Sin Bin
Current Interpretation
10 Sin Bin
The six main reasons for a player to be temporarily suspended for ten minutes are:
1. Repeated infringements
2. Professional Foul
3. Cooling off period for a player
4. Dissent
5. Striking
6. Foul Play*
* Foul Play – A player will be sin binned for foul play in circumstances where, in the opinion of the referee, the act of foul play is of a serious nature, but does not warrant sending off. Acts of foul play of a serious nature include:
ยป High Tackles with direct contact with the head or neck which are deemed forceful
ยป Dangerous Throws in which the head or neck of the attacking player make forceful contact with the ground
ยป Shoulder charges which make forceful contact with the head or neck of the attacking player or make forceful movement of the head or neck of the attacking player (whiplash)
ยป Crusher tackles in which a defending player has a grip/hold of the attacking player with both arms and applies unnecessary pressure or force to the head/neck/spinal column of the player
ยป Any other act of foul play which the referee deems to be of a serious nature, but does not warrant sending off.
Fans are becoming deluded with the sin bin interpretation. Last Sunday Kane Evans shouldn’t have been sin binned in the Eels win over the Dragons in the final minutes regardless of whether the decision was made by the NRL Bunker or on-field referee’s. Furthermore, teams are repeatedly infringing inside the ten metre zone in defence with referee’s making inconsistent judgements as to when the sin bin should be used. The on-field referee should be the only one to make a decision about the sin bin. I am a fan of the five minute sin bin returning for minor offences (eg repeated infringements), compared to serious offences (eg. striking, foul play). How one minor offence can be the same punishment as a serious offence is beyond me. Maybe time for the send off rule to be interpreted differently?
