2020 NRL General Discussion

[Sparkles]

throw Alfie in to run the drinks.

That's a straight swap for Robbo

 

[Thresher]

That's a straight swap for Robbo

Lucky Robbo's show and go is so easy to pick or the players would be going thirsty.

 

[egg]

I’m pretty sure that’s 2 mil less then what he’d get if he dug his heels in and made them sack him. Don’t take it Siebs.

I agree , squeeze Broncos nutz harder

From Cue Ball (Hooper ) below

“By rights Anthony Seibold... is entitled to $3.2 million. This is a smart play and the right play from the Broncos.

 

[slide rule]

I agree , squeeze Broncos nutz harder

From Cue Ball (Hooper ) below

“By rights Anthony Seibold... is entitled to $3.2 million. This is a smart play and the right play from the Broncos.

I bet it wouldn’t be labelled as the right play if Cronulla tried it on.

More like we’d be trying to rip him off/club in crisis/ broke/

 

[Sir Chadley]

Watching the game again, I gotta say, the stripping rule is the shame of the league at the moment. The Moylan strip was just bull****. What is the rule? A second panther still had contact with Moylan when the strip took place, so is he deemed to not be in the tackle because of what? What is classified as “in the tackle”? It’s the most important part of the rule but it has no clarity, it’s just ref interpretation which is garbage.

The rule should be “one on one tackle”, not “there where three on one till a split second before the strip then there was one left”. I just can’t see what it adds to the game in its current shape.

If it stays this way, it’ll lead to attacking players deliberately releasing the ball before the players drop off if they sense a strip move on. If teams perfect that move in attack, then it’s just a boring **** show of stripping strategy. It’s not what fans turn up to watch.

Captains should be able to challenge it, and if on replay a second defender still had any contact with the attacker, then it’s a strip penalty against.

That said we’re going to have to start doing it too or anticipating when it’s on, because it hurt us last night.

Further to the strip rule-
Watching the woods strip, Martin is basically using the other two tacklers to help him set up for the strip, then once woods is awkwardly falling and puts a hand out, they drop off.

So it isn’t one on one. Without the other two in the tackle earlier, the strip never happens. It’s a piece of **** rule.

I was thinking about this after the game.

Like all rules there are coaches and players that will learn to exploit it.

I wouldn't mind there being a facet to the rule which stated that if players drop off intentionally in order to facilitate a one on one strip, that a penalty goes to the team that was stripped.

It's gotten a bit ridiculous and shouldn't be as important to the game as an attacking kick, attacking set move etc.

(I'll admit that I probably wouldn't be as worried about it if we weren't such easy prey.)

You guys do realise that we have also done it, dropped off intentionally and have stolen the ball on many occasions. We just aren't good at holding the ball ourselves.

 

[HaroldBishop]

I bet it wouldn’t be labelled as the right play if Cronulla tried it on.

More like we’d be trying to rip him off/club in crisis/ broke/

Remember how bad we were when Flash wanted to go to Parra mid season and we blocked it.

 

[Thresher]

You guys do realise that we have also done it, dropped off intentionally and have stolen the ball on many occasions. We just aren't good at holding the ball ourselves.

I refer you to the part of my post at the end (in brackets)

 

[Sparkles]

Remember how bad we were when Flash wanted to go to Parra mid season and we blocked it.

But he didn't have a brother playing at Parra, we would have done it then.

I do remember that now. Geez we're pricks!

 

[Tatus]

Remember how bad we were when Flash wanted to go to Parra mid season and we blocked it.

Lost a sponsor too didn’t we?

 

[Gards]

Lost a sponsor too didn’t we?

yes but I think by then sponsors were looking at any excuse to pull the plug on us - it's nothing new for ol Cronulla

 

[bort]

I think regarding the strip the expectation is the other defenders need to be completely clear, too often they are still half falling across the guys legs with their hands out like they aren't still involved in the tackle or other BS, or are in the act of pulling out but still have a hand in there.

