2017 Brisbane Broncos Thread - we hate them for their freedom

Oh wait, ozzy beat me to the "never played a game" insult.
Looks like you guys have really got me here. Darn.

Doesnt change the fact that the pass I was talking about was nearly 5m forward.

Pieman wrote:
Considering you have clearly never played a game in your life, I just thought - as usual - you didnt know what you were on about therefore I dont have to pay very much attention to what you write. Plus you 100% of the time argue the wrong point so.. yeh.

The roberts pass after the break where nikorima scored was forward by a mile. Glad you agree.
:)

Never said it wasn't. Of course it was.

Doesnt change that fact you spent the last page and a half insisting that a clearly backwards pass was "5m forward" because you're either a simpleton who doesn't know right from left, or completely blind. FFS.

leaguegod wrote:titans wern't allowed to bring in copley because his deal wasn't registered till the wednesday, which i thought was harsh

Hmmm. Little harsh but I can see the NRLs point of view that a player you name at least has to be a registered player with the club.

If a team were to name a suspended player, would that be against the rules - other then wasting a spot for the sake of it?

Pretty funny too that Oz and dip both agreed with me initially, which means they both did the same thing I did - not read ur initial comment properly.

God we're civilized here at NFF. Oh the fun we'd have had back in Sportal days.....

Pieman wrote:Pretty funny too that Oz and dip both agreed with me initially, which means they both did the same thing I did - not read ur initial comment properly.

Well actually I knew he was talking about the long spiral ball (why get excited about a draw & pass?). My comment was about forward passes when the conversation was side tracked.

bronco fans don't seem to concerned about the milf situation for what i feel is a few reasons

1) traveling well enough this season regardless of saturdays result
2) may beat the warriors without him anyways
3) QLD > broncos for some ??


but personally, i am 100% behind bennet here, i think if he isn't released to play for the broncos, he should be locked in to be in the 17 for QLD. i hate the idea of states starting to take 18th man out of club games and i completely agree with mascord that once it happens once, it can easily become the norm, clubs are hit hard enough without losing players that arn't even playing

ryno_ wrote:

N



Hmmm. Little harsh but I can see the NRLs point of view that a player you name at least has to be a registered player with the club.

If a team were to name a suspended player, would that be against the rules - other then wasting a spot for the sake of it?

I like when both of a Queenslander's heads work in unison because you get sensible conversation like this.

I'm going to err on the side of caution and say yes (although knowing how shit the NRL it is probably NO).

If you could name suspended players, what would stop a coach (let's call him Des) name a bloke who is suspended for 2 weeks for tripping, another bloke who has 6 weeks for biting, the bloke who was lazy and got a week and a couple of blokes who are injured. As game time approaches he hasn't got enough players to field a side. Now he can forfeit (NRL wont let this happen because of TV rights) or the NRL are forced to apply the dispensation rule. What a way for a coach to play ducks and drakes with the opposing coach not knowing who will play. Greatest ploy in finals footy ever.

No Worries wrote:

I like when both of a Queenslander's heads work in unison because you get sensible conversation like this.

I'm going to err on the side of caution and say yes (although knowing how shit the NRL it is probably NO).

If you could name suspended players, what would stop a coach (let's call him Des) name a bloke who is suspended for 2 weeks for tripping, another bloke who has 6 weeks for biting, the bloke who was lazy and got a week and a couple of blokes who are injured. As game time approaches he hasn't got enough players to field a side. Now he can forfeit (NRL wont let this happen because of TV rights) or the NRL are forced to apply the dispensation rule. What a way for a coach to play ducks and drakes with the opposing coach not knowing who will play. Greatest ploy in finals footy ever.

Yeah thats a fair point - in this hypothetical where a coach named "Des" has a player off for "tripping" (as if _that_ would ever happen) it seems Des would be in breach by naming a player who isn't "active". But nrl.com says you can have 4 named players in addition to the 17 "active" players as reserves. So maybe Des could name 4 suspended players in the 18-21 as long as 1-17 are possible selections.

Des would probably only do this to make a point and waste the squad spot to spite himself. But it seems like a loophole could possibly exist there... If team had a Sunday game, they could name origin players in the 18-21 as "reserves" but not "active" players they could be dropped from origin to return to the club team's squad, allowing the origin team to bring in a replacement who may have played on the Friday.

Im not sure if theres an incentive for the origin side to do this but its something the clubs would be all over.

So lets say the Storm play on Sunday and Broncos on Friday. QLD name Munster and Cronk as halves. Storm name Munster #21 (reserve but not active). Milf plays Friday night. Saturday QLD drop Munster for Milf. Munster plays for Storm on Sunday. QLD are happy, they have their halves. Wayne is happy because he didnt lose Milf for a game. Munster was only going to be in an extended squad anyway.

Is that possible or is my tin-foil hat on too tight?

Wont matter next year when its a stand alone weekend and on a sunday

I'm happy to keep the tin foil hat conversation going.

Active players Vs injured players. I padded out my scenario with injured players. I'm guessing they aren't considered active, but what is a teams obligation to announce they are injured ? Conceivable we don't have results of scans or MRI's by TLT or they play through to 80min with the injury so people are none the wiser. The sniper comes out at training on Friday and all those corks and hammys go down. I suppose my scenario would also have to include better players returning early from injury to work in a coaches favour.

Where's Lebbo when I need support

On naming suspended players.

TLT is before the judiciary - so all you have to do is contest a charge, and then you can name him assuming they'll get off.

