PRE-GAME Round 18 - Broncos vs Warriors

[1910]

Every club is allowed six development players outside the top 30 NRL squad with a price of $60,000 per player.

You can't can't start these players unless you gain an injury exemption.

 

[Super Freak]

Every club is allowed six development players outside the top 30 NRL squad with a price of $60,000 per player.

You can't can't start these players unless you gain an injury exemption.

So what's their reasoning for the players not being allowed to start?

I don't see the difference.

 

[ningnangnong]

It's a stupid rule alright, but how would his selection not be Origin related?

Our regular starting centre who played Origin has been ruled out directly after an Origin game... whether he's being rested or not, surely that would make Staggs' selection in the centres 'Origin related'?

No doubt the rule has been crafted to be used for games on the weekend preceding an Origin match.

 

[ZTop]

Here is the question, Do you bring Staggs on with our first interchanges or do you leave him on the bench for cover

 

[1910]

So what's their reasoning for the players not being allowed to start?

I don't see the difference.

I didn't ask but I would assume it's two fold- player welfare- you've said this player is a development player and you'd assume he's young and to stop you having a cap of 36 players. It's 30 and six development players that you might use during Origin or injuries. Not 36 to use at your leisure.

So the deterrent is you can't start them.

 

[Super Freak]

I didn't ask but I would assume it's two fold- player welfare- you've said this player is a development player and you'd assume he's young and to stop you having a cap of 36 players. It's 30 and six development players that you might use during Origin or injuries. Not 36 to use at your leisure.

So the deterrent is you can't start them.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

They can play, but they can't start. I don't see the sense in that. A player can get injured in the first minute or a coach can make a change in the first minute and he plays the whole game anyway.

What makes it even more ridiculous is the fact that he was allowed to replace Roberts last week because of Origin but he can't replace Roberts this week when Roberts is out due to injury.

 

[Wolfie]

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

They can play, but they can't start. I don't see the sense in that. A player can get injured in the first minute or a coach can make a change in the first minute and he plays the whole game anyway.

What makes it even more ridiculous is the fact that he was allowed to replace Roberts last week because of Origin but he can't replace Roberts this week when Roberts is out due to injury.

A agree its a stupid rule. Thing is also about player welfare, if they were fair dinkum about it, they would stop players who fail HIA from playing at all for the following week. So many inconsistencies.

 

[Aldo]

A agree its a stupid rule. Thing is also about player welfare, if they were fair dinkum about it, they would stop players who fail HIA from playing at all for the following week. So many inconsistencies.

NRL: No Real Logic

 

[Super Freak]

NRL: No Real Logic

That's the most accurate description I've ever heard.

 

[1910]

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

They can play, but they can't start. I don't see the sense in that. A player can get injured in the first minute or a coach can make a change in the first minute and he plays the whole game anyway.

What makes it even more ridiculous is the fact that he was allowed to replace Roberts last week because of Origin but he can't replace Roberts this week when Roberts is out due to injury.

They also claim a suitable replacement in Opacic is in your 30- you have no reason to go outside your 30 and use your development players. How I understand it Staggs needs exemption just to be on the bench and that's all they're letting him do.

You're right, there will be a change after a minute.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Late to the party but...
Why wasn't one of these young guns made number thirty?

 

[Number6]

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

They can play, but they can't start. I don't see the sense in that. A player can get injured in the first minute or a coach can make a change in the first minute and he plays the whole game anyway.

What makes it even more ridiculous is the fact that he was allowed to replace Roberts last week because of Origin but he can't replace Roberts this week when Roberts is out due to injury.

Top tier centre (Bird) injured for season, other top tier centre sore after origin. Surely that qualifies as reason to let Staggs start. Using Kahu out of position already (he is a winger not a centre). NRLs logic is you have to start a worse player to replace your two higher paid first graders but your better form player can be on the bench...

This is what is wrong with NRL. It’s all about ensuring everyone is mediocre enough to keep the competition even.

