Would a "Designated Player" system be beneficial for the NRL?

[Captain Apollo]

I like the idea of "designated player". Thing is the designated player would be that team's selected punching bag. You'd be able to head high tackle, stiff arm them, punch, kick, knee them without any penalty. Also for any infraction by that team requiring someone sin binned or sent off, that player would be the one to go.

I think it'd be a corker of an idea

 

[Perth Red]

Could create more of an imbalance though, A-League soccer has the marquee system in place, most teams don't utilise it much anymore but at its peak it was mainly Melbourne and Sydney signing the massive overseas stars with achievements in Europe and high profiles whilst the smaller market teams would have to spend their designated spots on fringe national team players or players with potential.

was that due to finances of the smaller teams though? In theory every NRl club should now be able to afford two marquees. sure the rich clubs will still be able to afford the best of them but in theory every club should be able to afford two top players. If thats the best use of the games money is a different matter.
or if there are 34 players you would consider of marquee value in the NRl is another one?

 

[nick87]

If and ONLY if the rule is the designated player isnt allowed to pass the football. If he receives the ball, he must run with it.

 

[soc123_au]

If and ONLY if the rule is the designated player isnt allowed to pass the football. If he receives the ball, he must run with it.

That's Teddy locked in. They are still allowed to fall over yeah?

 

[Marshall_magic]

Yeah, we'd designate Cleary and Yeo then if they were smart teams would come with designated money for Edwards and Leota.

Roosters would probably have designated Keary and Tedesco. With Keary leaving they’d be chasing other clubs’ designated players to replace him. If a club isn’t getting value from a designated player they’d be doing all they could to ship them on out.