Trainers on the field

[Perth Red]

Just make it 10 points to the opposition if your trainer gets hit with the ball or interferes with the play. Teams are allowed to kick for the trainer or deliberately throw the ball at them, even if it's a forward pass.

A few 10 point branded trainers will get them off the field for ever.

Dodge ball, I like it

 

[simmo05]

Why should the assistant coaches, i mean trainers need to deliver messages? The coach has given his instructions, leave it to the players to sort the issues out. Any further messages can come from the bench players as they come on. We might see a return of the smart footballer. But while the rules committee contains coaches, (and only a 'lucky' few, not all coaches) not a thing will change

 

[lazza]

After the 6 again the Raiders team were still confused from wtf happened which led to easts break down the blindside.

Obviously they need to play the whistle - unless the ref changes their mind.

Whighton was confused and had every right to still be pissed.

however it was Leilua was out of position and was being lazy and didn’t hustle back and Keary took advantage.

Roosters had to defend 10 mins 1 man short, yet Leilua on the far side of the play couldn’t defend properly in a set of 6?

No ones going to gift you a premiership, need to take it from someone

 

[ReddFelon]

Why should the assistant coaches, i mean trainers need to deliver messages? The coach has given his instructions, leave it to the players to sort the issues out. Any further messages can come from the bench players as they come on. We might see a return of the smart footballer. But while the rules committee contains coaches, (and only a 'lucky' few, not all coaches) not a thing will change

This is part of why the game has become so robotic, the players are conditioned to be coached every single set of every match. That's why we're seeing so little ad-lib footy. Much like how there's players who openly state that they don't know how to play for more than 40 minutes a game without an interchange, there are likely players who couldn't tell you where they'd be standing without a trainer directing their position.

Ban them from the field when the game clock is running, help to reduce the excessive focus on set completions and eliminate situations like the grand final.

 

[The Rosco]

So . . . after 7 pages of mostly intelligent debate, it now comes down to the NRL supremo to give his verdict.
Mr Politis, should we still allow trainers on the field ?

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

So . . . after 7 pages of mostly intelligent debate, it now comes down to the NRL supremo to give his verdict.
Mr Politis, should we still allow trainers on the field ?

And just like that, the intelligent debate ends

 

[super_coach]

The trainer thing, the Cronk thing and the six tackle thing were all correct calls going by the rule book but all three needed some old fashion common sense applied as the rules are crap.

My anger is not directed at the guys with the whistle, it’s is with the NRL who quite frankly, could not organise a chook raffle. I am not sure what they do all day, but it is farcical that there are no rule in place that would give a team like the Raiders the advantage after the trainer was hit with the ball. Also there needs to be a better way of handling the reversal of a six again call.As for the Cronk thing, yes it may have been a early tackle, after viewing the slow mo ten times, but it was marginal at best, it was not a intentional professional foul and a penalty should have been enough.

Like with most things that are wrong with the NRL, and there are plenty, all lay at the feet of the people running the game who basically do nothing unless pushed

 

[Vee]

The trainer thing, the Cronk thing and the six tackle thing were all correct calls going by the rule book but all three needed some old fashion common sense applied as the rules are crap.

My anger is not directed at the guys with the whistle, it’s is with the NRL who quite frankly, could not organise a chook raffle. I am not sure what they do all day, but it is farcical that there are no rule in place that would give a team like the Raiders the advantage after the trainer was hit with the ball. Also there needs to be a better way of handling the reversal of a six again call.As for the Cronk thing, yes it may have been a early tackle, after viewing the slow mo ten times, but it was marginal at best, it was not a intentional professional foul and a penalty should have been enough.

Like with most things that are wrong with the NRL, and there are plenty, all lay at the feet of the people running the game who basically do nothing unless pushed

Agree with all except the cronk call. Yes it was marginal but Papali was denied a tryscoring opportunity by illegal play, professional foul. Im amused to see people claim it wasn't intentional, does the rule mention intentional? If not, why is it being raised?

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Agree about CC.
If your arms are hit in a wrapping tackle a split second before the ball arrives ....it's got to be a professional foul .
You were denied a chance to catch the ball cleanly & being close to the try Line it has to be a pro foul.
Cronk didn't even argue ..he knew .

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Agree with all except the cronk call. Yes it was marginal but Papali was denied a tryscoring opportunity by illegal play, professional foul. Im amused to see people claim it wasn't intentional, does the rule mention intentional? If not, why is it being raised?

If he was closer to the try line, maybe.

