2017 Brisbane Broncos Thread - we hate them for their freedom

See, I would be going well against the bottoming his price out. The NRL doesn't really want him in the game as all he does is consistently bring it into disrepute and there's no point in punishing the player but rewarding a club as Pie said.

I'd almost bill him outta anyones range. Make the number $1mill. No club is gonna wanna sign him for that. That's effectively keeping him outta the game and not rewarding any club either.

Impose a dickhead tax. Anyone can sign him for what the want, but an additional 20% is included in the cap. E.g., if he's paid $500k, $600k is included as the salary cap amount for a period, say 2 years.

Mearcats wrote:See, I would be going well against the bottoming his price out. The NRL doesn't really want him in the game as all he does is consistently bring it into disrepute and there's no point in punishing the player but rewarding a club as Pie said.

I'd almost bill him outta anyones range. Make the number $1mill. No club is gonna wanna sign him for that. That's effectively keeping him outta the game and not rewarding any club either.

Surely that would bring a law suit in. Restraint of trade?

I suppose a club could sign him at the 600k amount for 10yrs (60k a yr) and write a clause into his contract that if he fucks up they can offload him scot free... Thats bound to happen within two years meaning he only costs you 120k and could be usefull in that two years.

Pieman wrote:

Surely that would bring a law suit in. Restraint of trade?

You are probably right. But they also have every right to just ban him and or completely deregister him as well, in theory restriction of trade also but that's their prerogative.

Pieman wrote:

Surely that would bring a law suit in. Restraint of trade?

Is it any different from $600K ? I'm no legal eagle but isn't it just a number ? $600K it means you pay him $300K (only 1/2 year left) to sit out his suspension and play 1 game plus finals. Essentially the NRL is saying if a club wants to pay you $300K for doing cocaine we will let them.

How about that for a no try. Grant ruled to have interfered with Thaiday and the video ref says, and I quote "Tedesco goes back through the space made by the contact"????

Know, firstly, I'll be clear, there was contact and it was messy and I understand the no try call. But Thaiday went BEYOND the point of contact. If he had actually stayed where contact was made, instead of trying to keep going, he would have tackled Tedesco. Grant didn't prevent him from getting to Teddy, Grants terrible decoy run seemed to me like he was saying "Hey Sam, save your legs, stayroght there and you'll make the tackle"

Sam made a poor defensive call by deciding to continue to go wide as opposed to stopping where the interference was. Grant NEVER prevent him from being in the place he needed to be to stop the player.

Very bizarre indeed.

Ice wrote:How about that for a no try. Grant ruled to have interfered with Thaiday and the video ref says, and I quote "Tedesco goes back through the space made by the contact"????

Know, firstly, I'll be clear, there was contact and it was messy and I understand the no try call. But Thaiday went BEYOND the point of contact. If he had actually stayed where contact was made, instead of trying to keep going, he would have tackled Tedesco.  Grant didn't prevent him from getting to Teddy, Grants terrible decoy run seemed to me like he was saying "Hey Sam, save your legs, stayroght there and you'll make the tackle"

Sam made a poor defensive call by deciding to continue to go wide as opposed to stopping where the interference was. Grant NEVER prevent him from being in the place he needed to be to stop the player.  

Very bizarre indeed.

At least he didn't pull a Gallen/Thompson/DCE

That right-to-left pass from Roberts has me rock hard.

Ice wrote:How about that for a no try. Grant ruled to have interfered with Thaiday and the video ref says, and I quote "Tedesco goes back through the space made by the contact"????

Know, firstly, I'll be clear, there was contact and it was messy and I understand the no try call. But Thaiday went BEYOND the point of contact. If he had actually stayed where contact was made, instead of trying to keep going, he would have tackled Tedesco.  Grant didn't prevent him from getting to Teddy, Grants terrible decoy run seemed to me like he was saying "Hey Sam, save your legs, stayroght there and you'll make the tackle"

Sam made a poor defensive call by deciding to continue to go wide as opposed to stopping where the interference was. Grant NEVER prevent him from being in the place he needed to be to stop the player.  

