2023/24 Off Season

[Thatwasnthighref]

Warriors gave him some sort of payout?

Not a great situation, but seems the Warriors and Volkman were aware of an issue, and the Dragons didn't do any assessment - amateurish on their part (and tbh Volkman's management who seem to have put him in a very bad sport), but I don't see anyone looking particularly good here... Warriors probably least bad, and imho Volkman's management most bad

Assuming George isn't telling porkies and the club assessed and reported Volkman's condition in good faith, then IMO the Warriors did everything perfectly. Above and beyond even, given the payout.

But if it comes to light they knew he needed a reco but didn't divulge that hoping the Dragons would make him their problem, while also allowing Volkman's agent to sign a release deed knowing the risk it exposed him to.... we would deserve to lose points.

Otherwise we're in the clear IMO, and agree this comes back to his agent.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

“Further details on Ronald Volkman’s shoulder injury - he will require another reconstruction after scans revealed screws from his 2022 surgery had come loose in the shoulder joint. Wide range of recovery outcomes pending severity of damage, but generally a 4-6 month rehab period.

Reported timeline of injury & contract situation:

Dec 12 - contact injury @ Warriors training, no scans reported
Dec 24 - Volkman’s management requests/granted termination of Warriors contract
Jan 2 - Warriors provide Dragons with medical report indicating “shoulder irritation”
Jan 3 - Dragons announce signing (not reported at the time but since revealed this was subject to medical clearance)
Jan 4 - Volkman trains with Dragons in non-contact bib
Jan 5 - scans performed on shoulder reveal loose screws from previous reconstruction, Dragons contract terminated”

 

[JJ]

“Further details on Ronald Volkman’s shoulder injury - he will require another reconstruction after scans revealed screws from his 2022 surgery had come loose in the shoulder joint. Wide range of recovery outcomes pending severity of damage, but generally a 4-6 month rehab period.

Reported timeline of injury & contract situation:

Dec 12 - contact injury @ Warriors training, no scans reported
Dec 24 - Volkman’s management requests/granted termination of Warriors contract
Jan 2 - Warriors provide Dragons with medical report indicating “shoulder irritation”
Jan 3 - Dragons announce signing (not reported at the time but since revealed this was subject to medical clearance)
Jan 4 - Volkman trains with Dragons in non-contact bib
Jan 5 - scans performed on shoulder reveal loose screws from previous reconstruction, Dragons contract terminated”

If Dragons contract was indeed subject to medical clearance, and that 100% makes sense, then they're not the bad guys here - his management are buffoons, and the Warriors medical report seems a little underwhelming....

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Considering the timing of it he probably felt a bit sore and got told to rest up and they’d follow up after the holiday break. Except he signed a release on that period and went to the dragons. That was the dumb move, but wasn’t really on the Warriors.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

I don’t know other than it’s a complete balls up. Seems a bit strange that when a player comes to you saying the same shoulder that has a reco is sore that you don’t do scans on it

In other news, Cooper Johns has retired at 23 to have a crack at radio

 

[Beavers Headgear]

 

[SpaceMonkey]

That post makes him look more of a true Johns than his footy ever did

 

[Izz]

Penalties for failed short restarts and short kickoffs gone.

From the press release:

If a team kicks the ball out on the full over the touch line, or the ball fails to travel at least 10 metres forward in an attempt to contest a restart from the goal-line, 20m line, or half-way line, play will now restart with a play-the-ball 10 metres out from the line of the kick and 10 metres in from touch, rather than with a penalty kick. The change will give more incentive for teams to attempt short kick-offs or drop-outs.

Also, the bolded must mean that kicking out on the full at end of tackle count no longer means going back to where kicker kicked from. However, due to the wording, I guess this doesn't apply to kickoffs that go over the dead-ball line on the full?

NRL.com link: https://www.nrl.com/news/2024/01/17/2024-laws-and-interpretations/

 

[Thatwasnthighref]

Yea that’s how I interpret it as well. If the intention is to encourage more short kick offs then I guess the exclusion of long kick offs going dead in goal kinda makes sense.

In terms of restart position though, I’m a bit fuzzy:

play will now restart with a play-the-ball 10 metres out from the line of the kick

As an example - Team A restarts from halfway, but kicks into touch on the full. Under the old rules, Team B gets a penalty on halfway.

Under the change, will Team B get a play-the-ball on their 40m line? Or is the play-the-ball on Team A’s 40m line?

Or have I misunderstood things entirely…?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Yea that’s how I interpret it as well. If the intention is to encourage more short kick offs then I guess the exclusion of long kick offs going dead in goal kinda makes sense.

In terms of restart position though, I’m a bit fuzzy:



As an example - Team A restarts from halfway, but kicks into touch on the full. Under the old rules, Team B gets a penalty on halfway.

Under the change, will Team B get a play-the-ball on their 40m line? Or is the play-the-ball on Team A’s 40m line?

Or have I misunderstood things entirely…?

