Should NRL offences effect eligibilty for Internationals?

[Lambretta]

In the wake of the Isaac Luke decision by the NRL judiciary to ban him for striking Anthony Laffranchi should the system be overhauled prevent future claims of cheating and bias by Australian NRL officials?

Basically - should offences in the NRL mean you miss out on International games or should there be a seperate international panel made up of people from different countries to attempt to cut out these issues?

 

[kkingston]

No other sport in the world takes club bans to rule players out of internationals

 

[Loudstrat]

Yes.

If you make exceptions for tests, then the argument will be made for Origin. Then Grand Finals. Cam Smith's 2 week ban for ripping Thaiday's head off was met with cries of "unfair - missing such a big game"

No exceptions - although the Kiwis have copped a lot of suspensions to key players on the eve of autumn and winter tests.

 

[Chook Norris]

Yes.

Then Grand Finals. .

Grand Finals are still part of the NRL though, Internationals are not

 

[Flapper]

Of course it should, in the end they're all games of footy. There has to be some sort of deterrent, if we only ban people for culub games but let them play for the bigguns, they learn nothing.

 

[Lambretta]

Yes.

If you make exceptions for tests, then the argument will be made for Origin. Then Grand Finals. Cam Smith's 2 week ban for ripping Thaiday's head off was met with cries of "unfair - missing such a big game"

No exceptions - although the Kiwis have copped a lot of suspensions to key players on the eve of autumn and winter tests.

I do wonder then why David Fa'alogo's ban didn't COUNT international games last season. Only NRL ones.

I wonder why that was? Oh hold on - HE'S A KIWI

Could the judiciary cheat any more obviously?

I doubt it would be possible.

In case you hadnt noticed - Origin ONLY allows "Australians" or rather people who pledge their allegience to Australia to take part. I doubt in NSW or QLD rugby league would be so stupid to send their players into a court situation where all the panel members were from the opposite state.

The chance of a conflict of interest is far less likely in any other situation in football than the case currently in question.

It's a farce and it's tainted the game unfortunately?

 

[Lambretta]

Of course it should, in the end they're all games of footy. There has to be some sort of deterrent, if we only ban people for culub games but let them play for the bigguns, they learn nothing.

OK - would you be quite happy for the board to be made up entirely of New Zealanders?

Would Gallen have gotten off had that been the case?

 

[Simo]

Grand Finals are still part of the NRL though, Internationals are not

Agree.

I think Origins and Internationals need the best available for our showcase rep games.

Club suspensions should not apply, particularly with how soft we are these days and a nasty fart can lead to a suspension. I think penalties are enough for a lot of what is suspeneded these days.

Good topic have been meaning to start one witht he same thought in mind for ages!

 

[bartman]

Should be the same rule for everyone.

If you break the rules of your comp, then you need to be stood aside from any rep duties that stem from that comp, imo.

I can't really see a case for putting aside suspensions, and treating some games different to others.

 

[Flapper]

OK - would you be quite happy for the board to be made up entirely of New Zealanders?

Would Gallen have gotten off had that been the case?

I don't have a problem with the makeup of the board as such and their bias towards any nation. Whilst I think some of their decisions are a bit unusual at times, I doubt they'rebased along country lines.

You're using Gallen as an example, I think he should've been suspended, but I don't see the Test as the excuse, as any true Australian would've tried to stop him playing in it :lol:

 

[skeepe]

If you commit an offence in a competition under the jurisdiction of the NRL, then you should be suspended for matches only under the jurisdiction of the NRL. As test matches fall under the domain of the RLIF, it's absurd that a player can be suspended in the NRL and thereby be ineligible for RLIF-sanctioned matches.

 

[emil1989]

so how would everyone feel if players like lockyer, slater or thurston were suspended for 10 matches for something and then were allowed to play against nsw and tore them to pieces..i think everybody's opinion would change then and start sooking about how they should be suspended!

 

[Perth Red]

Definately not! the Kiwis suffer, Sth's don't yet he was representing Sth's when it occured (not that he should have got suspended for that anyway, at least they are consistent when it comes to Kiwis the week before a test match!).

Offences in club matches should be served in club matches and likewise offences in rep games should be served in rep games.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

It's crap that Isaac Luke gets to miss a meaningless game then is free to play in his next NRL match. He should be banned from the Vermin's next NRL match.

 

[bartman]

Think it through people... let's say someone gets a big suspension - 10 weeks or something under today's rules would be big, for gouging, biting, or doing a Hoppa.

Does that player then get to play 3 games in the middle of that suspension, for Qld or NSW? Come on... it makes no sense, and makes a mockery of the whole idea of penalising/suspending players for their on-field offences.

Are tests really that much different to Origin? Are they really "sanctioned" by the RLIF in anything more than title? Isn't it the case that the test is run/organised by the NRL/ARL in practice, since the RLIF doesn't even have a single staff member, and is just a board made up of the NRL/ARL (and its counterparts in other countries) that meet up only on occasion?

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Banned from Origin? Yes.
Banned from Tests? Meh.

 

[Hass]

Missing out on a rep game is a bigger punishment than missing out on your average club game.

We have a points system for suspensions - let's use it properly.

At the moment 100 points gets you suspended for a week. It should be 200 points for rep games.

It does mean you could have a situation where someone's on 140 points, allowing them to play the rep match before serving their suspension in the next club game.

This doesn't bother me. It means the player's infringement was bad enough to warrant suspension from a club match but not a rep game. The punishment fits the crime.

I also have no problem with players in the NRL being in a different jurisdiction to the RLIF or ARL as long as there is an agreement between the relevant bodies.

 

[sretsoor]

I do wonder then why David Fa'alogo's ban didn't COUNT international games last season. Only NRL ones.

I wonder why that was? Oh hold on - HE'S A KIWI

Could the judiciary cheat any more obviously?

Maybe because he was suspended before the teams were named therefore couldnt prove if he would of played. Bad timing but not undeserved :shock:

 

[JoeD]

You could easily get around the '10 week suspension and playing rep games in the middle of it' argument. Grade 2 or lower - doesn 't effect rep games grade 3 or higher- does effect rep games.

 

[Loudstrat]

Definately not! the Kiwis suffer, Sth's don't yet he was representing Sth's when it occured (not that he should have got suspended for that anyway, at least they are consistent when it comes to Kiwis the week before a test match!).

Offences in club matches should be served in club matches and likewise offences in rep games should be served in rep games.

LOL. Souths should be punsished not the player. Good call :roll:

Maybe because he was suspended before the teams were named therefore couldnt prove if he would of played. Bad timing but not undeserved :shock:

Who was the suspended Queenslander a few years ago selected for Origon so he could play for Brisbane quicker?

Love the rorts that could be racked up from that one.

I think the idea of a suspension is to ban them from THE GAME as they are deemed unfit to play it for that period.