Rothfields top 50

[Supreme Leader]

@Supreme Leader i get your point, but I also get Kents. He was in no way defending taking performance enhancing drugs, but his point was at least your not trying to play worse and rig a match against your team. Now it's still obviously a bad look, and I don't think he was arguing it wasn't.

And I'll also add here I quite like Kent, as I find he does at least have some opinions.

As for Rothfield, I found him pathetic on the show.

Guess what would be best is consistancy. I agree there should be a ban but they should all be the same for match fixing / performance enhanching drugs / recreational drugs / guilty of assault - whether it be 2 years, or life bans or whatever. I also believe all sports should work together and accept other codes suspensions and hold the elite sportsman accountable. They shouldn't be able to say stiff s#@t, and get paid more money to change code.

 

[Supreme Leader]

It would be so easy to let a try in, playing at centre, and not make it obvious. There is so much traffic coming at you all you would need to do is commit too early and bang your outside winger is caught in a two on one. If you backed them both for first try scorer you're home and hosed. You might get a dressing down during Monday's video session but it would be pretty hard to label it a blatant false move.

Get where your coming from but really is the problem a $10 bet here or there or where big bets are placed ie thousands for big returns. I know it starts somewhere and yes there needs to be a penalty attached. In balance I would suggest the big bets is a life ban. I just think that a life ban for return of $80 (that's what centre are approx on first try scorer) and being stupid because he probably backed 3 or 4 players to be first try scorer - like the rest of us punters, is a bit over the top when people doing other illegal activities are given "mentoring" and holiday overseas making more money and after all is forgiven and they come back.

 

[Clay]

No Walker. No Jake. He's joking isnt he.

Walker isn't in the Top50 players in the game, yet anyway.

Who was the one Manly player he put in?

Big fan on Kent on Fox and that doesn't mean I always agree with him, watch NRL 360 ratings plummet on Mondays if royhfield gets his regular spot

 

[Fluffy]

Thats what makes this do weird, the bets were small with not much upside

 

[Woodsie]

Get where your coming from but really is the problem a $10 bet here or there or where big bets are placed ie thousands for big returns. I know it starts somewhere and yes there needs to be a penalty attached. In balance I would suggest the big bets is a life ban. I just think that a life ban for return of $80 (that's what centre are approx on first try scorer) and being stupid because he probably backed 3 or 4 players to be first try scorer - like the rest of us punters, is a bit over the top when people doing other illegal activities are given "mentoring" and holiday overseas making more money and after all is forgiven and they come back.

Supreme, the major issue with players betting on the opposition is that the moment fans no longer believe that their team is playing to win, will be the moment that the sport dies. Administrators are and will be merciless with this fact.

Drugs, recreational or performance enhancing, is a separate issue, but once again the performance enhancing also attracts the label of cheating ... and again fans will put up with mugs, but cheating, if riff, will also drive fans away. Ask some of your Silvertail Brethren what they call Newcastle..

 

[Woodsie]

Walker isn't in the Top50 players in the game, yet anyway.

Who was the one Manly player he put in?

Big fan on Kent on Fox and that doesn't mean I always agree with him, watch NRL 360 ratings plummet on Mondays if royhfield gets his regular spot

TOM.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Supreme, the major issue with players betting on the opposition is that the moment fans no longer believe that their team is playing to win, will be the moment that the sport dies. Administrators are and will be merciless with this fact.

Drugs, recreational or performance enhancing, is a separate issue, but once again the performance enhancing also attracts the label of cheating ... and again fans will put up with mugs, but cheating, if riff, will also drive fans away. Ask some of your Silvertail Brethren what they call Newcastle..

Cheating of all kinds is despised pretty simply because it is bad sportsmanship. The problem with gambling is that it is cheating not to win but to lose, which is beyond bad sportsmanship, it undercuts the basic premise of the sport.
Having said that, if Whats-his-name was a more high profile player the ban would be something less than life.

 

[MadMarcus]

Rothfield's top 50? I was expecting this.

http://www.executivestyle.com.au/50-of-the-best-australian-wines-under-50-gtfgp8

I was expecting this

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelysanders/draaank?utm_term=.ft4JXRwEa#.lvpX8KBZ5

(I know it says top 50 in the thread title but I didn't think he couldn't count past 23)

 

[Supreme Leader]

Supreme, the major issue with players betting on the opposition is that the moment fans no longer believe that their team is playing to win, will be the moment that the sport dies. Administrators are and will be merciless with this fact.

