Round 11: Newcastle Knights vs Sydney Roosters

Discussion in 'Newcastle Knights Discussion' started by rhugh89, May 20, 2019.

?

What is your prediction for this game ??

Poll closed May 24, 2019.
  1. Knights 13+

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  2. Knights 1-12

    10 vote(s)
    45.5%
  3. Draw

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Roosters 1-12

    5 vote(s)
    22.7%
  5. Roosters 13+

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  1. 88Knight4life

    88Knight4life Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Posts:
    6,372
    I'd expect such things as this to be a common sense factor,
    Said player signs with a new club yet has pending suspensions at previous club, each pending week of suspension can be a 2.5% deduction off the first year of the said players contract.

    If said player gets a 500k deal, thats a 12.5k fine.
    That fine would go directly to the team which the suspension was for, and can be used in the cap to better the teams roster that year.

    So player gets a disadvantage from his action and the club he did the action against gets a advantage.
     
  2. Speedymetric

    Speedymetric Nathan Ross

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Posts:
    106
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Newcastle
    There is a less than zero chance that any send off or judiciary suspension will be linked to the salary cap in any way.

    If I've understood your proposal correctly consider the following scenario.

    Latrell Mitchell & Will Chambers have a minor altercation in a Roosters/Storm game & both get a one game suspension. Parramatta then sign Mitchell at the end of the season for $1M a year. Going by your logic as they both only got one week Mitchell can only serve his week against the Storm & Chambers v Roosters next time they play each other. But in this case the Roosters get an advantage even though their player was guilty of an offence as Chambers misses against them, the Storm get $25000 added to their salary cap even though their player was also guilty. Mitchell doesn't care as he is getting an extra $200K a year anyway. Every other club in the comp is now at a disadvantage through no fault of their own as the Storm have a salary cap $25K higher than everyone else & all they have to do is sit Chambers out a week.

    This scenario doesn't even take into account the complexities of what would happen if Mitchell signed with the Storm with his week pending. In that case does the Storm get Mitchell plus an extra $25K cap increase?

    Can you imagine the blow up if one club got even one cent extra to spend just because someone somewhere hit a player late off the ball or mistimed a tackle & hit them high? There is no way known any club would support this.
     
  3. Owey

    Owey Tony Kemp

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Posts:
    121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    AU
    You could limit it to instances where the two teams are due to play again that season

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
     
  4. Still_Nutty

    Still_Nutty Scott Seamer

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2016
    Posts:
    277
    Gender:
    Male
    100% agree...

    I get where you are coming from but what if JWH had broken his jaw/nose/eye socket with the intent he drove the shoulder in with?

    My bigger issue is the intent of the dog shot he tried to put on, not just to 'rough the player up' but to take him out. Players like him and Blair are not just content to play hard, which can see them tread a fine line with a tackle that creeps a bit high, they are looking for the opportunity to nail a player when they are most vulnerable and it is traditionally reserved for the games best - Ponga, Thurston

    The difference in his shot and Dsaf was chalk and cheese:
    • Dan tackled a player who still had the ball in hand, tackled him legally to take him to the ground and the reason Keary was injured was purely related to the way he fell and the impact the back of his head had with the ground because of momentum - Dan never drove any part of his body into Keary as he was falling.
    • JWH tackled Ponga late with him taking at least 3 -4 steps after the kick had been executed (i.e he had plenty of time to adjust), even allowing that he couldn't pull out all together he had time to reduce the impact. He then clearly positioned his shoulder and launched at Ponga with his weight distribution aimed to ensure maximum drive through the contact point of his shoulder to impact into Ponga's face as his head hit the ground
    Don't get me wrong, I think the suspension EVENTUALLY fitted the crime in this instance and I'm not after a sanitised game but it is generally up to the officials on the field in the first instance to make sure players who go out of their way to intentionally dog shot an opposition players are held to account at the time and I reckon the Cummins and the bunker officials badly let the game down in this instance....particularly after Cummins penalised the Knights not 2 minutes later for a player that slipped more than half way below his body height into a tackle that still never actually really caught him high?!

    Anyway, rant over:cool:
     
    88Knight4life and Joshhh like this.
  5. member 2299

    member 2299 Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Posts:
    6,964
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Nambucca Heads
    Common sense 88? Common sense?

    Never in the NRL if Turdburg didn't think of it first!
     
    88Knight4life likes this.
  6. R_A

    R_A Sean Rudder

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Posts:
    2,726
    Location:
    Sydney
    I agree with all that. The fact that team mates nearly ripped his head off for the tackle says enough. I also strongly feel the Roosters being overpowered in the forwards that JWH had to do something to get them back in the game, a statement tackle type of thing, he just went about it the wrong way.
     
  7. 88Knight4life

    88Knight4life Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Posts:
    6,372
    :applause:
     

Share This Page