Only works the week they get charged though. And you lose any benefit of an early guilty plea. But on the plus side, if you have a half decent lawyer seems you have a reasonable chance of beating a charge anyway. So regardless of TLT shenanigans I don't understand why more people don't contest charges.

The Michael Ennis situation when he played Origin after suspension situation perhaps? TBA?

Pieman wrote:Wont matter next year when its a stand alone weekend and on a sunday

I think there's only 1 game next year that is stand alone. I could be wrong though.

leaguegod wrote:bronco fans don't seem to concerned about the milf situation for what i feel is a few reasons

1) traveling well enough this season regardless of saturdays result
2) may beat the warriors without him anyways
3) QLD > broncos for some ??


but personally, i am 100% behind bennet here, i think if he isn't released to play for the broncos, he should be locked in to be in the 17 for QLD. i hate the idea of states starting to take 18th man out of club games and i completely agree with mascord that once it happens once, it can easily become the norm, clubs are hit hard enough without losing players that arn't even playing

I'd estimate 90% of Queensland fans put State of Origin matches above their club commitments over that period. It seems more a NSW thing to not want their players to be selected for origin (not all, but certainly more than QLD fans). Not quite sure about NSW players for QLD teams though. I haven't decided for myself whether I'm happy Roberts isn't playing origin, or disappointed for him. That might also be the reason for my comment about NSW fans not wanting their players selected I guess. A NSW club team is far more likely to have QLD players than vice versa.

It'll be a huge effort if we win this weekend. Our team on paper still looks good, but to miss basically your 6 best players to origin + your hooker to injury is almost unsurmountable against a team only missing a workhorse prop and at home. I expect us to go okay in defence for the first 50-60 minutes, but not sure our attack will be able to click with all the changes. Warriors might run in a few late tries. How do we always seem to get them in NZ over the origin period?

leaguegod wrote:bronco fans don't seem to concerned about the milf situation for what i feel is a few reasons

1) traveling well enough this season regardless of saturdays result
2) may beat the warriors without him anyways
3) QLD > broncos for some ??


but personally, i am 100% behind bennet here, i think if he isn't released to play for the broncos, he should be locked in to be in the 17 for QLD. i hate the idea of states starting to take 18th man out of club games and i completely agree with mascord that once it happens once, it can easily become the norm, clubs are hit hard enough without losing players that arn't even playing

I personally prefer my club players to be playing Origin as I think the confidence gained outweighs any negatives.

Maybe having the luxury of Point 1 above helps that but it has generally been my stance anyway over the years.

Having said that, I also believe there is nothing wrong with a player (e.g. Milf) playing for their club and then being rushed into the Origin having to back up after only a few days.

Sorry Sash - mod stuff up and I deleted your post in error - my bad.

No Worries wrote:Sorry Sash - mod stuff up and I deleted your post in error - my bad.

i'm assuming you meant me, because my post is gone, i barely have the heart to re-write it now, because i was on a bit of a rant, full of piss and vinegar after the game last night

i still believe in what i was saying though, after this many years of it happening, it's hard to believe us playing in NZ against the Warriors without our stars is anything other than intentional scheduling, and along with having their seasons kick off against Parramatta when they were a rabble, and now the Knights this season, it seems to me that the people in charge are keenly aware that the Warriors have proved themselves to be a team that needs to put a beat-down on a sub-standard side to get the confidence needed to look like title contenders, and are trying to nudge that up at important points of the season.

surmo13 wrote:

i'm assuming you meant me, because my post is gone, i barely have the heart to re-write it now, because i was on a bit of a rant, full of piss and vinegar after the game last night

i still believe in what i was saying though, after this many years of it happening, it's hard to believe us playing in NZ against the Warriors without our stars is anything other than intentional scheduling, and along with having their seasons kick off against Parramatta when they were a rabble, and now the Knights this season, it seems to me that the people in charge are keenly aware that the Warriors have proved themselves to be a team that needs to put a beat-down on a sub-standard side to get the confidence needed to look like title contenders, and are trying to nudge that up at important points of the season.

Yep Sumo - sorry.

My post was along the lines of it does feel that way but looking back you played last year and not 14 & 15. but I also noticed a fairly consistent play once this year play twice the next. Which got me thinking if the NRL actually have a template that they just tweak based on ground availability. Ignoring the round 1 grudge matches they need to now kick off with there probably are other teams who consistently play each other round 25-26. I'm thinking that particularly someone like the Broncos who always are heavily effected by origin, always have their byes the same round and as such have a much more predictable draw ??

It should be the origin effected sides paired against each other at origin, but will never happen because of the audience these games bring when sides are at full strength.

surmo13 wrote:

i'm assuming you meant me, because my post is gone, i barely have the heart to re-write it now, because i was on a bit of a rant, full of piss and vinegar after the game last night

i still believe in what i was saying though, after this many years of it happening, it's hard to believe us playing in NZ against the Warriors without our stars is anything other than intentional scheduling, and along with having their seasons kick off against Parramatta when they were a rabble, and now the Knights this season, it seems to me that the people in charge are keenly aware that the Warriors have proved themselves to be a team that needs to put a beat-down on a sub-standard side to get the confidence needed to look like title contenders, and are trying to nudge that up at important points of the season.

It really does have to be something like this.
Or its "if you want the your two byes through origin, you have to go play NZ on the other week".

Its pretty unfair making them travel and play against a near full strength team.

In saying that, they get an advantage over the rest of the league through all the FTA games and consistent turn arounds each week, so you cant really argue scheduling if youre a broncos fan IMO