PRE-GAME Round 18 - Broncos vs Warriors

[Accept]

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.

You are spot on. The rule was recommended by the union which was why Bennett was tight lipped on the subject yesterday.

 

[Morkel]

I don’t have a problem with the rule. On the surface it would make more sense to either have the play or not play (not this starting/bench rule) but then your development players will only ever be able to be blooded during Origin or if you have a genuine injury crisis.

We should be thankful we can even play Staggs at all. It was the Broncos’ choice to have Opacic in the top 30, and it made sense with Moga leaving and Bird’s position up in the air.

 

[holdzy]

I'm feeling this one - Broncos to continue the momentum with a convincing win. That doesn't automatically mean a big score, but Warriors will be looking to redeem themselves, Broncos will match what they bring.

Broncos by 6-10.

 

[Morkel]

Broncos by 34 has come to fruition. Let’s go for Broncos by 22.

 

[Thelmus]

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.

Looking after player's welfare isn't communist (talk about an overused word), it's garanteeing the integrity of the development process.
No-one should be expected to give years of their life to career to have the whole thing collapse in a week.
Players need certainty in their lives like anyone else. They already enter into risky profession as it is, with permanent disfigurement or injury almost a guarantee.
That they are guaranteed a season when they break through hardly seems unfair. They can build to the next level, if successful or use the time they have to prepare for plan b if they don't.
Young players especially are vulnerable. Many more get churned out, than make it. Unless we want the "good ole days" when ex players ended up alchoholics and drug addicts on a regular basis, we need to give some "cushions" to stop those falling through the cracks.
Its only a season but otherwise we might see a new debutant every week (and another cast aside).
That's not even starting on the problems with young players burnt out too early too.

 

[Number6]

Looking after player's welfare isn't communist (talk about an overused word), it's garanteeing the integrity of the development process.
No-one should be expected to give years of their life to career to have the whole thing collapse in a week.
Players need certainty in their lives like anyone else. They already enter into risky profession as it is, with permanent disfigurement or injury almost a guarantee.
That they are guaranteed a season when they break through hardly seems unfair. They can build to the next level, if successful or use the time they have to prepare for plan b if they don't.
Young players especially are vulnerable. Many more get churned out, than make it. Unless we want the "good ole days" when ex players ended up alchoholics and drug addicts on a regular basis, we need to give some "cushions" to stop those falling through the cracks.
Its only a season but otherwise we might see a new debutant every week (and another cast aside).
That's not even starting on the problems with young players burnt out too early too.

Off topic argument here sorry. Having a rigid top 30 or flexible injury list provision has nothing to do with player welfare but more with existing player protectionism I suspect. Clubs can find an excuse to drop a player if and when they choose (see Hastings). How will a couple more crap NRL games prevent drug use after not making it at NRL level? Clubs also have sport science systems and welfare departments for the burnout and post Rugby League issues. Besides if your argument is protected as development player list what about 18 years old in the top 30 are they are more risk? Then shouldn’t have under 20s playing NRL? Truth is I don’t have an issue with that greatly if was evidence to support greater risk as would be good to let bodies develop but that isn’t the argument I’m seeing.

At the end of the day it is a highly competitive sport. Yes there are risks but that is players choice. Agree to have player welfare and insurance systems as good practice but duty of care should never extend to protecting mediocre performance and blocking someone rated as better getting their fair shot. Also hardly giving clubs an unfair advantage to use an outside 30 player if on minimum wage for an injured player. Simple issue so trust to see NRL f***ing it up.

 

[1910]

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.

You have to have a set number of players you can use. You need to manage your 30. Why should some clubs have squads of 50 and some 30?

Broncos could have included Staggs anytime up to June 30 if they wanted- they chose not to. It was the same deal with the top 25 and a second tier cap- if you spent your second tier cap then guys couldn't play anymore because you had no money to pay them like Parcell in 2015.

The Broncos could still replace Roberts with anyone in their 30 so they're not protected, you just can't bring in anyone and everyone you want.

 

[1910]

Off topic argument here sorry. Having a rigid top 30 or flexible injury list provision has nothing to do with player welfare but more with existing player protectionism I suspect. Clubs can find an excuse to drop a player if and when they choose (see Hastings). How will a couple more crap NRL games prevent drug use after not making it at NRL level? Clubs also have sport science systems and welfare departments for the burnout and post Rugby League issues. Besides if your argument is protected as development player list what about 18 years old in the top 30 are they are more risk? Then shouldn’t have under 20s playing NRL? Truth is I don’t have an issue with that greatly if was evidence to support greater risk as would be good to let bodies develop but that isn’t the argument I’m seeing.

