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!

Rumours and Stuff

the phantom menace

the phantom menace

Coach
Messages
10,167
We should re-sign him... makes sense given we are losing various others and need some experience and continuity in the position/s (edge and lock/middle - suprised N Brown is still starting, and he wouldn't probably be bench only next season). Get it done MO'N!
 
hindy111

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
60,718
Any idea how long Blake,Sivo,Opacic,Marata are out?
Russel should be back soon. Be good to have a small update on others.
 
King-Gutho94

King-Gutho94

Coach
Messages
13,112
hindy111 said:
Any idea how long Blake,Sivo,Opacic,Marata are out?
Russel should be back soon. Be good to have a small update on others.
Click to expand...
At the dragons game a month ago i was talking to someone involved in the inner sanctum and Sivo was ahead of schedule apparently. Didn't give me a exact return date but he could end up being back 2-3 weeks earlier then what they planned internally at the start of the year.
 
TheRam

TheRam

Coach
Messages
13,566
T-Boon said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you had a smaller field, you have just nullified any advantage or presumed benefit in removing 2 players.

As for the other points, having a game dominated by attack is not a good thing. It is a matter or balance otherwise the stronger team will totally blowout the weaker team with massive scores. That is not good for the game at all.

Better for the bush? Yeah maybe, but not to the point of enacting such a radical change to the makeup of the game.

As for the star players getting paid more, well sure, it would be easier to keep them in the game, but again we are not losing all that many star players so again it does not justify radical change.

Look I get what you are trying to do, but I don't think in essence creating a totally new game is the answer when really there is not much that is wrong with the game other then the coaches that keep manipulating the rules and stuffing up the product.

So that is why my solution would be the least radical but inspired solution to all the current shenanigans that the coaches will forever be be trying to get away with unless we make them pay and it leaves the game intact and no radical changes to its makeup. That is why we should suspend the coaches for 3+ ruck infringement penalties a game as I have posted about before in detail.

This way the game can be played the way it was intended to be played and start resembling the game of the 1990's again. A far superior product if you ask me and a great balance between attack and defense and if it needed some slight tinkering and grooming around the edges, like getting rid of the 6 again, we could make the necessary but minor changes then.
 
Poupou Escobar

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
87,098
TheRam said:
If you had a smaller field, you have just nullified any advantage or presumed benefit in removing 2 players.

As for the other points, having a game dominated by attack is not a good thing. It is a matter or balance otherwise the stronger team will totally blowout the weaker team with massive scores. That is not good for the game at all.
Click to expand...
Good points, and concise
Better for the bush? Yeah maybe, but not to the point of enacting such a radical change to the makeup of the game.

As for the star players getting paid more, well sure, it would be easier to keep them in the game, but again we are not losing all that many star players so again it does not justify radical change.

Look I get what you are trying to do, but I don't think in essence creating a totally new game is the answer when really there is not much that is wrong with the game other then the coaches that keep manipulating the rules and stuffing up the product.

So that is why my solution would be the least radical but inspired solution to all the current shenanigans that the coaches will forever be be trying to get away with unless we make them pay and it leaves the game intact and no radical changes to its makeup. That is why we should suspend the coaches for 3+ ruck infringement penalties a game as I have posted about before in detail.

This way the game can be played the way it was intended to be played and start resembling the game of the 1990's again. A far superior product if you ask me and a great balance between attack and defense and if it needed some slight tinkering and grooming around the edges, like getting rid of the 6 again, we could make the necessary but minor changes then.
Click to expand...
Back to TheRam mode with all this though
 
gaffer

gaffer

Juniors
Messages
939
the son made it onto the run on side again Can he only play one position ? Hope brown doesn't gets the shits about being pushed to the centres and decides to look elsewhere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top