NRL General Discussion Thread

[Sproj]

most clubs wait until their assistant gets a head coach job then wish them all the best and allow the to leave.

in the Roosters case they don't care if he even gets the Dragons job. Ryles is gone regardless.

and the Roosters acting so soon is not a good thing for Ryles. it puts him in a weaker position when negotiating with the Dragons, especially given the big demands Ryles has been reportedly making to the Dragons.

if negotiations fall through Ryles will be unemployed

As mentioned above, he’ll get snapped up if this falls through either here or in Super League. He is still in a very strong position.

 

[Mick_Hancock]

 

[The Strapper]

That was head coach though... head coaches don't typically change teams like that.

I don't recall Souths getting compo when we stole Seibold from them

We didn't steal him he was happy to join the mob who shafted bennet.

We should have been compensated big time by Souths for taking that flog.

 

[1910]

I was always under the impression that if an assistant coach got the opportunity for a head coach position, he was allowed to leave almost immediately no problems?

That relies on good will. You still have a contract, and a club can still hold their assistant to that contract. It's just never done.

Roosters are annoyed at losing Fitzy O'Brien and now Ryles and want to be compensated.

I don't mind clubs being compensated; Dragons can pay for him to break his contract. But Roosters shouldn't stand in his way if that's what he wants.

Roosters have to go get another assistant- Dragons can pay for it. He's 18 months into a three-year deal. You wouldn't let a player do it.

 

[Harry Sack]

That relies on good will. You still have a contract, and a club can still hold their assistant to that contract. It's just never done.

Roosters are annoyed at losing Fitzy O'Brien and now Ryles and want to be compensated.

I don't mind clubs being compensated; Dragons can pay for him to break his contract. But Roosters shouldn't stand in his way if that's what he wants.

Roosters have to go get another assistant- Dragons can pay for it. He's 18 months into a three-year deal. You wouldn't let a player do it.

I agree but haven't the Roosters pulled his last contract year? As in, regardless of whether he gets the Dragons job, he won't be at the Roosters next year.

 

[Foordy]

I agree but haven't the Roosters pulled his last contract year? As in, regardless of whether he gets the Dragons job, he won't be at the Roosters next year.

Yep, at least according to Hooper.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Buzz doing Buzz things. I’m actually surprised he printed a correction.

 

[mrslong]

Buzz doing Buzz things. I’m actually surprised he printed a correction.

The Hill would have been bangin tho for the old boys. Can you imagine if it'd actually played out that way.

 

[Foordy]

Looks like the NRL talking to Gould and the Bulldogs boss about his commentary had zero effect. he's teed off on the NRL again ... and I hate to say it, but the man is right.

Gus Gould said:

“I can talk about Bulldogs any time I like, particularly when they get it wrong, and they get it wrong a lot,” Gould said.

“You can single out incidents in every single game. You know why they are getting so much wrong, it is the nitpicking.

“It is the nitpicking in the bunker. They must have a giant magnifying glass to pick up stuff no one can possibly see, it goes on every week.

“They want to find something that no-one else can find. They want to find it and just spoil the moment, it is ridiculous and it is just ruining the game.

“The problem with it is our officials keep supporting it and saying you can’t criticise it, and they should be allowed to continue what they are doing.

“That is ruining the game as well.”

“No-one is in control,” Gould told 100% Footy on the Nine Network.

“They have given the referees too much control of the rule book, you have given the referees too much control of the game.

“The one thing that was advised to me 30 years ago by very smart people in this game (was) do not give them control of the rule book, do not give referees control of video refereeing. He said at the time it will be a disaster for the game.

“Well, it has been a disaster, an absolute disaster. So old mate (Mahoney) here gets put on report here for a hip drop that is not a hip drop.

“He gets put on report and is penalised. Two minutes later he gets hit on the jaw with an elbow. No penalty but he (Fa’asuamaleaui) gets charged the next day.

“How do you justify all that?”

“You have to simplify the whole lot,” Gould said.

“There is a whole lot there to unravel. The referees are extremely divided on this. Go and talk to referees and retired referees about the process and everything that happens down there.

“They hate it. We had an incident there where a bloke (Victor Radley) head butts a bloke – put on report, penalty, no sin bin.

“Old mate (Young and Keppie) pushes each other over in the in-goal there when the game is over and he wants to send two to the sin bin.

“Why? Because that referee loves sin bins. It’s on his record. He sin bins more than any other referee. They look for it.”

 

[Organix]

Looks like the NRL talking to Gould and the Bulldogs boss about his commentary had zero effect. he's teed off on the NRL again ... and I hate to say it, but the man is right.

