Just saw a story on this, and I did think it was coming. I do believe it's a good thing for the players effected , but jeez, imagine this happening to a key player around key games come finals time.
Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this, or what measures you would have preffered in place of this.
I would have liked to have seen at the very least dispensation for calling up players from outside the 30 to cover if needed, or even a special short term player loan option. its not the teams fault, or the players fault or the fans fault, but i see this could really badly disadvantage/anger all of the above.
Replies
Should be longer. Pretty sure that most sports have a 14 day minimum stand down
I reckon the NRL are taking notice of the AFL player who has just started legal proceedings against the AFL, his former club and their doctors. He claims they were negligent in their duties and failed to protect him. This explains the staunch approach the refs and bunker are seemingly employing this season (think O'Sullivan sin bin).
The NRL are never going to be able to stop players being concussed. What they need to do right now is cover their arses. If that means bringing in these types of rules then they will do it. The legal liability is potentially masive. There's a real possibility of more drastic changes which will lead to a very different game than what we''re currently supporting.
6 man bench is needed with the bunker calling on the hias
No good of a 6 man bench at the Eels as Brad Arthur would only use 3 of them
😂😂😂
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
😂😂😂
hahahahahaha
We can't knowingly turn young mens brains into mush, the hard science is in on CTE and concussion and the sport has no choice but to respond.
Winning a game isn't worth a lifetime of misery.
I still think a pool of 30 players should be plenty.
umm sorry Simon , we're all just virtual coaches and team selectors here not legal medical specialist. "tee hee " !!
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next