Confirmed: Manly is run by imbeciles

[HoldenV8]

Because they have both proven beyond reasonable doubt ... that they are not hookers ...

That is beside the point. They have played there before, therefore there is nothing stopping them from being played there again.

 

[HoldenV8]

They haven't been good enough to play there, we have been desperate enough to play them there and Brown is the only one to start there - on a week where our starting 9 was suspended because he punched someone in the face (there was no chance that the NRL would have given us a pass that week).
The management of the roster and Hastings issues are another matter but I can't see why the NRL would list Brown and Wright in its reasoning.

It doesn't matter if they're good enough or not. Its the fact that they have played in the position before.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

It doesn't matter if they're good enough or not. Its the fact that they have played in the position before.

So if a halfback goes down injured and the only players on the bench are forwards then the player brought on is instantly considered to be capable of playing as a half?

 

[HoldenV8]

So if a halfback goes down injured and the only players on the bench are forwards then the player brought on is instantly considered to be capable of playing as a half?

To put it bluntly.....according to the NRL, yes.

 

[HoldenV8]

Lewis Brown has started 2 games for Manly at hooker and was used there numerous times off the bench since his arrival at the club in 2016.

Jackson Hastings has started 1 game there (ironically, last years game against St Merge in Wollongong) and in the early part of this season was basically the backup hooker off the bench until he got banished.

Matty Wright, while never actually starting at hooker has played a fair bit of our last two games at dummy half.

There is the NRL's reasoning. They have played there before so are quite capable of doing so again regardless if they are any good at it or not.

 

[HoldenV8]

In Barrett's time as Manly coach, only in 2016 with Api and Matt Parcell and last year with Lussick did we actually have 2 specialist hookers in our squad of either 25 (2016 & 2017) or 30 (2018).

And Matt Parcell hasn't been at the club since 2016 while Lussick isn't even in the squad this year.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Lewis Brown has started 2 games for Manly at hooker and was used there numerous times off the bench since his arrival at the club in 2016.

Jackson Hastings has started 1 game there (ironically, last years game against St Merge in Wollongong) and in the early part of this season was basically the backup hooker off the bench until he got banished.

Matty Wright, while never actually starting at hooker has played a fair bit of our last two games at dummy half.

There is the NRL's reasoning. They have played there before so are quite capable of doing so again regardless if they are any good at it or not.

I'm not trying to argue that the NRL's decision was wrong, just trying to highlight the ridiculous idea of the rule itself, given that the NRL could essentially rule against any circumstance. All it acts as is a get out of goal card that the NRL can hand out to one of its preferred clubs should THEY need it. Player management aside (and I do think the coach and recruitment team stuffed up royally this year as well as the past few years) I don't have a problem with the club putting in the request. If nothing else it will again highlight the double standards of the NRL if they decide to give another club an exemption in the future.

 

[mave]

Considering that Lewis Brown is not injured and was in fact our hooker just 2 weeks ago.....in all reality naming someone outside of the top 30 was an absolutely stupid move.

Just add it to the ever growing list of stupid decisions this club has made in recent times. Including, and I am 100% agreeing with @Sue here.....going into a season with only ONE recognised hooker in the squad of 30.

Who the f*** does that?

The eternal rookie does that.

 

[Woodsie]

That is beside the point. They have played there before, therefore there is nothing stopping them from being played there again.

OK different tack .... Loouie Brown has played 200 NRL games 99 at 2nd row and 99 in the centres and 2 at hooker ..... to then rate him a hooker because he has played there before would be tossed out of any sane judiciary ...

Hastings has played 50 NRL games, all in the halves .. not one starting at hooker .... but has filled in for 10min spells 3/4 times .... to then rate him a hooker .. because he has played there before ..... ditto ditto ....

PSS I just made those numbers up for the sake of a good argument ....

 

[Woodsie]

I'm not trying to argue that the NRL's decision was wrong, just trying to highlight the ridiculous idea of the rule itself, given that the NRL could essentially rule against any circumstance. All it acts as is a get out of goal card that the NRL can hand out to one of its preferred clubs should THEY need it. Player management aside (and I do think the coach and recruitment team stuffed up royally this year as well as the past few years) I don't have a problem with the club putting in the request. If nothing else it will again highlight the double standards of the NRL if they decide to give another club an exemption in the future.