Drugs, recreational or performance enhancing, is a separate issue, but once again the performance enhancing also attracts the label of cheating ... and again fans will put up with mugs, but cheating, if riff, will also drive fans away. Ask some of your Silvertail Brethren what they call Newcastle..

Problem resolved - lets just send all of them to a Bali jail, can we send the administrators too?

 

[Bearfax]

Walker isn't in the Top50 players in the game, yet anyway.

I would not agree with you on that issue Clay. Walker has played 4 tests for Australia, meaning he was considered in the top 13 in the country 2 years ago. He had a difficult season last year, playing out of position and behind a disjointed pack. Still scored 8 tries and was one of Manly's only serious attacking weapons. Easily in the Top 50

 

[yokahontas]

Get where your coming from but really is the problem a $10 bet here or there or where big bets are placed ie thousands for big returns. I know it starts somewhere and yes there needs to be a penalty attached. In balance I would suggest the big bets is a life ban. I just think that a life ban for return of $80 (that's what centre are approx on first try scorer) and being stupid because he probably backed 3 or 4 players to be first try scorer - like the rest of us punters, is a bit over the top when people doing other illegal activities are given "mentoring" and holiday overseas making more money and after all is forgiven and they come back.

The thing is, it's not just Simona's own bets that are the issue - how many other people lost various sums of money due to his actions? It's actually impossible to quantify how many, and how much money - everyone who had any bet on a first try scorer who wasn't playing opposite Simona has a stake (literally) in it. Likewise, anyone who, say, had a bet on a Tigers win that didn't eventuate partly due to his actions, or a top try-scorer result that was unfairly skewed by guys being handed tries on a platter just because they were lucky enough to play opposite the guy betting against himself. It affects stuff like SuperCoach, tipping comps etc as well - the flow-on effect is potentially huge.

And that's without going into what others have mentioned - it throws questions over everything about the game, results, whether any missed tackle in any game is genuine.

 

[yokahontas]

Ah. I thought it said Rothman's Top 50. Sorry, my bad...

 

[Killer03]

The big question I've asked over the drugs v gambling debate has been how would I feel being in a team with a person who has taken performance enhancers or someone who threw a game, or to take it a bit less, let someone score against him.

I played soccer when I was younger, not at a great level, just a semi serious level. I played in a team with a guy (who was loaded) and he was considering taking nandrolone (I think) it was the drug the tennis players used to take which helped recovery and oxygen uptake. Now whilst I wasn't stoked about what he was thinking of, I at least had some modicum of .....I can't say respect, but there was something I couldnt 100percent condemn, because he was striving to help us win, and be better. In the end we talked him out of it, mainly on health grounds.

I played with another guy who for some games refused to try. Again there was no betting or anything involved, but I could have smashed his face in. If I played with him in a professional capacity and he threw games or bet against us, I think I would have.

Now it's all a series of degrees, but I certainly was more peed off at the guy who didn't try.

 

[captaincarpo]

The big question I've asked over the drugs v gambling debate has been how would I feel being in a team with a person who has taken performance enhancers or someone who threw a game, or to take it a bit less, let someone score against him.

I played soccer when I was younger, not at a great level, just a semi serious level. I played in a team with a guy (who was loaded) and he was considering taking nandrolone (I think) it was the drug the tennis players used to take which helped recovery and oxygen uptake. Now whilst I wasn't stoked about what he was thinking of, I at least had some modicum of .....I can't say respect, but there was something I couldnt 100percent condemn, because he was striving to help us win, and be better. In the end we talked him out of it, mainly on health grounds.

I played with another guy who for some games refused to try. Again there was no betting or anything involved, but I could have smashed his face in. If I played with him in a professional capacity and he threw games or bet against us, I think I would have.

Now it's all a series of degrees, but I certainly was more peed off at the guy who didn't try.

I played soccer with a bloke who had heroin before games! Sad thing is that this guy at a younger age could have been anything! His performance did suffer greatly!

 

[Supreme Leader]

The thing is, it's not just Simona's own bets that are the issue - how many other people lost various sums of money due to his actions? It's actually impossible to quantify how many, and how much money - everyone who had any bet on a first try scorer who wasn't playing opposite Simona has a stake (literally) in it. Likewise, anyone who, say, had a bet on a Tigers win that didn't eventuate partly due to his actions, or a top try-scorer result that was unfairly skewed by guys being handed tries on a platter just because they were lucky enough to play opposite the guy betting against himself. It affects stuff like SuperCoach, tipping comps etc as well - the flow-on effect is potentially huge.

