happy_tiger
Well-known member
@gallagher said in [Zac Cini](/post/1353059) said:@cochise said in [Zac Cini](/post/1353052) said:@happy_tiger said in [Zac Cini](/post/1353044) said:@cochise said in [Zac Cini](/post/1353038) said:@happy_tiger said in [Zac Cini](/post/1353036) said:@masterton said in [Zac Cini](/post/1353024) said:@cochise said in [Zac Cini](/post/1353016) said:@masterton said in [Zac Cini](/post/1353014) said:@hsvjones said in [Zac Cini](/post/1352980) said:Great Debut for this young man… If he is not there next week we clearly have something wrong.
If he got a special exemption to play this week, doesn't mean he can't play if Jimmy is fit next week?
Why wouldn't he be able to play?
"The Tigers needed to get an exemption for Cini from the NRL as the 20 year-old is on a development contract but their outside back options are limited."
I believe those exemptions are week by week. Like how Brooks got an exemption to make his debut, but couldn't plat any further games that year.
I thought that rule only applied if both sides were mathematically out of Top 8 contention or you had no further replacements
They would have just told us to pick MCK and then shift someone to the wing
To be honest I was surprised we got the exemption for him the play this week.
Could we have said we were prepared to pay for Level 2 salary cap breach ????
It isn't really about breeching the cap as he is top 30. The rule is you need an exemption to play if you are not named on the Tuesday. Exemptions can be given but it is usually because a player is out and there is no replacement in the 21 named. We could have easily covered Roberts being out from the 21 players named. The NRL seems to be fairly lenient on this.
Another case of the NRL favouring some clubs. Like bending the rules to allow player loaning last year.
I'm getting sick of it.
Yep ...I wish we never ever saw Cini ...can't he be made to wear a hair net