If a player is gone for the season with independent medical review why can’t their spot in the 30 be given to someone else with a minimum wage exception? Similarly if a player needs a rest from a rep game needs to be allowance for clubs sacrifice to rep football so we can build the game. Perhaps move them to injury list NFL style for season ending injuries and NHL style for rep duty where they can come back after 7 days or whatever period... you can’t carry 4 specialist centres in a 30 man squad let alone perhaps 5 to ensure have spares in form so why not acknowledge that and have it built into system.

 

[Sproj]

Top tier centre (Bird) injured for season, other top tier centre sore after origin. Surely that qualifies as reason to let Staggs start. Using Kahu out of position already (he is a winger not a centre). NRLs logic is you have to start a worse player to replace your two higher paid first graders but your better form player can be on the bench...

This is what is wrong with NRL. It’s all about ensuring everyone is mediocre enough to keep the competition even.

If a player is gone for the season with independent medical review why can’t their spot in the 30 be given to someone else with a minimum wage exception? Similarly if a player needs a rest from a rep game needs to be allowance for clubs sacrifice to rep football so we can build the game. Perhaps move them to injury list NFL style for season ending injuries and NHL style for rep duty where they can come back after 7 days or whatever period... you can’t carry 4 specialist centres in a 30 man squad let alone perhaps 5 to ensure have spares in form so why not acknowledge that and have it built into system.

Because...you’ve thought about this...explains it all.

 

[Wolfie]

Top tier centre (Bird) injured for season, other top tier centre sore after origin. Surely that qualifies as reason to let Staggs start. Using Kahu out of position already (he is a winger not a centre). NRLs logic is you have to start a worse player to replace your two higher paid first graders but your better form player can be on the bench...

This is what is wrong with NRL. It’s all about ensuring everyone is mediocre enough to keep the competition even.

If a player is gone for the season with independent medical review why can’t their spot in the 30 be given to someone else with a minimum wage exception? Similarly if a player needs a rest from a rep game needs to be allowance for clubs sacrifice to rep football so we can build the game. Perhaps move them to injury list NFL style for season ending injuries and NHL style for rep duty where they can come back after 7 days or whatever period... you can’t carry 4 specialist centres in a 30 man squad let alone perhaps 5 to ensure have spares in form so why not acknowledge that and have it built into system.

I suppose the NRL's theory is you have a 30 man squad and you should be able to manage it well enough have enough cover. Not exactly sure if there is a definitive list of our 30 man squad, but at a guess i'd say the NRL would say we have Shibasaki, Pangai and Opacic capable of covering for center. We did also have Seve, but now he is gone i dont see why we couldnt just shift Kotoni into his spot. There needs to be some flexibility imo.

 

[Super Freak]

I suppose the NRL's theory is you have a 30 man squad and you should be able to manage it well enough have enough cover. Not exactly sure if there is a definitive list of our 30 man squad, but at a guess i'd say the NRL would say we have Shibasaki, Pangai and Opacic capable of covering for center. We did also have Seve, but now he is gone i dont see why we couldnt just shift Kotoni into his spot. There needs to be some flexibility imo.

We also had Shibasaki, Pangai and Opacic last week but they let Staggs play at centre.

Now it's different this week despite it being the same situation.

It makes no sense.

 

[Wolfie]

We also had Shibasaki, Pangai and Opacic last week but they let Staggs play at centre.

Now it's different this week despite it being the same situation.

It makes no sense.

Thats finished now though in the NRL's eyes, even though it still has an impact for the games the weekend following. Technically, we didnt have Shibasaki either did we as he was on u20's duty.

 

[heartly87]

So it is just another communist rule from the NRL. How i read it is a top 30 player needs to replace a top 30 player unless their is a big reason. So because Opa is a centre in our top 30 he must replace Jet. It is rule put in place by the player union i bet to cover peoples jobs. Underperforming players in the top 30 are a protected species.

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

He played 78 minutes against the Roosters and handled it fine so I imagine he can handle the full 80.

Forgot about that, those last 2 mins can be a killer though........