NRL General Discussion Thread

[The Don]

So along with Naden, high performance manager Dan Ferris has left the club.

It all makes utter sense now. Feel bad for Barrett. That guy absolutely stunk in both of his stints at the titans. I remember complaints galore about him on our forum.

 

[Allo]

The whole thing with Gus that happened with Cleary 1.0 at Penrith and now Barrett as others have pointed out his ego and/or the shadow of him looming large.

It’s why I was never keen for Wayne to stick around as any Head of Football/GM type figure - I don’t think he’d have been able to keep himself out of the spotlight and whoever was coach under him would feel like they have no authority and players would likely go to Wayne instead of the coach if they had a problem

 

[BruiserMk1]

There are also rumours circulating regarding Freddy going for or being asked about the head coach role.

When asked about maybe coaching the Bulldogs next year his reply was to some effect "I'm coaching the blues this year".

Interesting.

 

[ningnangnong]

There are also rumours circulating regarding Freddy going for or being asked about the head coach role.

When asked about maybe coaching the Bulldogs next year his reply was to some effect "I'm coaching the blues this year".

Interesting.

I'd be interested to see how Freddy would go at club level - it's a completely different type of coaching to Origin.

In Origin you have the best of the best at your disposal, the coach's primary role seems to be to motivate the squad and get them playing for each other. Freddy is a natural at this type of thing.

Club level is far more disciplined and structured. You need to have game plans, do you research on other teams and you can't always be 'mates' with the team. Freddy is naturally a bit of a larrikin, so I've always wondered if he had it in him to go against his own persona and be strict with his team.

 

[Financeguy]

I'd be interested to see how Freddy would go at club level - it's a completely different type of coaching to Origin.

In Origin you have the best of the best at your disposal, the coach's primary role seems to be to motivate the squad and get them playing for each other. Freddy is a natural at this type of thing.

Club level is far more disciplined and structured. You need to have game plans, do you research on other teams and you can't always be 'mates' with the team. Freddy is naturally a bit of a larrikin, so I've always wondered if he had it in him to go against his own persona and be strict with his team.

We saw a sneak preview of Fittler coaching in club land with the Roosters...from memory he went minor Lodge style in a hotel and tried to force himself into someones room wearing only shorts. Followed up by taking out the wooden spoon and was replaced as head coach.

 

[1910]

Wonder if we’d be interested in Jack to complete the set. He’s a pretty different player to his brother but was starting to look pretty good in the second row - though he’s a Flegler level send off magnet. If he’s a decent bloke off the field we could do worse than grab him to bolster our second row stock which we’ve seen already this season are pretty thin. Could be a good replacement for Kennedy/James’ spot.

Wrong guy but you're point is still right- I wanted Zac to sign with the Broncos last year. Zac and Kobe are the same player. Would have been a great cheap signing.

Zac was great for the Jets last year.

 

[Bull Shark]

I'd be interested to see how Freddy would go at club level - it's a completely different type of coaching to Origin.

In Origin you have the best of the best at your disposal, the coach's primary role seems to be to motivate the squad and get them playing for each other. Freddy is a natural at this type of thing.

Club level is far more disciplined and structured. You need to have game plans, do you research on other teams and you can't always be 'mates' with the team. Freddy is naturally a bit of a larrikin, so I've always wondered if he had it in him to go against his own persona and be strict with his team.

Disciplined x structured x 45 weeks divided by Fittler =

 

[Sproj]

Disciplined x structured x 45 weeks divided by Fittler =

But seriously, that gif leads to so many questions.

 

[ZTop]

But seriously, that gif leads to so many questions.

I agree, I don't think it's real though

 

[IceWorks]

Gus to repeat his Panthers play book at the dogs?

Hire the Walker Bro's for coach and they bring the younger Walker there asap...

 

[theshed]

This could be a bad take but hear me out.

Should ball lost from one on one strips be viewed the same way as charge downs rather than be held to traditional knock on/knock back rules?

Walters strip, which we’ve all seen similar examples be ruled play on before, being called a knock on seems pedantic to me. It’s hard to judge the exact trajectory of the ball in the event o strips and how much onus of the drop is on the defender and how much on the attacker that allowed it to occur?

I think ball hitting the ground from strips should be play on regardless of direction - the only “penalty” being that if the attacking team regather the set restarts.

Thoughts?

 

[BroncsFan]

This could be a bad take but hear me out.

Should ball lost from one on one strips be viewed the same way as charge downs rather than be held to traditional knock on/knock back rules?

Walters strip, which we’ve all seen similar examples be ruled play on before, being called a knock on seems pedantic to me. It’s hard to judge the exact trajectory of the ball in the event o strips and how much onus of the drop is on the defender and how much on the attacker that allowed it to occur?

