EXCLUSIVE: NRL Players Unhappy with ‘Absurd’ Rule Trial as Tensions Rise Between RLPA and League Headquarters

The NRL’s move to trial a controversial sin bin rule has sparked yet another point of tension in its already strained relationship with the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA).

In this pre-season trial, an innovative rule allows a player guilty of a high tackle to be sent to the sin bin up to 15 minutes post-infringement.

Under the new framework, the sin bin will only be activated if the player impacted by the high tackle fails a head injury assessment, keeping the offending player on the field until the results are confirmed.

Despite this, referees retain the authority to issue an immediate send-off for foul play as it occurs.

The Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) may endorse the adoption of this sin bin rule for the 2026 NRL season.

Parramatta’s Shaun Lane, who is part of the RLPA’s men’s player advisory group, expressed to Wide World of Sports that all panel members found the proposal “silly” and voted against it.

“We were consulted about this new sin bin rule regarding head knocks, and unanimously felt it was unreasonable, but the NRL went ahead with the trial anyway during this period,” Lane remarked.

“The idea of waiting 15 minutes for the HIA results to then send someone to the bin seems absurd to me. I’d prefer referees to make an immediate decision, as the result of the test won’t change the initial judgment made,” he stated.

“There could be different circumstances in a game where, for example, if a player gets concussed with only 10 minutes left in the match, the player responsible for the high tackle might not be sent to the bin, meaning the team with the concussed player would gain no advantage from this rule.” 

Lane also highlighted various odd scenarios that could emerge from this rule.

For instance, a player committing a high tackle could significantly influence the game while the assessment is conducted, with the tackler only departing the field after potentially altering the game’s outcome, should the tackled player fail the test.

“We all found the idea a bit nonsensical in the men’s player advisory group, and I don’t believe anyone was in favour of it,” Lane remarked.

“While I think the NRL has made strides regarding concussion management, the sin bin rule appears somewhat misguided.”

The RLPA has long sought adjustments from the NRL regarding the 18th man rule, arguing that teams should have the opportunity to utilise their extra player as soon as one player is ruled out. However, in 2025, teams will again be required to have two players deemed unfit before activating their 18th man.

The RLPA views it as contradictory that the NRL is trialling a new sin bin rule while disregarding the 18th man issue.

One RLPA insider revealed to Wide World of Sports that repeated lobbying on the 18th man rule has “continually fallen on deaf ears.”

Changes to the men’s player advisory panel will be announced by the RLPA in the near future, though sources indicate that president Daly Cherry-Evans, Roosters recruit Chad Townsend, and Dolphins veteran Felise Kaufusi were engaged in discussions about the sin bin rule.

Rabbitohs recruit Euan Aitken has joined the panel as a new member but was not included in the sin bin discussions.

Lane’s comments shed light on the frosty dynamic between the RLPA and the NRL.

“I believe the NRL often doesn’t show much concern,” stated the Parramatta player. “They seem to be focused solely on their own agenda and implement rules to suit those ends, while the players and RLPA’s input appears undervalued, despite us being the ones on the field. That’s been the case in previous years. I’m uncertain if there’s a shift towards being more inclusive of our perspectives.”

Wide World of Sports reached out to the NRL for their comments.

Frictions between RLPA chief Clint Newton and the NRL executive, particularly ARLC chairman Peter V’landys and NRL chief Andrew Abdo, have frequently been evident in public.

In 2023, the RLPA went so far as to implement a media boycott amid a contentious dispute regarding collective bargaining agreement discussions.

Later that season, as negotiations continued to deteriorate, the RLPA compelled players to obscure the NRL logo on their jerseys.

In response to claims that the NRL could impose fines on players who participated in the media boycott, Newton remarked, “I’m eager to see it, as this would merely be another instance of intimidation and bullying.”