Gus Gould said:

“I can talk about Bulldogs any time I like, particularly when they get it wrong, and they get it wrong a lot,” Gould said.

“You can single out incidents in every single game. You know why they are getting so much wrong, it is the nitpicking.

“It is the nitpicking in the bunker. They must have a giant magnifying glass to pick up stuff no one can possibly see, it goes on every week.

“They want to find something that no-one else can find. They want to find it and just spoil the moment, it is ridiculous and it is just ruining the game.

“The problem with it is our officials keep supporting it and saying you can’t criticise it, and they should be allowed to continue what they are doing.

“That is ruining the game as well.”

“No-one is in control,” Gould told 100% Footy on the Nine Network.

“They have given the referees too much control of the rule book, you have given the referees too much control of the game.

“The one thing that was advised to me 30 years ago by very smart people in this game (was) do not give them control of the rule book, do not give referees control of video refereeing. He said at the time it will be a disaster for the game.

“Well, it has been a disaster, an absolute disaster. So old mate (Mahoney) here gets put on report here for a hip drop that is not a hip drop.

“He gets put on report and is penalised. Two minutes later he gets hit on the jaw with an elbow. No penalty but he (Fa’asuamaleaui) gets charged the next day.

“How do you justify all that?”

“You have to simplify the whole lot,” Gould said.

“There is a whole lot there to unravel. The referees are extremely divided on this. Go and talk to referees and retired referees about the process and everything that happens down there.

“They hate it. We had an incident there where a bloke (Victor Radley) head butts a bloke – put on report, penalty, no sin bin.

“Old mate (Young and Keppie) pushes each other over in the in-goal there when the game is over and he wants to send two to the sin bin.

“Why? Because that referee loves sin bins. It’s on his record. He sin bins more than any other referee. They look for it.”

I hate agreeing with Gus, but he is right here. Problem is, there is probably a comparable quote where he is praising the bunker and its ability to deny QLD a try in some way.

 

[BroncsFan]

I hate agreeing with Gus, but he is right here. Problem is, there is probably a comparable quote where he is praising the bunker and its ability to deny QLD a try in some way.

The other thing he's not addressing is that referees currently look for every single little thing, because if they miss something Gus and the media find it and are all over them and putting it on the back page the next day.

So he wants some calls made and others left behind... he even did it in his quotes where he's arguing why didn't Tino get penalised, why didn't the push and shove just be left on the field like Victor, etc.

 

[Jedhead]

The arch rival of the cane toad has an agenda in everything he does. Always remember if there are two similar players playing for two separate teams, he will choose the Bronco player every time. First, because he knows our system produces class, and second because he feels anything that weakens our great club is a good thing.

I'm sick of him commentating in games. Everyone has to see his point of view or they're not able to understand the game -BS. His incessant repetition of his point of view through the commentary is also borderline pre-pubescent. "It's a try!, It's a try!, it's a try!" Or, "what is he supposed to do?", What is he supposed to do?" etc.

There are times when he does make a good point, but anyone suffering verbal diarrhea as bad as he does will eventually say something that you agree with.

In the days when Qld. were on their long winning streak some of his rhetoric was just plain nasty, and the broadcaster willingly gave him carte blanche in a bid to keep their ratings up in NSW.

He used to criticise Benny at every opportunity too. His jealousy was so obvious. He has since toned it all down a bit. But he still deadset hates Qld. and especially the Broncos with a passion.

The secret is he spruiks exactly what the NSW fan wants to hear and because they are based in Sydney it's classed as great coverage.

 

[Morkel]

Looks like the NRL talking to Gould and the Bulldogs boss about his commentary had zero effect. he's teed off on the NRL again ... and I hate to say it, but the man is right.

Gus Gould said:

“I can talk about Bulldogs any time I like, particularly when they get it wrong, and they get it wrong a lot,” Gould said.

“You can single out incidents in every single game. You know why they are getting so much wrong, it is the nitpicking.

“It is the nitpicking in the bunker. They must have a giant magnifying glass to pick up stuff no one can possibly see, it goes on every week.

“They want to find something that no-one else can find. They want to find it and just spoil the moment, it is ridiculous and it is just ruining the game.

“The problem with it is our officials keep supporting it and saying you can’t criticise it, and they should be allowed to continue what they are doing.

“That is ruining the game as well.”

“No-one is in control,” Gould told 100% Footy on the Nine Network.

“They have given the referees too much control of the rule book, you have given the referees too much control of the game.