I think ball hitting the ground from strips should be play on regardless of direction - the only “penalty” being that if the attacking team regather the set restarts.

Thoughts?

I think I like that approach, but where it might get a bit muddy are the stock standard knock ons but the tackler is in and around the ball.

TC's tackle of Taafe a few weeks back for example... under your rule that would've been play on and Broncos ball... but was TC actually playing at the ball to constitute a strip (as they ruled it) or did Taafe just have a loose carry. Having your kind of rule removes the ambiguity from the defender, but it becomes a 50/50 on the attacker as to whether it's a knock on or live ball... it kind of weighs in favour of the defence rather than being a straight 50/50.

There's also the Thursto special where he tackles around the ball but is pushed off in the tackle and the ball comes out... sometimes it's classed as a strip, sometimes it's classed as knock on.

Even passes along a backline... if it touches the defender it's classed as played at and knock on against the defence. If it's been classed as played at, but hasn't technically left the hands shouldn't it be play on to the defensive team if they recover the ball.

I think if it were to be adopted the ruling would be along the lines of "the defender showing intent to strip the ball, therefore the ball becomes live"... which would apply to the TC, Thursto and Billy tackles, but even then the Billy tackle from the weekend would apply to markers slapping the ball away from the dummy half.

Suddenly the rule would create an extremely messy area of the game where markers will always be looking to strike the arm or the ball from dummy half to create a live ball situation from nothing.

I think all in all it could be a benefit to the game, but application by the officials would be the question... it's pretty well completely in favour of the defence, because it's either a live ball from the strip or it's a missed call by the ref and knock on against the attack.

 

[theshed]

I think I like that approach, but where it might get a bit muddy are the stock standard knock ons but the tackler is in and around the ball.

TC's tackle of Taafe a few weeks back for example... under your rule that would've been play on and Broncos ball... but was TC actually playing at the ball to constitute a strip (as they ruled it) or did Taafe just have a loose carry. Having your kind of rule removes the ambiguity from the defender, but it becomes a 50/50 on the attacker as to whether it's a knock on or live ball... it kind of weighs in favour of the defence rather than being a straight 50/50.

There's also the Thursto special where he tackles around the ball but is pushed off in the tackle and the ball comes out... sometimes it's classed as a strip, sometimes it's classed as knock on.

Even passes along a backline... if it touches the defender it's classed as played at and knock on against the defence. If it's been classed as played at, but hasn't technically left the hands shouldn't it be play on to the defensive team if they recover the ball.

I think if it were to be adopted the ruling would be along the lines of "the defender showing intent to strip the ball, therefore the ball becomes live"... which would apply to the TC, Thursto and Billy tackles, but even then the Billy tackle from the weekend would apply to markers slapping the ball away from the dummy half.

Suddenly the rule would create an extremely messy area of the game where markers will always be looking to strike the arm or the ball from dummy half to create a live ball situation from nothing.

I think all in all it could be a benefit to the game, but application by the officials would be the question... it's pretty well completely in favour of the defence, because it's either a live ball from the strip or it's a missed call by the ref and knock on against the attack.

Sorry, I should’ve stated “intentional strips”. The strip v loose carry will still be just as murky but there’s one less step because currently if they determine it’s a strip they then need to determine if it’s a knock on which is equally as difficult.

There’s nothing stopping defenders from doing that to hookers now. If you slap the arms it’s not a knock on by the defender. What stops it is the square at marker and offside rules.

You raise good points o hasn’t considered though.

 

[Tim K]

I honestly only kind of skimmed everyone’s discussion above. But my opinion is that as a fan watching, anything that would increase the likelihood of defenders slapping at the ball (excluding the obvious try scoring scenarios) would be an overall worse outcome for the game.

I already think allowing the one on one steel after a second defender has been involved in the tackle, is a fine line. It’s not impossible to imagine teams developing a systematic approach to orchestrating more one on one steal attempts purely to slow down the ruck. Imagine if steal attempts increased by 20% (let alone much more) each game. For me it would just become a punish to watch.

 

[GCBRONCO]

LOL there was a rumour going around the Bulldogs were chasing Bellamy, how quickly his agreeing to terms on a contract extension was leaked.

 

[Foordy]

LOL there was a rumour going around the Bulldogs were chasing Bellamy, how quickly his agreeing to terms on a contract extension was leaked.

Only gullible people would believe that one.

He'd never work with Gould looking over his shoulder

 

[GCBRONCO]

Only gullible people would believe that one.

He'd never work with Gould looking over his shoulder

I doubt any real high tier coach would either

 

[Mustafur]

If Freddy goes to Bulldogs he wouldn't be much better then Barrett.