Official 2025 NRL General Discussion

egg

Jaws
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
13,463
Reaction score
1,651

NRL 2025: The radical rule proposal to bring consistency to sin-binnings for high tackles​


Players will be sent to the sin bin up to 15 minutes after committing a high tackle that forces an opponent out of a game with concussion under a radical proposal put forward by a handful of NRL coaches.

Hoping to achieve consistency when it comes to punishing high tackles, the coaches approached the governing body late last month to suggest testing a new rule as early as the pre-season trials, which begin on Friday.

Fans were left frustrated and confused at times last season by a perceived lack of consistency in imposing penalties on players guilty of high tackles.

One of the most controversial examples involved the New Zealand Warriors, when Roger Tuivasa-Sheck was knocked out by a high shot from Canterbury skipper Stephen Crichton, who remained on the field.

Crichton was subsequently hit with a grade-two careless high tackle charge by the match review panel, and NRL referees boss Graham Annesley later admitted the on-field officials had erred in not sending him to the sin bin.

Referees still have the option to send a player straight from the field if they deem a high tackle could have caused serious injury.

But under the new proposal put forward by select coaches, the sin bin would only be used if the tackled player failed a head injury assessment. The player will remain on the field until the HIA results are made known.

Even if a player needed the maximum 15 minutes to undergo concussion testing protocols, and failed, play would be stopped and the offender given a ten-minute time-out.

For example, if Penrith’s Nathan Cleary tackled Manly’s Tom Trbojevic high in the 20th minute, and Trbojevic failed his HIA in the 35th minute, only then would Cleary be sent to the bin.

“It’s all about trying to get more consistency in terms of what is a sin bin and what is not a sin bin when it comes to high tackles,” one club official who was aware of the situation but not authorised to speak publicly told this masthead.

Fans will question the fairness of a situation where an offending player scored a try while still on the field only to subsequently be sent to the bin when a tackled player failed an HIA, or whether referees should go as far to send a player off if the tackled player did not return.

One NRL coach, who had not heard about the proposal late on Monday and spoke on the condition of anonymity, asked what would stop clubs trying to hit a star player with a high tackle late in a game if they knew there would be no immediate sin-binning until the HIA results were in.

The NRL were contacted but declined to comment on the proposals.

Even if the rule change is rushed in for the Pre-season Challenge, and receives positive feedback, the ARL Commission would not rubber-stamp any tweaks to the laws of the game until the start of the 2026 season because they have already committed to no rule changes for this year.

The only messaging that has been received in clubland is that referees plan to crack down on sloppy play-the-balls in the early rounds. This masthead highlighted last August that officials had failed to punish Penrith for a string of illegal play-the-balls when they steamed home late to beat Parramatta.

The obstruction rule will also be a focus, with referees told to reward good attacking play rather than poor defensive reads where a defender appears to be taken out.
 

SF

Mako Shark
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
11,685
Reaction score
4,065
Location
Monty Porter Stand

NRL 2025: The radical rule proposal to bring consistency to sin-binnings for high tackles​


Players will be sent to the sin bin up to 15 minutes after committing a high tackle that forces an opponent out of a game with concussion under a radical proposal put forward by a handful of NRL coaches.

Hoping to achieve consistency when it comes to punishing high tackles, the coaches approached the governing body late last month to suggest testing a new rule as early as the pre-season trials, which begin on Friday.

Fans were left frustrated and confused at times last season by a perceived lack of consistency in imposing penalties on players guilty of high tackles.

One of the most controversial examples involved the New Zealand Warriors, when Roger Tuivasa-Sheck was knocked out by a high shot from Canterbury skipper Stephen Crichton, who remained on the field.

Crichton was subsequently hit with a grade-two careless high tackle charge by the match review panel, and NRL referees boss Graham Annesley later admitted the on-field officials had erred in not sending him to the sin bin.

Referees still have the option to send a player straight from the field if they deem a high tackle could have caused serious injury.

But under the new proposal put forward by select coaches, the sin bin would only be used if the tackled player failed a head injury assessment. The player will remain on the field until the HIA results are made known.

Even if a player needed the maximum 15 minutes to undergo concussion testing protocols, and failed, play would be stopped and the offender given a ten-minute time-out.

For example, if Penrith’s Nathan Cleary tackled Manly’s Tom Trbojevic high in the 20th minute, and Trbojevic failed his HIA in the 35th minute, only then would Cleary be sent to the bin.

“It’s all about trying to get more consistency in terms of what is a sin bin and what is not a sin bin when it comes to high tackles,” one club official who was aware of the situation but not authorised to speak publicly told this masthead.

