Rumours and Stuff

[hindy111]

The one thing I would certainly like changed and it should of been done years ago is team who scores gets the balls back. I would reverse that.
We seen last night how one side can get momentum and score and just take the game away from opposition without them even getting the ball. Same happened in the Sharks game.

The other rule I don't like is the 7 tackle set. You can be on the attack and lose everything you gained from an attacking kick. I understand the rule come in due to sides kicking ball dead and setting defense. Perhaps 7 tackle sets only if kicks outside the red zone.

It is also silly if taking a shot at field goal and if miss you basicaly are giving the other side a chance of getting one.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yeo is far ahead of Kikau . Best lock in game by a margin.

He's definitely a good player but there's no such thing as a lock any more. They are middle forwards and he isn't close to the best. But he plays his role well at Penrith and fits into their structure. This is what I mean about players looking better than they are.

Tago and May are up and coming star players. Similar to Penisini.

Right but none of them are stars now and might never be.

Korisau is also a genuine star. As much as Grant and cook are

Koroisau doesn't do enough over 80 minutes. Sure he can break the line when the defence is gassed but he is only an opportunist. Another example of playing a narrow role very well. Cook is no longer a star but still does more than Koroisau. Grant averages nearly 100m per game, similar to how Cook used to.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

That is why less players on the field (go to 11) would be a good idea.
Earning the right to play the brand of football that is likely to appeal to fans is not the ideal set up for a sport.
Or make the middle play more interesting/difficult than hit ups and fast play the balls.

Yes it's definitely the rules that are the problem. It's wrong to blame the coaches. Their job is to win games.

 

[T-Boon]

The one thing I would certainly like changed and it should of been done years ago is team who scores gets the balls back. I would reverse that.
We seen last night how one side can get momentum and score and just take the game away from opposition without them even getting the ball. Same happened in the Sharks game.

The other rule I don't like is the 7 tackle set. You can be on the attack and lose everything you gained from an attacking kick. I understand the rule come in due to sides kicking ball dead and setting defense. Perhaps 7 tackle sets only if kicks outside the red zone.

It is also silly if taking a shot at field goal and if miss you basicaly are giving the other side a chance of getting one.

Probably the first rule change I would bring in is to make it 40/30.
40/20 is the only big play/risky/exciting way of getting a repeat set in the game so I say make it a bigger part of the game by making it 40/30.
All the other ways of getting a repeat set are either boring (grubber into in-goal which is boring because it is generally on last tackle and from a zero risk position) or controversial (penalties) or like you said from getting a try.

 

[Gazzamatta]

He's definitely a good player but there's no such thing as a lock any more. They are middle forwards and he isn't close to the best. But he plays his role well at Penrith and fits into their structure. This is what I mean about players looking better than they are.

Right but none of them are stars now and might never be.
Koroisau doesn't do enough over 80 minutes. Sure he can break the line when the defence is gassed but he is only an opportunist. Another example of playing a narrow role very well. Cook is no longer a star but still does more than Koroisau. Grant averages nearly 100m per game, similar to how Cook used to.

Grant is best daylight second and he will get better while the other contenders are in decline. Hes just a tad injury prone though not unlike our (their) Rheed.

 

[lingard]

Grant is best daylight second and he will get better while the other contenders are in decline. Hes just a tad injury prone though not unlike our (their) Rheed.

Who is this f*cking Daylight everyone keeps talking about? Is he really the second best in the game?

 

[Incorrect]

Who is this f*cking Daylight everyone keeps talking about? Is he really the second best in the game?

Played for the Sharks, among others....

Matt Daylight - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

The one thing I would certainly like changed and it should of been done years ago is team who scores gets the balls back. I would reverse that.
We seen last night how one side can get momentum and score and just take the game away from opposition without them even getting the ball. Same happened in the Sharks game.

The other rule I don't like is the 7 tackle set. You can be on the attack and lose everything you gained from an attacking kick. I understand the rule come in due to sides kicking ball dead and setting defense. Perhaps 7 tackle sets only if kicks outside the red zone.

It is also silly if taking a shot at field goal and if miss you basicaly are giving the other side a chance of getting one.

I agree with the 7 tackle set. But not the kickoff. Teams have the option to go short making it almost 50/50 but they rarely do. So why reward a cautious approach? And if they did start doing short kickoffs then it would force the opposition to react and group, meaning belting the ball for touch is an even greater chance.

 

[T-Boon]

Who is this f*cking Daylight everyone keeps talking about? Is he really the second best in the game?

Royston Daylight

 

[Bandwagon]

I would think that every system produces a large share of average first grade forwards. The key to success is finding and then keeping the one or two that are above average and you only need to do that every two or three years if you hang onto them.

How many forwards are there out there in the NRL that are above average?

Half of them?

 

[Glenneel]

Who is this f*cking Daylight everyone keeps talking about? Is he really the second best in the game?

Always

 

[TheRam]

That is why less players on the field (go to 11) would be a good idea.
Earning the right to play the brand of football that is likely to appeal to fans is not the ideal set up for a sport.
Or make the middle play more interesting/difficult than hit ups and fast play the balls.

