Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Number6, post: 2958887, member: 9008"] Off topic argument here sorry. Having a rigid top 30 or flexible injury list provision has nothing to do with player welfare but more with existing player protectionism I suspect. Clubs can find an excuse to drop a player if and when they choose (see Hastings). How will a couple more crap NRL games prevent drug use after not making it at NRL level? Clubs also have sport science systems and welfare departments for the burnout and post Rugby League issues. Besides if your argument is protected as development player list what about 18 years old in the top 30 are they are more risk? Then shouldn’t have under 20s playing NRL? Truth is I don’t have an issue with that greatly if was evidence to support greater risk as would be good to let bodies develop but that isn’t the argument I’m seeing. At the end of the day it is a highly competitive sport. Yes there are risks but that is players choice. Agree to have player welfare and insurance systems as good practice but duty of care should never extend to protecting mediocre performance and blocking someone rated as better getting their fair shot. Also hardly giving clubs an unfair advantage to use an outside 30 player if on minimum wage for an injured player. Simple issue so trust to see NRL f***ing it up. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 192 (members: 0, guests: 192)