Not the NRL ... ALL of these discretionary rulings are made by one man and one man only ...... power corrupts ..... etc etc ...

 

[The Who]

BREAKING NEWS: Fainu is now on the MWSE website as among our top 30 players in the position of Hooker! So, is his contract upgraded?
Also in that squad Kapow is listed as a LOCK. WTF?

 

[madmax]

This is true,but why didn't the imbeciles in management know the correct order of procedures that are set in place by Nrl.The consistency in repeatedly looking unprofessional really scares me.

I'm assuming that as the club is required to name a squad on the Tuesday, Manase was named as Hooker & then they applied for dispensation from the NRL......they did the same with Moses Suli.

 

[southsideeagle]

So who has been moved on out of the 30. Lussick?

 

[The Who]

So who has been moved on out of the 30. Lussick?

Yes. Lussick is not among the 30.
But here are the some of the club's specialists (as listed on the MWSE website:
Wright - 5/8
Hastings - 5/8
Croker - halfback
Mat Wright - centre
Lewis Brown - 2nd row
Again I argue, if the club says Hastings is a 5/8 and Wright is a centre and Brows is a 2nd rower then the NRL can't insist they are specialist hookers.

 

[HoldenV8]

I'm not trying to argue that the NRL's decision was wrong, just trying to highlight the ridiculous idea of the rule itself, given that the NRL could essentially rule against any circumstance. All it acts as is a get out of goal card that the NRL can hand out to one of its preferred clubs should THEY need it. Player management aside (and I do think the coach and recruitment team stuffed up royally this year as well as the past few years) I don't have a problem with the club putting in the request. If nothing else it will again highlight the double standards of the NRL if they decide to give another club an exemption in the future.

I do agree with you. But there have been other clubs as well. Only recently the Dogs had Lachlan Lewis knocked back because the NRL deemed others already in their squad capable of playing in his position (halves).

 

[HoldenV8]

The eternal rookie does that.

When does a rookie stop being a rookie?

 

[Ned]

So who has been moved on out of the 30. Lussick?

Well it would stand to reason, since he has played a few games for another team...however Myles has been retired all season and he's still in there so in answer to your question...Who the fcck knows????

 

[Chip and Chase]

Yes. Lussick is not among the 30.
But here are the some of the club's specialists (as listed on the MWSE website:
Wright - 5/8
Hastings - 5/8
Croker - halfback
Mat Wright - centre
Lewis Brown - 2nd row
Again I argue, if the club says Hastings is a 5/8 and Wright is a centre and Brows is a 2nd rower then the NRL can't insist they are specialist hookers.

You are missing the point, how the club lists them on the website has absolutely nothing to do with it. We only have one fullback listed in Tommy - do we seek leave to play Anderson every time Tommy is out ?? The only 5/8's we have listed are Cletus and the Great Wright Hope - neither of them are getting within a bulls roar of the 6 jersey this season. We chose NOT to have a specialist back up hooker in our squad, preferring to use "utility" type players as coverage. So if those utility type players are fit we have to use them. That's the whole point of a salary cap and limited squad numbers, you have to take some gambles on depth. The NRL are right in this case.

I think the only way we can elevate Fainu is to shed a player before June 30 and bring him into 30 man squad. That maybe Cletus if rumours of his move to ESL are true

 

[Bubbler]

Hurry up and call The Board Room. We need a hooker urgently sent down from Gladstone.

 

[globaleagle]

The level of selection input by the nrl is....interesting to say the least.

The good news is soon Todd will be able to pour over each teams' roster then pick the best players available for that weekend.

Match up the two teams on paper, then he can decide which team is better and therefore which one would win.

Then he can just let us know on Monday how our team went, who won, who lost etc.

Protects the players as they don't actually have to play. (remember folks...player welfare #1)

Additionally some of the money can be used for CGI recreations of the game based on how Toddy thinks it would have gone.

These cgi games can be beamed into our home via our tv subscriptions. Saves money on actually having to have a ground to play on and the crowds can also be cgi inserted to show how full the stands are and how wonderful the game is going in Todd's leadership by intoddgrity.

You know it makes sense......