NRL General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Australia will win the WC and they will win it easily.

NZ have had talent for years, but 99% of the time they can't put it together for a tournament and just end up being cannon fodder.

Same with England.
 
Kimlo said:
www.smh.com.au

‘Her integrity is beyond reproach’: NRL won’t intervene in Badgers case

The NRL will continue to allow Kasey Badger to officiate games involving Wests Tigers despite husband Gavin Badger having a role at the club.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

**** the NRL is amateur.

Kasey Badger, wife of Gavin Badger who is now on the Tigers coaching staff (sits in the coaches box) is reffing Tigers' game.
Click to expand...

Kevin-Hart-responds-to-cheating-rumours-with-a-meme.jpg
 
Kimlo said:
www.smh.com.au

‘Her integrity is beyond reproach’: NRL won’t intervene in Badgers case

The NRL will continue to allow Kasey Badger to officiate games involving Wests Tigers despite husband Gavin Badger having a role at the club.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

**** the NRL is amateur.

Kasey Badger, wife of Gavin Badger who is now on the Tigers coaching staff (sits in the coaches box) is reffing Tigers' game.
Click to expand...

I didn't know Morkel Morkel had gone professional with the SMH

Nice job, they clearly liked your NSWRL thread
 
Kimlo said:
www.smh.com.au

‘Her integrity is beyond reproach’: NRL won’t intervene in Badgers case

The NRL will continue to allow Kasey Badger to officiate games involving Wests Tigers despite husband Gavin Badger having a role at the club.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

**** the NRL is amateur.

Kasey Badger, wife of Gavin Badger who is now on the Tigers coaching staff (sits in the coaches box) is reffing Tigers' game.
Click to expand...

To be fair, touch judges do less than nothing. Vlandys even said so. They have less influence over the results than the ball boys do.
 
There's discussions whether a player that's sent off should be able to be replaced so teams aren't down to 12 men for the game.

That has the potential to be a disaster.

Let's say Panthers are in a GF. What's stopping an opposition player from intentionally taking out Nathan Cleary so he's out for the game?

Yeah that player will get sent off, but they would have taken out their opposition's best player and they would be able to be replaced so the team committing the foul won't actually get disadvantaged by it.

The NRL could bring in a rule where if the foul play is intentional, they can't be replaced.. But then you're leaving it up to the officials and bunker to decide intent which is just a recipe for disaster.
 
Super Freak said:
There's discussions whether a player that's sent off should be able to be replaced so teams aren't down to 12 men for the game.

That has the potential to be a disaster.

Let's say Panthers are in a GF. What's stopping an opposition player from intentionally taking out Nathan Cleary so he's out for the game?

Yeah that player will get sent off, but they would have taken out their opposition's best player and they would be able to be replaced so the team committing the foul won't actually get disadvantaged by it.

The NRL could bring in a rule where if the foul play is intentional, they can't be replaced.. But then you're leaving it up to the officials and bunker to decide intent which is just a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
Why not something like three try’s against and you can go back to full strength? Just not the guy who committed the offence, his night is done.
 
Super Freak said:
There's discussions whether a player that's sent off should be able to be replaced so teams aren't down to 12 men for the game.

That has the potential to be a disaster.

Let's say Panthers are in a GF. What's stopping an opposition player from intentionally taking out Nathan Cleary so he's out for the game?

Yeah that player will get sent off, but they would have taken out their opposition's best player and they would be able to be replaced so the team committing the foul won't actually get disadvantaged by it.

The NRL could bring in a rule where if the foul play is intentional, they can't be replaced.. But then you're leaving it up to the officials and bunker to decide intent which is just a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
If you aren't disadvantaged by doing the wrong thing, where's the incentive to do the right thing? It would absolutely be worth it for some young guy to make a name for himself taking out a key player in big match. You'd almost have to start considering "enforcers" like the NHL.
 
Super Freak said:
There's discussions whether a player that's sent off should be able to be replaced so teams aren't down to 12 men for the game.

That has the potential to be a disaster.

Let's say Panthers are in a GF. What's stopping an opposition player from intentionally taking out Nathan Cleary so he's out for the game?

Yeah that player will get sent off, but they would have taken out their opposition's best player and they would be able to be replaced so the team committing the foul won't actually get disadvantaged by it.

The NRL could bring in a rule where if the foul play is intentional, they can't be replaced.. But then you're leaving it up to the officials and bunker to decide intent which is just a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

Logically what you're saying makes sense but then I have always wondered why in the AFL Grand Final with no send off it doesn't happen?

No one takes out Martin in the first minute and smashes his face in.
 
