Organix
State of Origin Rep
Contributor
- Sep 19, 2012
- 6,863
- 8,892
I feel you, mateThanks for the heads up but in all honesty the game is no longer the draw card it once was so I have no interest in watching it online.
I feel you, mateThanks for the heads up but in all honesty the game is no longer the draw card it once was so I have no interest in watching it online.
Not hard to fix immediately in a way that I'm pretty sure every coach would like, and few fans would grumble about:Too obvious and too logical.
As it stands the 18th man is hardly ever used carrying an extra sub to cover injuries and/or concussions in the backs is a great idea. Coaches need to be forced to carry an outside back because majority of games they won't be used. So with 4 reserves they will stick with 3 forwards and a hooker/utility
@Sproj Having said that though, early on itd be a good momentum breaker if carrigan was there in the ear of the ref questioning and doubting everything. Would also provide more breaks for defensive resets and forwards to have breathers.Yeah good point
He was always solid overall and did the job required while adding some mongrel. Can play 3/4 of the spine, plus a lock in a pinch. Good for 1 or 2 good, game breaking plays a game.then you haven't been watching him play
I think both ideas could work, but the first seems the more logical. The second seems more open to exploiting, so it's probably the one the nrl would go with.Not hard to fix immediately in a way that I'm pretty sure every coach would like, and few fans would grumble about:
1. Coaches can draw from reserves but at the expense of a bench player. Effectively play 4 players from a possible 6 (or even unlimited). No change to interchange numbers. No disruption. No brainer, really.
2. OR, they can name a bench of 6, play any of them, but stick to the current number of interchanges. Would anticipate some grumbling.
The current rulings related to foul play and HIA would still apply.
Yes, it's a simple fix. Pretty sure no coach wants to waste a bench spot on an outside back or pure half, but would jump at the chance to sub one in case of injury. Oates would've had two games already this season under this system.I think both ideas could work, but the first seems the more logical. The second seems more open to exploiting, so it's probably the one the nrl would go with.
Not hard to fix immediately in a way that I'm pretty sure every coach would like, and few fans would grumble about:
1. Coaches can draw from reserves but at the expense of a bench player. Effectively play 4 players from a possible 6 (or even unlimited). No change to interchange numbers. No disruption. No brainer, really.
2. OR, they can name a bench of 6, play any of them, but stick to the current number of interchanges. Would anticipate some grumbling.
The current rulings related to foul play and HIA would still apply.
I can't think of a reasonable objection to the first option, given they already get the names before the game, so they can't kick up a stink over last minute changes.I fucking hate that I love it. It's so simple, option 1 would be perfect.
And of course, if the concept were introduced to them, their response would be "Absolutely not. Teams should have to balance their 4-player interchange, and if they allowed for a back on the bench it would mean less forwards in rotation and therefore more fatigue and more open play".
The only problem with option 1 would be if you have already used your four bench guys once already and then insert a new fella on to the bench through injury later, thus giving you an 18th player. I think it would be good to be able to have an extended bench, but only be able to use 4 out of 6 guys, for example. So, like have Sailor and Oates as options with the other 4 we had, but only use him if that is the way the game is going. It would bring some really interesting tactics into the game, and if every team can do it, then that is fair. It would account for injuries and you would have to decide whether you want to keep your middle rotation or reshuffle the backline.I can't think of a reasonable objection to the first option, given they already get the names before the game, so they can't kick up a stink over last minute changes.
There are plenty of other minor tweaks to interchange worth discussing. For instance:
1. If the NRL is serious about head injuries, then give off field head injury assessments a free interchange at the discretion of the referee/bunker/bullshit deterrent of your choice. Add a few mandatory conditions to squelch the squabbling over potential cheating.
2. Unlimited interchanges for the first 15 minutes or so. Or just injury triggered interchanges. Might sound a bit random, but coaches would rarely want to inject a fresh player in the first 15, yet it would be a lifesaver - and not unfair - when a player like Walsh/Piakura/Cobbo goes down early. Which, when it happens, generally ***** your entire game. Like rounds 1 and 3 for us this season.
Even with them, it gets frantic and directionless at times.We were missing Walsh, Reynolds and Haas.
If it's 15 to go and you've used all four, too bad. Business as usual.The only problem with option 1 would be if you have already used your four bench guys once already and then insert a new fella on to the bench through injury later, thus giving you an 18th player. I think it would be good to be able to have an extended bench, but only be able to use 4 out of 6 guys, for example. So, like have Sailor and Oates as options with the other 4 we had, but only use him if that is the way the game is going. It would bring some really interesting tactics into the game, and if every team can do it, then that is fair. It would account for injuries and you would have to decide whether you want to keep your middle rotation or reshuffle the backline.
I've been saying this for years. The ref pool needs to be enlarged to include Brisbane based refs. This crap about all the refs having to be based in Sydney because that's where they train is just a cop out from the NRL. All the refs can have a video hook up once a week to discuss which rules they are going to mess with this round and we get more than double the number of refs to pick from as lets face it the quality of refereeing seems to be dropping year on year.Watching the game again now and it is an absolute piss-take that that ref is at NRL standard. The flops from Penrith, the high shots. There was a kick through that Cobbo cleaned up and he gets taken high. Then towards the end he calls "tackled after held" on a call where he previously ruled a knock-on. He is taking calls from somewhere else and it is an absolute joke.
I think Madden would be better suited to be a running five-eighth instead of a game managing halfback. Unfortunately for Madden, we already have Ezra Mam for that.Never going to beat Penrith with 4 of our 4 most important players out.
Obviously not a fair game to completely judge someone on but I haven’t seen anything from Madden that tells me he’ll be a consistent first grader.
just when you think Brent Read has gone complete down the NRL 360 Rabbit hole ... he comes out with todays article calling out the NRL for double standards in not charging May. also said that in the Super League or Yawnion, May would likely have been sent off
Never going to beat Penrith with 4 of our 4 most important players out.
Obviously not a fair game to completely judge someone on but I haven’t seen anything from Madden that tells me he’ll be a consistent first grader.
Hard to get close to him to make a tackle with that chinI mean Cleary isn't exactly a small guy.