Seems none of our players will miss any games though suspension

[Rooster1908]

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/canberr...9-463d46aafe1b

[Bahrain Rooster]

No suspensions, no injuries, perfect. Verrills and Cordner to come back as well. Things are looking up.

[Rooster89]

No suspensions, no injuries, perfect. Verrills and Cordner to come back as well. Things are looking up.

Do you know if they're back next week?

[BUDDY]

I actually thought Sitili would miss a couple of weeks.

[Team Evil]

I actually thought Sitili would miss a couple of weeks.

Thought for sure he would get two weeks.

[Bahrain Rooster]

Do you know if they're back next week?

Cordner is expected back after the bye, Verrills around the same time as well so it’s only a couple more games without those two.

[ism22]

> Raiders trio Josh Papalii, Jack Wighton and Josh Hodgson facing sideline stints

Looks like Papalii's gonna be out when we play them (will get 3 weeks).

TBH these rules could benefit us big time as the sloppier teams will be without players more often.

[King Salvo]

I think it's fortunate as i thought a couple of weeks as well but i agree with what the NRL is doing with high tackles - putting it back to the on field officials to make decisions and not just putting them on report and leaving it up to the MRC and Judiciary.

That's been the problem with the Judiciary system when they changed it to grading's/fines/early pleas and what not and diluted the role of the on field officials in the process - basically have Refs just put players on report

Some common ground can be found on this and I would assume the on field officials and the bunker would undergo training to be able to identify tackles that should be just penalised / tackles which are put on report and the offender sin binned and those where the offender should be sent off including the MRC and Judiciary- the word being used is with force i.e

Tackle 0 grade - just a penalty- possibly on report

Tackle grade 1 - On report and sin bin

Tackle grade 2 - sent off

Tackle grade 3 - sent off

I know Gould will be banging on about it tonight on 100% league when he interviews V'Landy's in saying players are too big nowadays to tackle normally why players go high -narrow area to tackle someone etc etc - that's bunkum - if ball carriers are bigger then so are defenders as ball carriers become defenders without the ball - tackle legally and players wont have an issue simple as that.

People will say oh what about the one when the arm hits the shoulder or ball and bounces up and hits the player in the head or the ball carrier is falling etc - they haven't considered this a defence for quite a while now so not sure of they will revisit it or not.

Might be like the 7 tackle restart which was brought in for teams deliberately kicking the ball dead in goal to set their defence and now includes any kick that goes dead in goal or any error made by the ball carrier in the in goal area i.e knock on.

They will make it a blanket rule I assume - any hit to head will be dealt with no matter how it happened

[rented tracksuit]

Leave it on the field.

Unless its a send off, leave it at 10 mins and nothing more. Proven on the weekend that even 10 mins can have a massive influence on the outcome of a game and as such could cost 2 points on the ladder. To me, that's plenty enough for a minor tap during a game.

On another note, how many players from a few other certain clubs will be using these new harder clampdowns as a way to forward their Hollywood careers? We are opening ourselves up to be even lore like the roundball game and we already have divers so how bad is going to get?

[TheLoneRooster]

Spot on rented - the spectre of unintended consequences that inevitably follows from ill-considered action. The NRL talk out of both sides of their mouth when they say the crackdown is all about player welfare whilst at the same time deliberately introducing fatigue into the game which can lead to more injuries.

[rented tracksuit]

Spot on rented - the spectre of unintended consequences that inevitably follows from ill-considered action. The NRL talk out of both sides of their mouth when they say the crackdown is all about player welfare whilst at the same time deliberately introducing fatigue into the game which can lead to more injuries.

Agreed bud. On the other side of the coin, there have been some terrible head knocks from players making tackles, not just those getting knocked in the head by a tackler. If we reduce the tackling target or zone downward, it will open it up for even more defenders being knocked out cold from hips, legs and the like. To me, a player can be knocked senseless more as a tackler than the guy being tackled. Where's the welfare for the tackler?

[Johnny Brass]

Leave it on the field.

Unless its a send off, leave it at 10 mins and nothing more. Proven on the weekend that even 10 mins can have a massive influence on the outcome of a game and as such could cost 2 points on the ladder. To me, that's plenty enough for a minor tap during a game.

On another note, how many players from a few other certain clubs will be using these new harder clampdowns as a way to forward their Hollywood careers? We are opening ourselves up to be even lore like the roundball game and we already have divers so how bad is going to get?

With the way a team gets momentum now once on a roll they can score two or three times in a 10 minute sin bin period.
Half the problems are the way the refs officiate the game in that their timing they allow for defenders to get off tackled players once in the red zone speeds up.
Once Sitilli got sin binned Cummins gave us no time and was demanding we release the attacker straight away. He then plucked two inside the ten metres 6 agains us mid tackle count which were rubbish. Straight away he put us on notice that any further infringements would be sent to the bin.
Perhaps they should look at reintroducing the 5 minutes sin bin for professional fouls or repeated infringements where 10 minutes is too big a penalty in the modern game or even the player is let back on once the side has scored a try.
The penalty against Chad Townsend completely ruined any chance the Sharks had of winning all because they went back a few tackles because Cody Walker clutched at his neck for a nothing incident.
It is a bad look for the game with blokes feigning injuries or looking to flop on the floor to win penalties instead of making tackles

[TheLoneRooster]

Agreed bud. On the other side of the coin, there have been some terrible head knocks from players making tackles, not just those getting knocked in the head by a tackler. If we reduce the tackling target or zone downward, it will open it up for even more defenders being knocked out cold from hips, legs and the like. To me, a player can be knocked senseless more as a tackler than the guy being tackled. Where's the welfare for the tackler?

Stop it, you're being logical.

Therein lies the rub, and the limitation of this push for enhanced player welfare (think Jake Friend earlier this year or reed mahoney against the Roosters in R9). Yes, things will improve as players adjust; no, it will not eliminate head knocks to tacklers as rugby league is a collision sport. The NRL have made a rod for their own back in some ways.

[TheLoneRooster]

Excellent post Johnny Brass. I felt for the sharks and that incident added another reason to the list that underpins my dislike of cody walker the vermin player.

[Johnny73]

Every soufs fan I know was swearing blind that JWH would be the first player sent off. It looked like he spent the entire game with his arms down near his hips.