I like twal but for me this stat reeks with Tim grant up their aswell. All his mist tackles mustn’t have registered because he was more than an arms length out of position

Grub is a leader but doesn’t need to be captain. He will have his say anyway same as benji and robbie. Packer also. Rowdy to me is the clear favourite imo as he epitomizes the role

@:

@:

Greenberg vents frustrations at club CEOs and captains over off-field incidents

Author: Brad Walter
NRL.com Senior Reporter
Timestamp: Mon 21 Jan 2019, 06:12 PM

Todd Greenberg vented his frustrations at the recent anti-social behaviour in the NRL to club CEOs and captains during an unprecedented phone hook-up on Monday, warning them about the damage these acts cause the game…

The nerve of that scum Greenturd. Giving Inglis a character reference, but then having a whinge about the players misbehaving? Really? I do not understand how he can get away with that??

Didn’t Inglis even plead guilty?? I know he got bugger all as a punishment by the court, but how can the NRL CEO not impose some sort of sanctions for that?? I do not understand.

I would be pretty sure toddy will be making more of these hypocritical statements before his time is done.

The tide is turning

@:

@:

@:

@:

Are you trying to argue that he did not place bets on the players he was marking? Or are you arguing thst even though he did, there is no eveidence that it did affect games? To which I would say, it doesn’t matter. Even the intent to sabotage is just as bad as it would be if he succeeded. Not sure why he’s being defended here.

The second point (bolded) is what I’m arguing. And I argue that it does matter… there is a big difference between conspiring to fix a match and then actively following through with that during the game (Tandy), vs placing incredibly stupid bets but then still playing the game as usual… I haven’t seen any evidence that Simona tanked on game day.

I don’t see why that matters. He still placed bets on his opposing number. Are we supposed to believe if his opposite number was in a scoring position that he still would have given it his all to stop him from scoring?

That’s what I believe yes, because there is no evidence to the contrary. Three scenarios:

1. a tennis player bets on his opponent, actively throws the match to win the money, and succeeds in doing so
2. a tennis player bets on his opponent, plans to actively throw the match but either does not have the opportunity or is unsuccessful
3. a tennis player bets on his opponent, so if he loses he has a sort of consolation prize. He still goes out and gives 100% effort to win the match

I believe Simona is scenario number 3, sounds like you believe 1/2. What Simona did was incredibly stupid, but IMO it does not compare to what Tandy did, because I haven’t seen evidence of Simona throwing parts of the game, so I’m giving the benefit of the doubt (scenario 3 vs scenario 2)

Scenario 2 in regards to a tennis player not having the opportunity to throw a game???
I do get your point though. Imo there is only 1 person who can answer 1 2 or 3 truthfully . What long term precedence would it set if you allowed him back in even if you believe scenario 3.

@:

When you think about self preservation- it’s time

Self preservation has never been an issue but getting up off the ground after defending in multiple sets makes me slower which never used to happen

I’m considering giving up playing this year. Will be 39 soon. Just wondering if anyone has their own regrets etc. The club I play for has struggled the last 2 years and I’m expecting the same possibility this year. If so I will probably definitely play.
Thanks in advance

I’m considering giving up playing this year. Will be 39 soon. Just wondering if anyone has their own regrets etc. The club I play for has struggled the last 2 years and I’m expecting the same possibility this year. If so I will probably definitely play.
Thanks in advance

@:

@:

@:

@:

Sorry, didn’t read the by-laws, posting rules, nor did I realise every opinion must be submitted via the ‘proof fairy.’ My mistake.

Disclaimer: Every post I post, is my opinion. Thought I should spell that out.

Sigh, okay, thought it was pretty clear. All the stories about GI are pro-GI, saying what a great role model he is, what a great career, yay for him, and so on and so on. Maybe he’s made some mistakes, but good on him for overcoming adversity. The articles being pro-GI seem to paint a picture of him being a good guy, rather than focusing on the not so great things that have occurred with him (including recently) like domestic violence, playing undser two contracts simultaneously and hence salary cap cheating, getting caught DUI driving from a rugby league community event.
Hence, a clear agenda of showing him in a certain light, a deliberate portrayal, a bias.

You may not agree it was intentional (or something), your opinion can be whatever you want, but surely all and sundry can connect the dots and see what I am saying there?

I can definitely see what you are saying, but yes I don’t think it was intentional, I just think it was the media department trying to write positive stories about the game.

I will also state that in the community that GI represents it is important to show that it is possible to overcome adversity and past mistakes. That is actually a very good message to be sending, things are not black and white in the real world and bad can do good just as good can do bad.

Nothing personal Cochise but that sounds like the sort of PC minority-pandering prattle that would seep from Greenberg’s mouth.
I am certain that the “community” or group of people Tim Simona represents would also see it as important that you can overcome adversity and past mistakes and be given a 2nd chance to redeem yourself. So where was his 2nd chance being offered by the NRL? Where was his character reference from Greenberg? He wasn’t afforded a 2nd chance yet Inglis had a 2nd, 3rd and 4th chance yet is still too stupid to learn his lesson. Where is the fairness, unbiasness and equality in that? I fail to see it.
And as far as referencing Inglis as being allowed to redeem “past mistakes”……this last screw-up was mere months ago. He does not learn. Yet gets chance after chance.
I would say it is important for communities of every race, creed or colour to see that people are afforded the chance to stuff-up yet still get the opportunity to overcome and redeem. The NRL have demonstrated that they are VERY selective as to who they afford that luxury.
That is what has a massive stench about it amongst fans of the NRL. Certain people playing our game are a protected species.

Reality is its about how good the player is and what the governing body get out of the relationship.This is human nature and goes right down to grass roots aswell and I don’t think it will ever change. IMO.

@:

@:

@:

@:

Would not surprise me if McQueen has a very big year under his former coach. What a result that would be for the Tigers.

It would amaze me,i think McQueen is past it

X2 unless he pulls something special this year I don’t think he will be playing first grade

I just hope he really means what he says, because then he’ll at least be putting in the hard yards, and that can only present more competition for spots and lift the guys around him. The more he wants it, the better our other backrowers have to play to hold their spot in the side. McQueen having a real dig, whether he plays NRL or not, can only be good for the team.

X2