Fans will question the fairness of a situation where an offending player scored a try while still on the field only to subsequently be sent to the bin when a tackled player failed an HIA, or whether referees should go as far to send a player off if the tackled player did not return.

One NRL coach, who had not heard about the proposal late on Monday and spoke on the condition of anonymity, asked what would stop clubs trying to hit a star player with a high tackle late in a game if they knew there would be no immediate sin-binning until the HIA results were in.

The NRL were contacted but declined to comment on the proposals.
This is the craziest thing I've read today! Open season with 15 minutes to go in the game.

Even if the rule change is rushed in for the Pre-season Challenge, and receives positive feedback, the ARL Commission would not rubber-stamp any tweaks to the laws of the game until the start of the 2026 season because they have already committed to no rule changes for this year.

The only messaging that has been received in clubland is that referees plan to crack down on sloppy play-the-balls in the early rounds. This masthead highlighted last August that officials had failed to punish Penrith for a string of illegal play-the-balls when they steamed home late to beat Parramatta.

The obstruction rule will also be a focus, with referees told to reward good attacking play rather than poor defensive reads where a defender appears to be taken out.
This part better.
 

Mr Ryan

Bull Shark
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,307
Reaction score
522

NRL 2025: The radical rule proposal to bring consistency to sin-binnings for high tackles​


Players will be sent to the sin bin up to 15 minutes after committing a high tackle that forces an opponent out of a game with concussion under a radical proposal put forward by a handful of NRL coaches.

Hoping to achieve consistency when it comes to punishing high tackles, the coaches approached the governing body late last month to suggest testing a new rule as early as the pre-season trials, which begin on Friday.

Fans were left frustrated and confused at times last season by a perceived lack of consistency in imposing penalties on players guilty of high tackles.

One of the most controversial examples involved the New Zealand Warriors, when Roger Tuivasa-Sheck was knocked out by a high shot from Canterbury skipper Stephen Crichton, who remained on the field.

Crichton was subsequently hit with a grade-two careless high tackle charge by the match review panel, and NRL referees boss Graham Annesley later admitted the on-field officials had erred in not sending him to the sin bin.

Referees still have the option to send a player straight from the field if they deem a high tackle could have caused serious injury.

But under the new proposal put forward by select coaches, the sin bin would only be used if the tackled player failed a head injury assessment. The player will remain on the field until the HIA results are made known.

Even if a player needed the maximum 15 minutes to undergo concussion testing protocols, and failed, play would be stopped and the offender given a ten-minute time-out.

For example, if Penrith’s Nathan Cleary tackled Manly’s Tom Trbojevic high in the 20th minute, and Trbojevic failed his HIA in the 35th minute, only then would Cleary be sent to the bin.

“It’s all about trying to get more consistency in terms of what is a sin bin and what is not a sin bin when it comes to high tackles,” one club official who was aware of the situation but not authorised to speak publicly told this masthead.

Fans will question the fairness of a situation where an offending player scored a try while still on the field only to subsequently be sent to the bin when a tackled player failed an HIA, or whether referees should go as far to send a player off if the tackled player did not return.

One NRL coach, who had not heard about the proposal late on Monday and spoke on the condition of anonymity, asked what would stop clubs trying to hit a star player with a high tackle late in a game if they knew there would be no immediate sin-binning until the HIA results were in.

The NRL were contacted but declined to comment on the proposals.

Even if the rule change is rushed in for the Pre-season Challenge, and receives positive feedback, the ARL Commission would not rubber-stamp any tweaks to the laws of the game until the start of the 2026 season because they have already committed to no rule changes for this year.

The only messaging that has been received in clubland is that referees plan to crack down on sloppy play-the-balls in the early rounds. This masthead highlighted last August that officials had failed to punish Penrith for a string of illegal play-the-balls when they steamed home late to beat Parramatta.

The obstruction rule will also be a focus, with referees told to reward good attacking play rather than poor defensive reads where a defender appears to be taken out.
I hate any tinkering with the rules for concussions. I actually think they are already doing a lot for players compared to 5-10 years ago.

How would this work considering some guys get concussed easier than others?

Boyd Cordner was getting concussed every 2nd week towards the end, whilst I’m pretty sure Gal didn’t get concussed once in 18 years.

There’s this obsession with the need to “reward” the team who the foal was committed against. But it never gonna happen all the time.

I’m more inclined to leaving it on the field and handing out tougher penalties at the judiciary. (Unless it’s an obvious swinging arm to head - that was always a send off)
 

apezza

Jaws
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
7,922
Reaction score
6,424
I hate any tinkering with the rules for concussions. I actually think they are already doing a lot for players compared to 5-10 years ago.