If you hang in there until the strip is in action and then get mostly clear then bad luck it wasn't one on one.

I think refs give too much benefit to the defenders here, expectation should be that they are evidently clear of the tackle, not just trying to get clear. If any doubt blow the strip penalty and then they can challenge it if they want to.
You can't challenge a strip call that is allowed to play on so if refs go 50/50 in defenders favour the attacker has no recourse.

 

[BurgoShark]

I don't think the refs are the issue. The rule needs fixing. In most of these "drop off" cases the "one on one" guys is quite obviously playing at the ball while there are multiple players in there. That isn't in the spirit of the rule; it should have been adjusted for 2020 imo.

It's par for the course with the NRL. Look at the set restart rule. The NRL will happily trot out numbers for "ball in play" because of reduced penalties and point to the faster play between the 30m lines, while ignoring the fact that we now see a whole lot more holding down when teams are coming out of their own end or attacking the line.

 

[stormshark]

I agree , squeeze Broncos nutz harder

From Cue Ball (Hooper ) below

“By rights Anthony Seibold... is entitled to $3.2 million. This is a smart play and the right play from the Broncos.

Anyone else feel a bit sorry for Coach AS, on the timing of this, with whatever's going on personally? Looks to have been leaked to pressure him more.

 

[CrazyMatt]

SMH were running a story about the NRL finally looking at the issue of players being poached for more money while under contract. The idea that the NRL are allegedly running with is that a player cannot earn more money for his new club then he was getting at the club he left while under contract for the remaining duration of the contract he had at the club he left.

So say a player is earning $400k at the Titans and has 2 years left on his deal, then say the Roosters come along and offer him $800k to switch clubs while under contract, that would now be not allowed, the Roosters would be only allowed to pay the player $400k for two of the years of his new contract.

What’s everyone’s thoughts about this if it goes ahead?

 

[snowman]

would be one of the best rule changes made

 

[bort]

would be one of the best rule changes made

Yep, think we'd see a few players find they can battle through their personal reasons for moving a bit better, or at least when they do move you know it is legit.

 

[HaroldBishop]

SMH were running a story about the NRL finally looking at the issue of players being poached for more money while under contract. The idea that the NRL are allegedly running with is that a player cannot earn more money for his new club then he was getting at the club he left while under contract for the remaining duration of the contract he had at the club he left.

So say a player is earning $400k at the Titans and has 2 years left on his deal, then say the Roosters come along and offer him $800k to switch clubs while under contract, that would now be not allowed, the Roosters would be only allowed to pay the player $400k for two of the years of his new contract.

What’s everyone’s thoughts about this if it goes ahead?

Yep I like it

 

[CrazyMatt]

Look I’m a fan as well, I just hope Vlandy’s shows the balls to get this off the ground, because you know there will be pushback from the players (some discreetly though their agents who stand to probably lose the most) and probably some clubs. He’s showed a backbone in the past, really hoping he does so again.

 

[Sparkles]

SMH were running a story about the NRL finally looking at the issue of players being poached for more money while under contract. The idea that the NRL are allegedly running with is that a player cannot earn more money for his new club then he was getting at the club he left while under contract for the remaining duration of the contract he had at the club he left.

So say a player is earning $400k at the Titans and has 2 years left on his deal, then say the Roosters come along and offer him $800k to switch clubs while under contract, that would now be not allowed, the Roosters would be only allowed to pay the player $400k for two of the years of his new contract.

What’s everyone’s thoughts about this if it goes ahead?

Good in theory. They'd have to keep a careful eye on backloaded contracts (if that's still a thing). And ban them from playing golf...

 

[bort]

Good in theory. They'd have to keep a careful eye on backloaded contracts (if that's still a thing). And ban them from playing golf...

If you can't poach a 400k player with two years to run over for three years on 600k and instead need to fork out like 400/400/800-1mil and make your own third year cap difficult to manage then that is on you.
NRL also would be reluctant as back ending causes them a lot of pains in the arse