Very bizarre indeed.

Sure, but Grant denied him the chance to stay as a part of the defensive line. Weird turn of events but it was pretty cut & dry.

Thaiday did stay part of the defensive line, he was never out of the line and made the choice to leave the place he should have been to make the tackle, so Grant didn't prevent him from being in a place he needed to be and didn't deny him an opportunity to make the right decision to be in position to make the tackle.

I agree 100%, under the current rules, that is a No Try, but again, it comes back to the application of common sense. Thaiday would have been even further away from where he needed to make that tackle if not for Grant, so he actually tried to help him.

Mearcats wrote:

At least he didn't pull a Gallen/Thompson/DCE

Of course he didn't, cause he thought the play was continuing to the left of him, he had no idea it was going through a whole he could have stayed in. Gallen and DCE took a dive, I agree 100% and it was shitty, but the theory with both those no try calls was they could have at least got to those places to attempt a tackle, (personally I don't think either could have prevented the tackle), that is to say the ruling was that they were denied the opportunity. Thaiday wasn't, after contact with Grant, if he'd just stayed still and thrown his arms up, or even fallen over, Teddy might have run into his arms or tripped over him.

ryno_ wrote:That right-to-left pass from Roberts has me rock hard.

Was that the forward one after his bust to set up nikorima?

On another note, how bad are the Tigers going? They are terrible.

Ice wrote:Thaiday did stay part of the defensive line, he was never out of the line and made the choice to leave the place he should have been to make the tackle, so Grant didn't prevent him from being in a place he needed to be and didn't deny him an opportunity to make the right decision to be in position to make the tackle.

I agree 100%, under the current rules, that is a No Try, but again, it comes back to the application of common sense. Thaiday would have been even further away from where he needed to make that tackle if not for Grant, so he actually tried to help him.

In terms of common sense, I actually didn't mind the call.

I get the point you are making but it could also be argued that Thaiday over-compensated because of being held up and the bottom line is it interfered with the play far more than some of the other feather touch rulings they make simply because it falls into their black and white category of interference.

Ice wrote:On another note, how bad are the Tigers going? They are terrible.

Yeah not a good time for the poor Tiges to come up against the benchmark team of the comp.

Ice wrote:

Was that the forward one after his bust to set up nikorima?

Honestly saw more forward passes let go last night than I've ever seen in a game.

Is it just me, or did they completely redesign Kahu's kicking style inside of a week?

I may be delusional, but I thought he was kicking off a smaller 3 step style?

Ice wrote:Thaiday did stay part of the defensive line, he was never out of the line and made the choice to leave the place he should have been to make the tackle, so Grant didn't prevent him from being in a place he needed to be and didn't deny him an opportunity to make the right decision to be in position to make the tackle.

I agree 100%, under the current rules, that is a No Try, but again, it comes back to the application of common sense. Thaiday would have been even further away from where he needed to make that tackle if not for Grant, so he actually tried to help him.

What? No he wasn't. Grant made contact with Thaiday (on the outside shoulder) and took him out of the defensive line - he was about 3m behind the line when Tedesco broke through the first tackler. Glenn had to rush to his left to cover the hole Thaiday should have been in and Tedesco stepped inside the man over compensating. By the time he'd stepped back inside to where Thaiday was obstructed, Thaiday had already rushed left to cover. Thaiday cant be expected to stay where he is and not continue defending in the hope that the attacking team run back at him instead of the A gap theyve created.

https://twitter.com/NRLBunker/status/865514910427488257

Using both a "common sense application" and an "actual rules application" (unfortunately that Venn Diagram crossover is smaller then it should be), its a no try every day of the week.

Ice wrote:

Was that the forward one after his bust to set up nikorima?

yeah it was.
lol

I love watching roberts in form and I think he could be a great player for NSW - but fuck that pass was so forward