And that's without going into what others have mentioned - it throws questions over everything about the game, results, whether any missed tackle in any game is genuine.

Please provide details of anyone who would back tigers to win.... aruement flawed... how many Tiger's fans backed themselves to win?

Jokes aside. Yeh not a good look, but is it really? worse than the big fix or drug cheating or fuc##ing up the salary cap. Sure if it ws a $100K bet by unscrupious non football people... would absolutely agree. But in fairness under any standard way over the top. If , under your arguement, do we go back and dock competition points? Of course not.. how some on this site think that drug cheating is less of an evil is a joke!

 

[yokahontas]

Please provide details of anyone who would back tigers to win.... aruement flawed... how many Tiger's fans backed themselves to win?

Jokes aside. Yeh not a good look, but is it really? worse than the big fix or drug cheating or fuc##ing up the salary cap. Sure if it ws a $100K bet by unscrupious non football people... would absolutely agree. But in fairness under any standard way over the top. If , under your arguement, do we go back and dock competition points? Of course not.. how some on this site think that drug cheating is less of an evil is a joke!

I didn't say it was worse than cheating the salary cap, or any other kind of fixing - but it is a form of match-fixing (spot-fixing, at the very least), and there shouldn't be a sliding scale of punishment - if you are involved in any degree of 'fixing', life ban, plain and simple. It's no different to what Ryan Tandy got banned for, and rightly so.

It's incredibly difficult to fix an entire match (a fair proportion of both teams would need to be in on it), but spot-fixing, limiting point spreads etc is much more easily done, requiring a lot fewer players' involvement. I don't doubt it happens - and it happens exactly the way that Simona has apparently done it. Zero tolerance, because it calls into question the integrity and validity of the entire sport.

Joke about it all you like, but you actually have no idea (nor do I) who might've been the 'actual' first try-scorer in one of these situations - and who's to say some guy didn't have a $10000 bet on that player?

I don't gamble myself, and I hate the level to which it has infiltrated sport - but the bottom line is, it's a multi-billion dollar industry where one seemingly small action can have massive flow-on effects.

The amount of money the fixer wins or stands to win is irrelevant - it doesn't matter if it's a $5 stake. You are deliberately taking actions to illegally affect the course of a match, automatic life ban, end of.

I have no time for drug cheats either, but they're covered under their own rules and testing protocols. Those may need some changes, but that's not what's at issue here. Ditto cap cheats.

And no, you can't go back and dock competition points - it's one guy, and his team/club were not aware of what he was up to. Same way it works with drug cheats - but if it turns out the fixing/drug cheating/whatever was systematic and involved half the team - absolutely, points should be docked.

 

[Top End Eagle]

I didn't say it was worse than cheating the salary cap, or any other kind of fixing - but it is a form of match-fixing (spot-fixing, at the very least), and there shouldn't be a sliding scale of punishment - if you are involved in any degree of 'fixing', life ban, plain and simple. It's no different to what Ryan Tandy got banned for, and rightly so.

It's incredibly difficult to fix an entire match (a fair proportion of both teams would need to be in on it), but spot-fixing, limiting point spreads etc is much more easily done, requiring a lot fewer players' involvement. I don't doubt it happens - and it happens exactly the way that Simona has apparently done it. Zero tolerance, because it calls into question the integrity and validity of the entire sport.

Joke about it all you like, but you actually have no idea (nor do I) who might've been the 'actual' first try-scorer in one of these situations - and who's to say some guy didn't have a $10000 bet on that player?

I don't gamble myself, and I hate the level to which it has infiltrated sport - but the bottom line is, it's a multi-billion dollar industry where one seemingly small action can have massive flow-on effects.

The amount of money the fixer wins or stands to win is irrelevant - it doesn't matter if it's a $5 stake. You are deliberately taking actions to illegally affect the course of a match, automatic life ban, end of.

I have no time for drug cheats either, but they're covered under their own rules and testing protocols. Those may need some changes, but that's not what's at issue here. Ditto cap cheats.

And no, you can't go back and dock competition points - it's one guy, and his team/club were not aware of what he was up to. Same way it works with drug cheats - but if it turns out the fixing/drug cheating/whatever was systematic and involved half the team - absolutely, points should be docked.

Don't think anyone's going to convince SL differently on this matter because they don't seem to grasp it. Like playing chess with a pigeon.