At the end of the day it is a highly competitive sport. Yes there are risks but that is players choice. Agree to have player welfare and insurance systems as good practice but duty of care should never extend to protecting mediocre performance and blocking someone rated as better getting their fair shot. Also hardly giving clubs an unfair advantage to use an outside 30 player if on minimum wage for an injured player. Simple issue so trust to see NRL f***ing it up.

You could have a squad of 50 and number 51 end up better than number 34 by July. Clubs need to plan ahead and plan their 30. You've already got 5 more than you would have had under the top 25 of the past. Now you want another six as well.

There has always been a set number of players. This is hardly new that it's not a do whatever you want situation.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

Thing is, you cant legislate for a talent like staggs breaking through, but they could have moved him into the top 30 before the deadline. Despite it being a stupid rule, it's the. Broncos fault we are in this position.

 

[Battler]

Looking after player's welfare isn't communist (talk about an overused word), it's garanteeing the integrity of the development process.
No-one should be expected to give years of their life to career to have the whole thing collapse in a week.
Players need certainty in their lives like anyone else. They already enter into risky profession as it is, with permanent disfigurement or injury almost a guarantee.
That they are guaranteed a season when they break through hardly seems unfair. They can build to the next level, if successful or use the time they have to prepare for plan b if they don't.
Young players especially are vulnerable. Many more get churned out, than make it. Unless we want the "good ole days" when ex players ended up alchoholics and drug addicts on a regular basis, we need to give some "cushions" to stop those falling through the cracks.
Its only a season but otherwise we might see a new debutant every week (and another cast aside).
That's not even starting on the problems with young players burnt out too early too.

This sounds good in theory, especially if we were talking about a profession like construction, but in practice it doesn't work in high performance sport. If the club wants to get rid of a player it deems shit they're going to: being in the top 30 doesn't make a difference. Look at Oppa for example, the club has identified him as being a Qcup player and I suspect he'll never play for the Broncos again despite being in the top 30.

I don't see why there can't be a provision for clubs to bring in juniors they've developed that are outside of the top 30. I mean, clubs like the rorters would rarely do it because they buy rosters, but if a club like the eels or raiders (picked out two clubs at random that actually produce juniors) wants to bring in someone that's playing well and they deem deserves a shot, then they shouldn't be denied just to give an average player who's a dead man walking career wise an extra few games of FG. The average bloke is still getting paid.

TL;DR: if you're shit you're not going to play FG footy unless you're at a club like the titans or knights, being in the top 30 doesn't make a difference.

 

[Astro]

A little off topic but is anyone having dramas using the members password to get the 10% off tickets. The one they sent just keeps throwing up errors at me?

 

[Cult]

It wouldn’t really motivate the young players to earn a spot in the last half of the year which doesn’t benefit the teams who breed these players at all. Like usual it’s just another thing that we are good at that taken away to keep the competition average

 

[Wolfie]

It wouldn’t really motivate the young players to earn a spot in the last half of the year which doesn’t benefit the teams who breed these players at all. Like usual it’s just another thing that we are good at that taken away to keep the competition average

But we could have added him before june 30.

 

[Cult]

But we could have added him before june 30.

So should the younger blokes give up after June 30 knowing there’s no chance to get a first grade spot?

 

[Art Vandelay]

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

Wait until Fifita starts to fatigue.

 

[Kyall]

Game day so let’s get ready to da a bitta rippin and a tearing

 

[Wolfie]

So should the younger blokes give up after June 30 knowing there’s no chance to get a first grade spot?

Not at all, but in this particular instance its down to the Broncos why he didnt get added. Realistically, how many a year do we have like Staggs?

Yep, its a stupid rule, and i think there needs to be a bit more flexibility, but the simple fact is we dropped the ball on this one. We had seen enough to give him a place, and we didnt do it.

 

[Allo]

It should be as simple as having that 30 squad and your developmental players. You can sign players into that 30 like usual before June 30 and that’s it. Free inter-squad movement otherwise. You can’t rort it by signing known quantities to development contracts, and then sneaking them in to the team every week. They have to be promoted rookies.