How would this work considering some guys get concussed easier than others?

Boyd Cordner was getting concussed every 2nd week towards the end, whilst I’m pretty sure Gal didn’t get concussed once in 18 years.

There’s this obsession with the need to “reward” the team who the foal was committed against. But it never gonna happen all the time.

I’m more inclined to leaving it on the field and handing out tougher penalties at the judiciary. (Unless it’s an obvious swinging arm to head - that was always a send off)
100% agree. Sin bins are used far too often. Sort punishments out during the week.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
10,648
Reaction score
5,327
I hate any tinkering with the rules for concussions. I actually think they are already doing a lot for players compared to 5-10 years ago.

How would this work considering some guys get concussed easier than others?

Boyd Cordner was getting concussed every 2nd week towards the end, whilst I’m pretty sure Gal didn’t get concussed once in 18 years.

There’s this obsession with the need to “reward” the team who the foal was committed against. But it never gonna happen all the time.

I’m more inclined to leaving it on the field and handing out tougher penalties at the judiciary. (Unless it’s an obvious swinging arm to head - that was always a send off)
Yeah, this is the only way to achieve consistency IMO. If you reduce the number of sin bins overall, there will be less to bitch about. Then the judiciary can take their time and evaluate each on their merit/against previous offences.
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
18,000
Reaction score
2,851
Yeah that sounds like a crap idea. From memory I agreed with the RTS one. Just because someone gets hurt doesn’t mean someone else has to get punished and we certainly shouldn’t ruin a game over it. Sin bins happen way too much.
 

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
34,603
Reaction score
10,361
Location
IN A BAR
Yeah that sounds like a crap idea. From memory I agreed with the RTS one. Just because someone gets hurt doesn’t mean someone else has to get punished and we certainly shouldn’t ruin a game over it. Sin bins happen way too much.
You'll see less reactionary sin bins but I think the net total will go up if any penalised tackle resulting in an HIA becomes a sin bin.

Never trusted the speed reading for Ronnie, no way that passed the eye test.
Always seemed a bit odd - be cool if along with the telstra tracker data (wherever Clarkey pulled that from) you could click the top 20 and see the actual run referenced.
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
18,000
Reaction score
2,851
You'll see less reactionary sin bins but I think the net total will go up if any penalised tackle resulting in an HIA becomes a sin bin.
You’re probably right. What if one tackler clipped him causing the head knock but the other tackler got pinged for holding on too long or lifting a leg or some other thing completely unrelated to the concussion?
 

bort

Jaws
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
34,603
Reaction score
10,361
Location
IN A BAR
You’re probably right. What if one tackler clipped him causing the head knock but the other tackler got pinged for holding on too long or lifting a leg or some other thing completely unrelated to the concussion?
Not seen that addressed but a fair question. Holding on would probably be a ruck infringement not a tackle infringement, so to speak, so I think that is clear of being an issue. A third man in leg lift maybe though?
For other example an accidental headclash (we won't mention Dale) but a very marginal lifting tackle then occurs, which doesn't see the player land badly, or a hip drop that doesn't injure them... or a 2 on 1 strip? Are these then binnable due to failed HIA?
You'd hope they can at least use common sense to differentiate the penalty from something which could cause a concussion but it's murky.
 

HaroldBishop

Megalodon
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
59,840
Reaction score
14,089
Location
Sydney
Not seen that addressed but a fair question. Holding on would probably be a ruck infringement not a tackle infringement, so to speak, so I think that is clear of being an issue. A third man in leg lift maybe though?
For other example an accidental headclash (we won't mention Dale) but a very marginal lifting tackle then occurs, which doesn't see the player land badly, or a hip drop that doesn't injure them... or a 2 on 1 strip? Are these then binnable due to failed HIA?
You'd hope they can at least use common sense to differentiate the penalty from something which could cause a concussion but it's murky.
Hahahahahahahhaa
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
18,000
Reaction score
2,851
Not seen that addressed but a fair question. Holding on would probably be a ruck infringement not a tackle infringement, so to speak, so I think that is clear of being an issue. A third man in leg lift maybe though?
For other example an accidental headclash (we won't mention Dale) but a very marginal lifting tackle then occurs, which doesn't see the player land badly, or a hip drop that doesn't injure them... or a 2 on 1 strip? Are these then binnable due to failed HIA?
You'd hope they can at least use common sense to differentiate the penalty from something which could cause a concussion but it's murky.
Less than a month out from the season is probably not the right time to open that can of worms. So it will probably happen.
 
Top