Cronk got to Papali a nanosecond early at worst. If Cronk timed his run a fraction better, how much further up the field towards the roosters try line would Papali have been? A foot? Cronk makes his tackle with more defenders sweeping in.

If the incident occurs closer to the line, maybe there would’ve been less controversy.

 

[no name]

If he was closer to the try line, maybe.

Cronk got to Papali a nanosecond early at worst. If Cronk timed his run a fraction better, how much further up the field towards the roosters try line would Papali have been? A foot? Cronk makes his tackle with more defenders sweeping in.

If the incident occurs closer to the line, maybe there would’ve been less controversy.

Surely you’re not disputing that Cronk hit Papalii early?

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Surely you’re not disputing that Cronk hit Papalii early?

I’m not.

 

[Vee]

If he was closer to the try line, maybe.

Cronk got to Papali a nanosecond early at worst. If Cronk timed his run a fraction better, how much further up the field towards the roosters try line would Papali have been? A foot? Cronk makes his tackle with more defenders sweeping in.

If the incident occurs closer to the line, maybe there would’ve been less controversy.

Spoken like a true cock.

 

[no name]

I’m not.

A nanosecond early at worst?

 

[bileduct]

I’m not.

Well then you're not disputing that Papalii was denied a try scoring opportunity by a professional foul then.

 

[T-Boon]

Well then you're not disputing that Papalii was denied a try scoring opportunity by a professional foul then.

He really wasn't because if Cronk didn't commit the foul he would have still been there to make the tackle. Its not like the question becomes "pretend Cronk doesn't exist at all". He just got the timing wrong.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Well then you're not disputing that Papalii was denied a try scoring opportunity by a professional foul then.

I have no issue with the sin bin to the letter of the law. Someone mentioned it should’ve been a penalty try. Cronk doesn’t disappear. I contend that if Cronk gets his timing right, he tackles Papali anyway with further cover coming in. Papali was still a fair distance from the try line.
My main contention is that if the ref stuck with his correct decision instead of changing his mind and awarding Raiders a penalty on the previous set of six, then the sin binning doesn’t occur in the first place.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Spoken like a true c**k.

You have cock envy?

 

[big hit!]

After the 6 again the Raiders team were still confused from wtf happened which led to easts break down the blindside.

Obviously they need to play the whistle - unless the ref changes their mind.

BS! It was a breakdown in basic process from Canberra. Leilua tackled Cordner with a good stop on the 4th tackle, but laid around his bootlaces while Boyd played the ball. This was compounded with no other Canberra player taking up marker. Keary exploited these two situations on the 5th tackle. Nothing to do with the 6 again/last tackle call.

Same with Verily try. Tapine turned his back 5 metres from the try line, and turned around to see Verrills about to dive for the try line beside him. It was lazy only a few minutes into the game.

On both occasions, just a f**k up in fundamental process due to laziness.

Coaches ask for accountability from their players. They make more mistakes and shit decisions than the officials. Canberra have to own the loss and improve in those areas where they lost this match. If they make excuses then they won't improve. Roosters were resilient when they were down a man. Canberra didn't convert this opportunity. Roosters converted theirs.

 

[big hit!]

I have no issue with the sin bin to the letter of the law. Someone mentioned it should’ve been a penalty try. Cronk doesn’t disappear. I contend that if Cronk gets his timing right, he tackles Papali anyway with further cover coming in. Papali was still a fair distance from the try line.
My main contention is that if the ref stuck with his correct decision instead of changing his mind and awarding Raiders a penalty on the previous set of six, then the sin binning doesn’t occur in the first place.

Cronk. This man is phenomenal.

I recommend anyone who enjoys rugby league watch him during the 6 again/last tackle play. He chases Hodgson and Guler, then attempts a tackle on Guler who offloads to Wighton. Wighton makes the run for a gap that is quickly closed down by ....... you guessed it - Cronk - who makes the tackle on Jack. Cronk was on the ground when he made the attempt on Emre, but picks himself up and ends the set when he brings down Wighton. This is on top of the game try saving efforts he made in the prelim vs Melbourne. He doesn't get the kudos for this but he is generally there to save the day in defence. You watch countless origins they played in, and he and Thurston are doing this on the try line. Repeat efforts where they will not lay down like most us mere mortals. They are ultra-competitive. Winners. They will not get lazy because they haven't got the ball. Their resilience is super human which is why they are the players they are.

Wighton heard the last tackle call, just like Guler. It's just that no player in the League at the moment is like Cronk.