters we like to see incidences that occcur to our players be subjected to retribution - but it's never to the benefit of the team playing on the occasion.- would be nice to have some way that it benefits the team the offence was enacted on

[saintspremiers]

Great idea. Problem is many umps are either blind or incompetent or both. So that by definition means it would have to be the third umpires call, which currently is inconclusive 99% of the time. The whole way umpiring is run is too slip shod for a proper sin bin system to come into place. The only real option would be if a player gave away 5 frees in a game he'd be sin binned for 10 minutes with no replacement. But that doesn't help dog acts.

[Enrico_Misso]

Maybe the club on the receiving end could elect to
- have the offending opposition player serve all their suspension in the immediate matches as normal
- or defer 1 week of the suspension till the next time we play them

[maverick]

They can do a MRP on the spot for crude incidents like that, should have been red carded…

[ROLS-LEE]

Just saw the bump on Weller on the AFL site.

If that Sidebottom does not get at least 4 weeks, then the AFL is full of sh*t.

Put bluntly if it was Baker, it would be a minimum of 7 weeks.

[saintspremiers]

Maybe the club on the receiving end could elect to
- have the offending opposition player serve all their suspension in the immediate matches as normal
- or defer 1 week of the suspension till the next time we play them

Great idea and easy to implement.

[saintspremiers]

Just saw the bump on Weller on the AFL site.

If that Sidebottom does not get at least 4 weeks, then the AFL is full of sh*t.

Put bluntly if it was Baker, it would be a minimum of 7 weeks.

Was it reckless or intentional? Medium or high impact?

Cut the hysterics and understand the system.

He will most likely get 3 reduced to 2 with early plea for reckless medium impact IMO.

[Scollop]

He will most likely get 3 reduced to 2 with early plea for reckless medium impact IMO.

Tom Harley and Luke Darcy also saw it that way and I think Watson said same. It used to be that whatever Robert Walls saw or commented on was gospel and now it's the 3 stooges

I know they are paid to give comments but it sh!ts me that they have such an influence on public opinion.

And I vote No to a Sin Bin.

[mr six o'clock]

NO !

[mr six o'clock]

NO !

[Toy Saint]

Just saw the bump on Weller on the AFL site.

If that Sidebottom does not get at least 4 weeks, then the AFL is full of sh*t.

Put bluntly if it was Baker, it would be a minimum of 7 weeks.

If it was Baker he'd get time in Barwon prison

[samuraisaint]

He'll get four.

[saintspremiers]

He'll get four.

Based on what?

What you'd like him to get or do you think it will be classed as intentional?

[stinger]

Just saw the bump on Weller on the AFL site.

If that Sidebottom does not get at least 4 weeks, then the AFL is full of sh*t.

Put bluntly if it was Baker, it would be a minimum of 7 weeks.

Was it reckless or intentional? Medium or high impact?

Cut the hysterics and understand the system.

He will most likely get 3 reduced to 2 with early plea for reckless medium impact IMO.

it was intentional afaic....cut out this crap about being negligent.......it was a f****** deliberate attempt to maim a player...if i was weller i would have decked the animal when he came to shake my hand at the end of the match with a smirk from ear to ear...it's alright for that prick...has a permanent place in the fllth side...not so poor mav......

[maverick]

Just saw the bump on Weller on the AFL site.

If that Sidebottom does not get at least 4 weeks, then the AFL is full of sh*t.

Put bluntly if it was Baker, it would be a minimum of 7 weeks.

Was it reckless or intentional? Medium or high impact?

Cut the hysterics and understand the system.

He will most likely get 3 reduced to 2 with early plea for reckless medium impact IMO.

Intentional and high
what does that get him?

[Jacks Back]

Just saw the bump on Weller on the AFL site.

If that Sidebottom does not get at least 4 weeks, then the AFL is full of sh*t.

Put bluntly if it was Baker, it would be a minimum of 7 weeks.

Was it reckless or intentional? Medium or high impact?

Cut the hysterics and understand the system.

He will most likely get 3 reduced to 2 with early plea for reckless medium impact IMO.

He hit him intentionally and it was high. It was also the biggest impact you could have against another player on the field and that is that player not coming back onto the field - for the whole match in this instance.

Definite case to SIN BIN HIM

[plugger66]

Never. Imagine the uproar in a GF if they got it wrong.

[FQF]

Would only be workable if it was for the most blatant of acts ala Barry Hall decking Staker.

If there was even a hint of an argument of justification it would be too controversial in an important game.

[Life Long Saint]

The Sidebottom incident will (should) be assessed as Reckless conduct (2), high contact (2) and high impact (3) for 7 activation points and a level four offence.
He has been reported for Rough Conduct and that attracts 425 demerit points.
He has no good or bad record and with an early plea can accept a three week penalty.

That's how it should be assessed...So a four week ban but three with an early plea.
Sounds about right to me.

[plugger66]

The Sidebottom incident will (should) be assessed as Reckless conduct (2), high contact (2) and high impact (3) for 7 activation points and a level four offence.
He has been reported for Rough Conduct and that attracts 425 demerit points.
He has no good or bad record and with an early plea can accept a three week penalty.

That's how it should be assessed...So a four week ban but three with an early plea.
Sounds about right to me.

First 2 for sure. Im thinking it may be graded as medium impact though. It will depend on the medical report from the Saints. Obviously you have found out he has a report somewhere in the last 5 years but not the last 3 years.

[maverick]

Never. Imagine the uproar in a GF if they got it wrong.

Yeah imagine, don't know how the biggest sport in the world copes.

[plugger66]

Never. Imagine the uproar in a GF if they got it wrong.

Yeah imagine, don't know how the biggest sport in the world copes.

Ok lets follow their rules because its a big sport. It is a stupid thing. Obviously you like the idea. I dont and dont see a need for it. I am involved in the ammos and they have it. many times the player then goes to the tribunal and gets off. Bad luck for you that he and the side have already been penalised.

[maverick]

How can it not be intentional?
Ran past the ball and tried to take Pendles tag out.
Can't see how it's not high impact as well when the bloke hit misses the whole game.

[Bunk_Moreland]

The Sidebottom incident will (should) be assessed as Reckless conduct (2), high contact (2) and high impact (3) for 7 activation points and a level four offence.
He has been reported for Rough Conduct and that attracts 425 demerit points.
He has no good or bad record and with an early plea can accept a three week penalty.

That's how it should be assessed...So a four week ban but three with an early plea.
Sounds about right to me.

First 2 for sure. Im thinking it may be graded as medium impact though. It will depend on the medical report from the Saints. Obviously you have found out he has a report somewhere in the last 5 years but not the last 3 years.

Why medium impact? His action has caused concussion of the player who may well miss the following week.

In blatant actions such as Sidebottoms he should be off the field as long as the player he took out. If thats 20 minutes for the concussion rule so be it. If it was like Wellers case, the whole game. I would also consider that if the player is not subbed out, Collingwood could not use their sub for Sidebottom until the Saints use their sub. This means they are down a rotation until the Saints use their sub or Weller comes back on.

I think it is appalling Sidebottom can jump in the air, elbow a player flush on the jaw and then run about in that game getting 10 posessions in the first quarter. Absolutely unfair for the affected team