I keep saying it you don't need to reduce the number of players and therefore 100+ years of tradition that has always made RL the 13 man game. All you need to do is widen the field from the standard 68 metres to 70 metres. That would have a similar effect as taking a player out. Then it also would allow for adjusting it to wider or narrower depending on which way we need to go to get it just right between needing the game to be more open or tightening it up a little again. I mean maybe 71m or 72 would make the perfect balance or maybe 69m? But we will never know until we tried and tinkered a little.

Also players fitness levels change and medical advancements so maybe today 70m would be perfect but 20 years from now 71m is better. Widening the field is a much better way to keep the game fresh and balanced between offense and defence then reducing the number of players when it gets bogged down a little.

Very simple solution and not so radical as player reduction that would change the games very fabric. At the moment all our NRL grounds should be able to accommodate 70m fields without to much problem since I believe Rugby play on a 70m field and they have those 2 extra players you want to reduce RL by.

 

[T-Boon]

I keep saying it you don't need to reduce the number of players and therefore 100+ years of tradition that has always made RL the 13 man game. All you need to do is widen the field from the standard 68 metres to 70 metres. That would have a similar effect as taking a player out. Then it also would allow for adjusting it to wider or narrower depending on which way we need to go to get it just right between needing the game to be more open or tightening it up a little again. I mean maybe 71m or 72 would make the perfect balance or maybe 69m? But we will never know until we tried and tinkered a little.

Also players fitness levels change and medical advancements so maybe today 70m would be perfect but 20 years from now 71m is better. Widening the field is a much better way to keep the game fresh and balanced between offense and defence then reducing the number of players when it gets bogged down a little.

Very simple solution and not so radical as player reduction that would change the games very fabric. At the moment all our NRL grounds should be able to accommodate 70m fields without to much problem since I believe Rugby play on a 70m field and they have those 2 extra players you want to reduce RL by.

I disagree ultimately but I acknowledge reducing numbers would be a big step from the traditions. That’s literally the only reason not to do it which for me isn’t enough of a reason as the positive are plentiful.
They could “widen the field” by changing the rules to gridiron sideline rules. They could also widen the field by extending the 40/20 to 40/30.
Anything that extends the area the defense needs to actually defend creates more space.

 

[TheRam]

Yes it's definitely the rules that are the problem. It's wrong to blame the coaches. Their job is to win games.

That is why no matter what rules we have we will never have the game we want because of these merkins.

So they are the ones that need to be penalised not the the game and fans. The coaches need to be suspended if their team infringes in the ruck more then 3 times in a game.

That would end 90%+ of all the carry on in the ruck guaranteed. I have posted on this in detail in previous posts. So easy to fix these shenanigans if our ARLC had balls.

 

[TheRam]

I disagree ultimately but I acknowledge reducing numbers would be a big step from the traditions. That’s literally the only reason not to do it which for me isn’t enough of a reason as the positive are plentiful.
They could “widen the field” by changing the rules to gridiron sideline rules. They could also widen the field by extending the 40/20 to 40/30.
Anything that extends the area the defense needs to actually defend creates more space.

Tradition is a massive thing in sport mate.

Also what are these other plentiful positive outcomes that you would gain by reducing the number of players as opposed to widening the field?

 

[T-Boon]

Tradition is a massive thing in sport mate.

Also what are these other plentiful positive outcomes that you would gain by reducing the number of players as opposed to widening the field?

1. there would be more fatigue. Thus smaller players needed which is good for engagement of the average member of the population;
2. less players needed (eg in the bush) to put a team together - ramming home an advantage we have over the competition (AFL);
3. you don't need a bigger field so could even have a smaller field - ramming home the same above advantage;
4. The star players would get paid more;

There are numerous others.

 

[Avenger]

After our solid performance today I’m starting to think that we need to be very careful with who we recruit to replace our departing players and maintain momentum.

Firstly I’d be re-signing Matterson. He has been solid this year. I also think Nikora would be a great acquisition however I think we will miss out on him. I reckon someone like Frizzel would look great in our side and do a similar job to Papali’i however he’d cost too much.

If we sign Farnsworth it would be tops however if we missed out on him I’d be trying to sign Suali who has options in his favour.

That former prop that plays centre at the Sharks (Talakai) would be a great acquisition. I’d give him good money to come on board. He’d be on f**k all and if you gave him $400k I reckon You’d get him.

 

[hindy111]

Was it brad arthur when he saw the team list before the game.

He must of been angry

 

[parra pete]

After our solid performance today I’m starting to think that we need to be very careful with who we recruit to replace our departing players and maintain momentum.

Firstly I’d be re-signing Matterson. He has been solid this year. I also think Nikora would be a great acquisition however I think we will miss out on him. I reckon someone like Frizzel would look great in our side and do a similar job to Papali’i however he’d cost too much.

If we sign Farnsworth it would be tops however if we missed out on him I’d be trying to sign Suali who has options in his favour.

That former prop that plays centre at the Sharks (Talakai) would be a great acquisition. I’d give him good money to come on board. He’d be on f**k all and if you gave him $400k I reckon You’d get him.

I agree re Ryan Matterson. He was outstanding today..

 

[Tooooks]

Matto 193m in 38 mins according to NRL stats.
Outstanding.