The play the ball is 10m out from the line of the kick- so if the rule is being applied universally to all kicks, then it means the team kicking the ball out simply hands over possession 10m upfield. So a kickoff on the full will mean a zero tackle restart on the 40, a drop out on the full will be a restart on the 10. I suspect though that the rule is not going to be applied to kicks in general play, just those from restarts.

 

[Izz]

Yea that’s how I interpret it as well. If the intention is to encourage more short kick offs then I guess the exclusion of long kick offs going dead in goal kinda makes sense.

In terms of restart position though, I’m a bit fuzzy:



As an example - Team A restarts from halfway, but kicks into touch on the full. Under the old rules, Team B gets a penalty on halfway.

Under the change, will Team B get a play-the-ball on their 40m line? Or is the play-the-ball on Team A’s 40m line?

Or have I misunderstood things entirely…?

Must be back, right, otherwise on a failed short drop out the team would get a play the ball on the goal line? I dunno, wording is a bit confusing...

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Must be back, right, otherwise on a failed short drop out the team would get a play the ball on the goal line? I dunno, wording is a bit confusing...

It’s out, as in away from the goal line of the team that was kicking. So a drop-out that goes out on the full results in a handover and play the ball on the 10m.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

I'm not a massive fan of that change, in regards to the line dropout. At the moment, it's risk and reward. Now, there's not particularly any risk. We had a game, I can't remember if it was the Broncos or Panthers, where we were down either 6 or 12, and SJ didn't go short because if he did and f**ked it up, we were an extra try scoring play behind. That's sport, that's good. Teams who force line dropouts deserve some sort of advantage. Now, it's not quite 50/50 but it's a lot more weighted on the defensive team. I honestly don't know what has prompted this.

 

[Rich102]

It's getting to be like rugby - adding rules that aren't needed.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I'm not a massive fan of that change, in regards to the line dropout. At the moment, it's risk and reward. Now, there's not particularly any risk. We had a game, I can't remember if it was the Broncos or Panthers, where we were down either 6 or 12, and SJ didn't go short because if he did and f**ked it up, we were an extra try scoring play behind. That's sport, that's good. Teams who force line dropouts deserve some sort of advantage. Now, it's not quite 50/50 but it's a lot more weighted on the defensive team. I honestly don't know what has prompted this.

I dunno, you’re not giving up an instant two points but you’re still handing over possession to defend on your own line for an entire set. It’s a gift one point at minimum against any competent opposition.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

I dunno, you’re not giving up an instant two points but you’re still handing over possession to defend on your own line for an entire set. It’s a gift one point at minimum against any competent opposition.

No you're not instantly giving it up, you may pull it off or the other team may not want to take the 2. But in a tight situation, if you get it wrong (and it's not an easy one to pull off) you run a real risk of giving away two points right in front. Or you did.

Apparently the NRL have brought this in partly, not in the main, because of the contact involved in kick returns. I find that interesting, to say the least. I guess that's why they're restarting play from a kick out on the full with a play the ball, as opposed to a tap where a forward gets more time to wind up.

 

[Benek]

Any news on SJ's ankle injury? I heard he's in a moon boot and then another source saying he should be okay in 6 weeks or so.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I don't really have an issue with removing the penalties for kick-offs and drop-outs that go out on the full. The original rule never made sense to me anyway because there isn't generally a penalty for messing up a kick in general play. The penalty is you lose the yardage from the kick. This just makes it consistent with the general play rules. The only change I would make is that for a kick-off, the team should get the ball on half-way rather than their own 40.

 

[Izz]

Any news on SJ's ankle injury? I heard he's in a moon boot and then another source saying he should be okay in 6 weeks or so.

Should be good for round 1: https://www.warriors.kiwi/news/2024/01/22/injury-report-latest-on-sj/

 

[Thatwasnthighref]

I'm not a massive fan of that change, in regards to the line dropout. At the moment, it's risk and reward. Now, there's not particularly any risk. We had a game, I can't remember if it was the Broncos or Panthers, where we were down either 6 or 12, and SJ didn't go short because if he did and f**ked it up, we were an extra try scoring play behind. That's sport, that's good. Teams who force line dropouts deserve some sort of advantage. Now, it's not quite 50/50 but it's a lot more weighted on the defensive team. I honestly don't know what has prompted this.

The rule change will likely see short goal line dropouts become the norm. Whether the kicking team turns the ball over due to losing the contest, or they concede a 10m play the ball for kicking out on the full, the field position won’t be that different.

Feels like only a couple of reasons for a long kick – protecting against a field goal, or if you're down a defender(s) for some reason.

Given that… yea, I see your point that this benefits the defending team more than anything.

I like the unpredictability of contested kicks, but I can see this being revisited as teams become more adept at recovering their own kicks and there becomes little benefit in forcing a drop out.

Does anyone know if the rules specifically prohibit union-style lifting? If not, receiving teams could set themselves up for that and swing the odds back in their favour.