- Jun 12, 2013
- 14,113
- 17,439
Pretty sure it will be the Reds. I've heard the deal is done and they're just waiting to announce it.
NRL General Discussion Thread - 2016
- Thread starter Kimlo
- Start date
- Status
Broncoman
State of Origin Rep
- Oct 9, 2011
- 7,691
- 1,118
He will most likely join the Reds so personally it will be good to cheer for him again (I'm a reds season holder). It's good for the ARU marketing wise but I would like to see Australian Rugby focus hard on development of players and build the game up from grassroots down which will bring Australian rugby closer to South Africa and New Zealand.
- May 21, 2013
- 19,705
- 20,981
Found this image interesting, team lists for the first U20 Grand Final, 6 years ago.
- Sep 8, 2009
- 7,719
- 8,942
i was just looking at this a couple of days ago. Brendon Gibb in the centres?
Found this image interesting, team lists for the first U20 Grand Final, 6 years ago.
- Jan 25, 2014
- 44,186
- 33,342
I'm pretty sure he was smaller back then.
- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,618
- 29,898
I honestly think that the NRL, and by extension the refs, are deliberately influencing games in order to make the contests artificially tighter. This is what a spokesperson said about the lack of video ref used on the game-defining try, and subsequently the timekeeper not stopping the clock, and remember, this is after the Sea Eagles scored 3 tries in the dying minutes after being behind all game:
"Incredibly, the NRL responded last night with a spokesman saying that the issue would be reviewed today but: “We should not let it detract from a great game of football.”
It's like they seriously don't give a shit if the better team wins, and are rewarded for their efforts, so long as there's theatre.
Clock ticking on game to ensure referee controversies don?t overshadow finals
"Incredibly, the NRL responded last night with a spokesman saying that the issue would be reviewed today but: “We should not let it detract from a great game of football.”
It's like they seriously don't give a shit if the better team wins, and are rewarded for their efforts, so long as there's theatre.
Clock ticking on game to ensure referee controversies don?t overshadow finals
- Feb 27, 2010
- 29,636
- 12,011
It's definitely starting to look like it, isn't it?
theshed
Just a Game
- Aug 28, 2010
- 15,430
- 35,886
I had a pretty out there idea for how the point system could work. Its hugely complicated and I'm sure is full of flaws but it makes an interesting hypothetical.
Instead of the standard 2 pts for a win 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, how about the amount of points you get depend on where teams stand on the ladder.
The points a team gets per victory depends on where their opponent is currently placed on the ladder, a loss however would result in minus points determined in a similar fashion.
Beating a team ranked first one the ladder would give you 16 points, beating a team coming 16th would give you 1 points, and etc through the positions, and the minuses for a defeat would work in the opposite order.
So for example, our match (broncos are 8th) on friday against the 5th place storm:
If we win the Broncos would receive 12 points, while the Storm would lose 8.
If we lose the Broncos would lose 5 points, and the storm would gain 9 points.
Another example would be Cowboys (7th) vs Sharks (16th):
If cowboys win they would only be awarded 1 point, while the sharks would get minus 10.
If the sharks win the would be awarded 10 points, and the cowboys would lose 16 points.
The logic behind this system would be to punish favourites for losing against struggling poor quality clubs while rewarding underdogs for pulling off an upset. The advantage of this system would be to create some kind of correlation between the quality of a team versus what beating or losing to them is worth to your season.
Each season the ladder would start with how it finished the previous season except the grand final winners would be moved to the top.
Anyway, I just thought this would be an interesting point for discussion.
Instead of the standard 2 pts for a win 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, how about the amount of points you get depend on where teams stand on the ladder.
The points a team gets per victory depends on where their opponent is currently placed on the ladder, a loss however would result in minus points determined in a similar fashion.
Beating a team ranked first one the ladder would give you 16 points, beating a team coming 16th would give you 1 points, and etc through the positions, and the minuses for a defeat would work in the opposite order.
So for example, our match (broncos are 8th) on friday against the 5th place storm:
If we win the Broncos would receive 12 points, while the Storm would lose 8.
If we lose the Broncos would lose 5 points, and the storm would gain 9 points.
Another example would be Cowboys (7th) vs Sharks (16th):
If cowboys win they would only be awarded 1 point, while the sharks would get minus 10.
If the sharks win the would be awarded 10 points, and the cowboys would lose 16 points.
The logic behind this system would be to punish favourites for losing against struggling poor quality clubs while rewarding underdogs for pulling off an upset. The advantage of this system would be to create some kind of correlation between the quality of a team versus what beating or losing to them is worth to your season.
Each season the ladder would start with how it finished the previous season except the grand final winners would be moved to the top.
Anyway, I just thought this would be an interesting point for discussion.
Financeguy
NRL Player
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,093
- 3,322
With the closeness of the current competition, there is already punishment enough for favourites losing to lower placed clubs. the Broncos losing to the Sharks a few weeks back is a perfect example.
You have an interesting theory and i guess would be interesting to see what the ladder would have looked like if someone was willing to do the maths, but i think there are many reasons as to why no reputable league in any sport across the globe adopts it..
- Oct 17, 2013
- 12,840
- 14,848
Then the Panthers would be on like 20 points this year :P
gordjw
NRL Player
- Jun 29, 2013
- 1,752
- 822
It's a good move, although I would have preferred 9 move to 3pm live.
But i suppose this way there's no overlap on the games, and at least there's fewer ads. I wonder what 9 will have to say about it.
Slight tangent: is it my memory, or did we previously have 4 games on a Sunday arvo? Talking in the early-mid 90s here.
But i suppose this way there's no overlap on the games, and at least there's fewer ads. I wonder what 9 will have to say about it.
Slight tangent: is it my memory, or did we previously have 4 games on a Sunday arvo? Talking in the early-mid 90s here.
- Mar 26, 2008
- 7,910
- 6,826
- Sep 8, 2009
- 7,719
- 8,942
Potters contract hasn't been renewed. Hook now the favourite to coach the Tigers.
- Oct 17, 2013
- 12,840
- 14,848
Hope they enjoy playing with 16 players all the time!
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,142
- 25,822
Just received the 1992-93 Rugby League Yearbook I ordered off ebay.
Only had a quick flick through since time is tight and I've been spending way too much time covering all the news from today but it's a lot more detailed than his other paperback editions which I believe started here and ended in 2003.
Can't wait to sit down and read through the Broncos season. One of these days I'll have to share all the Broncos related stories from each season and just keep it archived somewhere.
Only had a quick flick through since time is tight and I've been spending way too much time covering all the news from today but it's a lot more detailed than his other paperback editions which I believe started here and ended in 2003.
Can't wait to sit down and read through the Broncos season. One of these days I'll have to share all the Broncos related stories from each season and just keep it archived somewhere.
- Status
