There is little argument that the send off of Blues centre Joseph Suaali'i for his high shot on Maroons fullback Reece Walsh all but ended Game I of the 2024 State of Origin series. With less than eight minutes on the clock and already trailing 6-0, the Blues faced a monumental task to win the opener in Sydney. Now that they are down 1-0 with the remaining two games in Melbourne and Brisbane, winning the series itself has become nearly impossible for Michael Maguire's men. Have the Blues been punished too much for a split-second incident, which may have carried no real malice?
With Walsh slipping just before the contact and Suaali'i's eyes diverted before the fullback's drop in body height, there are plenty of people arguing that the hit deserved only a 10-minute stint in the sin bin. Others point to the heavy contact made with the head and the resulting removal of Walsh from the game as more than justification for the send-off decision. But should the entire game have been ruined for the large crowd in the stadium and the millions watching from home? You can only imagine what the top executives at Channel 9 were thinking.
There has been some talk of adopting rugby union's relatively new system of being able to replace a player sent from the field after 20 minutes have elapsed. The logic being that the offender is removed from the game, the team transgressed against is given ample time to make the most of a one-man advantage, but the entire game is not destroyed by one act. After 20 minutes both teams return to full strength, giving both a realistic shot at victory.
There is however a scenario where this system could be cynically exploited. And let's face it, if there is a way to abuse a rule, rugby league coaches and players will find it. Say New South Wales had selected Matt Burton on the bench, and decided pre-game that the only way to ensure victory was to remove Reece Walsh, undoubtedly one of Queensland's greatest strike weapons. Joseph Suaali'i or a patsy selected specifically for the job, is sent on a mission to make high and heavy contact with Walsh's head as early as possible in the game. The player is sent off, the Blues tough it out for 20 minutes and then Burton runs on to give them arguably a better line-up and no Walsh in sight.
In Game I during the first 20 minutes that the Blues were down to 12 men, the Maroons stacked on 12 points, but the players were facing a full 72 minutes of being short-handed, their heads subsequently dropped and they were not prepared for the defensive adjustments needed to shore up their right side. If they knew they would be back to the full 13 players after holding on for just 20 minutes, the task would be much more manageable.
There is no suggestion that the Blues were under any instructions to take out Walsh, as under the current system it would be madness to tempt fate. But, under rugby union's more lenient system, it is not implausible that someone, somewhere, would try it on and most likely in a big stakes game.
Regardless of intent and any mitigating circumstances, the heads of all players need as much protection as is possible, and the send-off rule as it stands acts as the ultimate deterrent. There is currently one sure way to prevent a game being ruined by a player being sent from the field and that is to avoid the kind of infractions that will see you marched.