What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rumoured/Confirmed Signings and More Crap XX

Status
Not open for further replies.
Twizzle

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
151,301
gee Triple M like to play the part of the shock jock, its almost like all they want to post is controversial headlines/tweets

gets rather trivial as a lot is just rumour and innuendo
 
Chipmunk

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,501
Barry O'Speedwagon said:
Yeh, but it's not easy for the refs to get that right all the time. What is offensive or obscene? When they try enforcing (g) they get abused by all the commentators. It's easy to say 'just keep penalising them and they'll stop'.....but they don't stop....they know what pressure will be applied to a ref who blows 15 penalties in the first 20 minutes.

These sort of rules are there to provide a credible threat if stuff get out of hand (so, for instance, if a bloke calls a ref a f**king merkin, there's no doubt that he has committed an offence). I think it is unavoidable that refs have to use some discretion in applying the misconduct rules. Some refs have more common sense than others, it seems.
Click to expand...

Nope...you cannot have rules in a rule book under the same offence and only enforce what you feel like. It's bullshit. If they don't want to enforce them all the time then take them out and put them somewhere else.

Personally I don't think some of those rules should be under something called "player misconduct". I would create a different defintion somewhere else.

I would also argue that the wording of (j) is asking for trouble:
(j) deliberately obstructs an opponent who is not in possession​

deliberately obstructing the play is not the way the obstruction rule is currently being interpreted. Something done deliberately is done consciously and intentionally. I'd argue most decoy runners do not consciously or intentionally obstruct their opponent. They only deliberately attempt to cause their opponent to make a decision that will cause them to miss a tackle on another player, not obstruct them completely.​
 
Last edited:
Barry O'Speedwagon

Barry O'Speedwagon

Coach
Messages
19,224
Chipmunk said:
Nope...you cannot have rules in a rule book under the same offence and only enforce what you feel like. It's bullshit. If they don't want to enforce them all the time then take them out and put them somewhere else.
Click to expand...

That's fine for some of that list. I But, how does that solve the question of what constitutes obscene or offensive conduct? What if a player says to another 'get out of it you silly bugger!' Should he be penalised?

Or in terms of questioning the ref, when does a question become a 'dispute'? There's always going to be a grey area....and you can't legislate a universal response in those cases.
 
Chipmunk

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,501
Barry O'Speedwagon said:
That's fine for some of that list. I But, how does that solve the question of what constitutes obscene or offensive conduct? What if a player says to another 'get out of it you silly bugger!' Should he be penalised?

Or in terms of questioning the ref, when does a question become a 'dispute'? There's always going to be a grey area....and you can't legislate a universal response in those cases.
Click to expand...

What constitutes a strike when "strikes another player". One could argue the use of your arm on the body of an opponent is "striking". But if that was illegal in the game of rugby league there wouldn't be alot of tackling.


There is legal definitions of obscene or offensive language, you'd just have to use that, but personally I would remove this from rule book all together, or add the words "at a match official".

There is also definition of dispute. If a decision is made by a referee and anyone disputes a decision, then just award a penalty. I note that 'Captains' are not exempt from any Player Misconduct rules. If you award enough penalties, soon enough you will eradicate any disputes. Again though, I would remove this if it was me, if you're not going to enforce it on every occasion.
 
Last edited:
hindy111

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
59,833
Obscene Assassin said:
Just because we are after them doesn't mean we'll get them. The clubs that those players went to could have initially paid massive overs to get them there.
Click to expand...

Segyarroo would of been cheap.Austin and graheme when left penrith cheap. Thou not anymore.I think Austin would of been paid overs.Like this kid thou. If you think Reynolds is origin standards this guys just as tough and has actual ball skills.
 
Obscene Assassin

Obscene Assassin

First Grade
Messages
6,089
hindy111 said:
Segyarroo would of been cheap.Austin and graheme when left penrith cheap. Thou not anymore.I think Austin would of been paid overs.Like this kid thou. If you think Reynolds is origin standards this guys just as tough and has actual ball skills.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't have been cheap at all. Cowboys rated him as their next long-term dummy half and they would have put up a fight to bring him down to Sydney, further away from his home. They definitely did pay overs initially to get him to Penrith. Which Reynolds? If you're thinking Josh then absolutely no way do I think that he should have played Origin, and neither should Austin atm. If it's Adam then they're different players. Austin would have been cheapish after leaving the Tigers because he would have been going to his 3rd club in just a few years, but it's Ricky Stuart we're talking about here no doubt he paid way overs for him. The Sharks probably spent overs initially on Graham too.
 
hindy111

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
59,833
Sharks paid 125k for graheme. I remember penrith offered him 175k.His management said not enough. He played a few more games in first grade then they dropped him.He ended up going for 50k less- LOL

Segyaroo was there reserve hooker. Know one thought he would become as good as he did. Look first 10 weeks of last year Peats was the boom hoooker.I rated him only behind cam and Robbie (his form) But hey this year he is just not the same.Well yet.I think his type of injury takes about 10-12 games to get into groove.

What would your team look like assassin?
 
Avenger

Avenger

Immortal
Messages
32,512
hindy111 said:
Sharks paid 125k for graheme. I remember penrith offered him 175k.His management said not enough. He played a few more games in first grade then they dropped him.He ended up going for 50k less- LOL

Segyaroo was there reserve hooker. Know one thought he would become as good as he did. Look first 10 weeks of last year Peats was the boom hoooker.I rated him only behind cam and Robbie (his form) But hey this year he is just not the same.Well yet.I think his type of injury takes about 10-12 games to get into groove.

What would your team look like assassin?
Click to expand...

$125k ? Seems a bit cheap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top