“The one thing that was advised to me 30 years ago by very smart people in this game (was) do not give them control of the rule book, do not give referees control of video refereeing. He said at the time it will be a disaster for the game.

“Well, it has been a disaster, an absolute disaster. So old mate (Mahoney) here gets put on report here for a hip drop that is not a hip drop.

“He gets put on report and is penalised. Two minutes later he gets hit on the jaw with an elbow. No penalty but he (Fa’asuamaleaui) gets charged the next day.

“How do you justify all that?”

“You have to simplify the whole lot,” Gould said.

“There is a whole lot there to unravel. The referees are extremely divided on this. Go and talk to referees and retired referees about the process and everything that happens down there.

“They hate it. We had an incident there where a bloke (Victor Radley) head butts a bloke – put on report, penalty, no sin bin.

“Old mate (Young and Keppie) pushes each other over in the in-goal there when the game is over and he wants to send two to the sin bin.

“Why? Because that referee loves sin bins. It’s on his record. He sin bins more than any other referee. They look for it.”

I actually don't agree with him at all. I would be happy with that logic if the nit-picking was distributed fairly and without bias, but we know this is not the case. The refs will nit-pick to the advantage of the team that they believe should be dominating at that point in the game.

You know what would be better than the refs picking out every tiny incident in the game? It would be better if they simply didn't have to. If the refs adjudicated the games to the rules (not "interpretation"), then the teams that break the rules will simply be penalised out of the game. Which is exactly how it should be. That way, the team that wins is the team that played better within the rules. Not the team that was better able to get away with bending or breaking the rules and relied on the ref's reluctance to ping them every time they did.

 

[Sproj]

I actually don't agree with him at all. I would be happy with that logic if the nit-picking was distributed fairly and without bias, but we know this is not the case. The refs will nit-pick to the advantage of the team that they believe should be dominating at that point in the game.

You know what would be better than the refs picking out every tiny incident in the game? It would be better if they simply didn't have to. If the refs adjudicated the games to the rules (not "interpretation"), then the teams that break the rules will simply be penalised out of the game. Which is exactly how it should be. That way, the team that wins is the team that played better within the rules. Not the team that was better able to get away with bending or breaking the rules and relied on the ref's reluctance to ping them every time they did.

And if commentators like this moron complaining about the refereeing did their job and just commentate the game and not sensationalise actually correct decisions as being wrong purely because they don't like it.

 

[Foordy]

I actually don't agree with him at all. I would be happy with that logic if the nit-picking was distributed fairly and without bias, but we know this is not the case. The refs will nit-pick to the advantage of the team that they believe should be dominating at that point in the game.

You know what would be better than the refs picking out every tiny incident in the game? It would be better if they simply didn't have to. If the refs adjudicated the games to the rules (not "interpretation"), then the teams that break the rules will simply be penalised out of the game. Which is exactly how it should be. That way, the team that wins is the team that played better within the rules. Not the team that was better able to get away with bending or breaking the rules and relied on the ref's reluctance to ping them every time they did.

I think they tried that a few years ago... but as @BroncsFan said the mefia then complained non stop about penalties until the NRL stopped the crack down.

 

[Galah]

I actually don't agree with him at all. I would be happy with that logic if the nit-picking was distributed fairly and without bias, but we know this is not the case. The refs will nit-pick to the advantage of the team that they believe should be dominating at that point in the game.

You know what would be better than the refs picking out every tiny incident in the game? It would be better if they simply didn't have to. If the refs adjudicated the games to the rules (not "interpretation"), then the teams that break the rules will simply be penalised out of the game. Which is exactly how it should be. That way, the team that wins is the team that played better within the rules. Not the team that was better able to get away with bending or breaking the rules and relied on the ref's reluctance to ping them every time they did.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

I think they tried that a few years ago... but as @BroncsFan said the mefia then complained non stop about penalties until the NRL stopped the crack down.

Only because the teams they loved to cheerlead for like the Rorters and Melbourne were the teams getting stung the most by it....Not like there could be a reason for that or anything.

 

[Sproj]

Only because the teams they loved to cheerlead for like the Rorters and Melbourne were the teams getting stung the most by it....Not like there could be a reason for that or anything.

I also suspect that fans actually loved it because it would have led to better games and the usual teams like the Storm and Roosters not getting away with basic stupidity. Alas, Gould and his band of channel 9 cronies complained so loud and misleadingly claimed that they represented fan views, which of course, I don't think they did.

I actually think the majority of fans are sick to death of this current administration from top to bottom. I think fans would love a clean out of NRL officialdom, management and commentary but alas, its a boys club and they all just rub each others' backs.