Since the send-off in State of Origin I, there has been a great divide between rugby league fans, commentators and ex-players about whether it was the right call.

Freddy and Billy vs Joey and Fatty. Blues vs Maroons. Dinosaurs vs woke folk. Or just passionate people offering their opinions.

I don’t want to debate whether it was or wasn’t a send-off offence. To me, that’s a pointless discussion now that we are more than a week down the track.

I’m more interested in finding a common-sense solution to the rule itself moving forward.

State of Origin has changed again and I believe that the laws need to change with it. Not just for representative games or finals, but for every rugby league game.

As a fan of rugby league, I don’t want to see those foul play incidents happen in the game. But I also don’t want to see matches played without a contest.

If the biggest games of the year are decided in that manner then I believe that is disappointing for the fans of both teams and the fans of rugby league – not to mention sport in general.

Surely we can find common ground and meet in the middle.

One argument I’ve heard from people as to why we shouldn’t change the send-off rule is because it has been the same since 1908.

Another reason I heard was that most send-offs are usually in the second half and it probably won’t ever happen again.

If we cannot change the rules since 1908, then why are we changing anything in rugby league?

Why do we have rule changes every season?

I believe that this will happen again, it may take 20 years or more but history will repeat itself at some stage in the future.

Peter V’landys dismissed “ridiculous” calls to change the send-off rule and said, “Nobody should be targeted with illegal play and by all means we will do everything possible to protect Reece Walsh”.

I think if V’landys wants to dismiss the opinions of ex-players and fans because he doesn’t agree then he may be taking a turn in the wrong direction.

The game has to protect players and now has a duty of care regarding brain injuries and their long-term effects.

The rugby league climate has changed and so have the rules. One rule change has been the Head Injury Assessment protocols. So why shouldn’t other rules change?

The speed and size of players have increased in rugby league since 1908 and since the first State of Origin game in 1980. The game is faster today than ever before.

The NRL has introduced rules to increase the speed of the game, which has meant fatigue for the players.

Fatigue is a phenomenon associated with decreases in both physical and cognitive performances and increases in injury occurrence.

The NRL and ARL commission want to protect players and will change the rules to do so, and V’landy’s says they will do everything possible to protect Reece Walsh – and other players, I assume.

So why then are they deliberately increasing the fatigue levels of players when we know that it increases their risk of injury?

Why make Sua’ali’i’s Blues teammates play 72 minutes in State of Origin, a game with huge physical demands and fatigue already, and say that was a fair punishment and it’s “ridiculous” to suggest otherwise?

Why even do it in club games or any other rugby league game when you know increasing fatigue is not protecting players?

My solution is simple enough and it doesn’t require mass change to the existing rules, only adjustments.

The first is that a send-off only requires a team to play for 40 minutes with 12 players on the field.

So, half of a game. I think that 20 minutes isn’t long enough and 70 minutes is too much. That’s the main thing that changes.

The sent-off player can’t return and the team is now down to three on the bench.

If the infringement happens in the first 10 seconds of the second half then the team has to play the rest of the game with 12 on the field. But if it happens in the first 10 seconds of the first half then they can return to 13 players on the field 10 seconds into the second half.

In the case of the Blues in Game 1 then they would have been back to 13 players on the field eight minutes into the second half.

The second adjustment is optional but I think it helps with a couple of issues that NRL clubs have experienced since the HIA protocols were put in place.

We have an 18th man sit the entire game on the bench often without ever being used. They simply sit and watch their team play. Occasionally they are used but only after they have been activated due to circumstances during the game.

Why not have the 18th man active from the kick-off, but still only allow for four out of the five interchange players to be used unless the fifth player is activated due to circumstances during the game?

With a category one HIA ruling out players for the rest of the game, you can’t possibly cover every position with only four players on the bench.

You need at least three forwards on the bench for fatigue, especially for middle forwards. So you have one remaining interchange spot to cover halves and the back five.

This would allow coaches the opportunity to be able to adapt to changes in the game that occur more frequently now since the introduction of the HIA.

In my opinion, these suggestions improve rugby league for both players and fans without rewarding foul play.