1910 said:
Logically what you're saying makes sense but then I have always wondered why in the AFL Grand Final with no send off it doesn't happen?

No one takes out Martin in the first minute and smashes his face in.
Click to expand...
I actually saw this decades ago in a Bush footy GF. Some big fat fella decked a rival player minutes after kick off. Brutal strike which completely busted him open. Bit of push and shove and then the guy casually strolls off.

Obviously premeditated.
 
If a player does the wrong thing to the point of being worthy of a send off, send them off. Just be consistent, is it really that hard? If they bring in this sub for an in game idiot rule, it is just another way they are trying to cover their own incompetence.

Was the send off decision harsh? Maybe. Was it a travesty? Heck no as it was a legitimately bad tackle. This is where the ref should be supported, not lambasted. The problem is not this tackle, the ref did what he thought was right and BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, is a fine decision. However, BASED ON CONJECTURE of course all the talking idiots love to talk it down because it was detrimental to Manly. Well guess what, blame the player in the wrong here not the system.

The problem is far broader when you have someone like Tupou not even getting binned despite a legitimate coat hangar that only a touch judge couldn't see was worthy of at least a sin bin. Look even a send off there I could live with if it was consistent. Binning a player for tackling legitimately but JUST A BIT TOO HARD is not consistent with the rules.

So in summary, if a player like Lawton does a bad tackle like that, his team SHOULD feel the consequences of that because you don't want that in the game.

I don't often say it but well done to the ref in this instance. Oh and leave the rules alone!
 
Super Freak said:
There's discussions whether a player that's sent off should be able to be replaced so teams aren't down to 12 men for the game.

That has the potential to be a disaster.

Let's say Panthers are in a GF. What's stopping an opposition player from intentionally taking out Nathan Cleary so he's out for the game?

Yeah that player will get sent off, but they would have taken out their opposition's best player and they would be able to be replaced so the team committing the foul won't actually get disadvantaged by it.

The NRL could bring in a rule where if the foul play is intentional, they can't be replaced.. But then you're leaving it up to the officials and bunker to decide intent which is just a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
That might take the cake for stupidest NSWRL comment... these idiots are so obsessed with keeping the game as 13 v 13 that they're willing to disregard send off offences so the contest isn't ruined.

How about blaming the idiot player that after Murray was tipped vertical decided to jump off his feet and continue with the tackle.

Could you imagine this rule was there and the Hoppa flying elbow from a few years back happens.

Hoppa strolls off and is allowed to be replaced (he was suspended for like 17 weeks afterwards)... meanwhile the sharks player is on the ground completely unconscious and might've been eating through a straw for several weeks afterwards (can't recall if he was injured or not, but it seems likely).

The former NRL players are absolute morons when it comes to this shit... the refs are scared enough as it is to bin someone or send them off because of the media crap that ensues. The game isn't like the old days anymore... how have these idiots still not woken up to that fact.
 
1910 said:
Logically what you're saying makes sense but then I have always wondered why in the AFL Grand Final with no send off it doesn't happen?

No one takes out Martin in the first minute and smashes his face in.
Click to expand...

I think most players, probably 98%, won't do it. A lot of the guys out there are mates etc. But when you leave the door open, all it takes is one and I can see it getting to a point where a player is just desperate enough to do it if they knew their team would not be disadvantaged by it.
 
Super Freak said:
There's discussions whether a player that's sent off should be able to be replaced so teams aren't down to 12 men for the game.

That has the potential to be a disaster.

Let's say Panthers are in a GF. What's stopping an opposition player from intentionally taking out Nathan Cleary so he's out for the game?

Yeah that player will get sent off, but they would have taken out their opposition's best player and they would be able to be replaced so the team committing the foul won't actually get disadvantaged by it.

The NRL could bring in a rule where if the foul play is intentional, they can't be replaced.. But then you're leaving it up to the officials and bunker to decide intent which is just a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
Teams could always try playing by the rules and not being sent off in the first place, and just see if that works out ok, for them?

Fark me... The tinkering this game does is ridiculous.

How about they just don't spear blokes halfway to China, OR not bleat about getting sent off if they do?
 
Browny said:
Why was there even debate that the manly spear tackle wasn’t a send off?
Click to expand...
Because Gus and Freddy thought it was still the 80's... oh and they were pissed that Lawnton ruined 1 of their 3 televised games for the week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 706
1:26:14
NSWRL Round 20, 1991 - Brisbane Broncos vs North Sydney Bears
View full media list »

Active Now

Total: 145 (members: 16, guests: 129)
Robots: 604
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.