OFFICIAL: Tom Starling signs two year deal with Raiders

[raiderskater]

The Dogs were definitely getting away with a lot that we weren't.

But as for ridiculous sin-bins, Foran should have been set there for his professional foul on Charnze. Of course, he wasn't.

[Botman]

There were 2, maybe 3 dogs players in better position than CNK, he was never sniffing that football, it was not a genuine try scoring situation.
They'd have lost their **** mind to sin bin him for that, perfect example of a penalty and nothing more. And they didnt have a mind to lose after losing it on the obstruction call

[gangrenous]

I'd like to see them do it. I think if there is 3 in a row, the referee should award an actual penalty, and that would serve only as a means to stop the game to issue a formal warning to the captain that if there is another one in this attacking raid, they're in the bin.

Terrible idea. Continues this trend of rewarding deliberate penalties up until the point they stop the game and rob the other team of momentum. Then you’ve been warned so you just stop for a while.

The way it was done was exactly how it should be, as long as the infringements are awarded legitimately and they’re willing to do it across all teams.

[boomer]

The mole reporting starling has signed a 2 year deal with raiders.

[Botman]

You're only stopping it once, its not going to dramatically change the course of momentum and the pay off for the attacking team is they're one more away from playing a man up

If the rule is iron clad that on the 3rd or 4th consecutive restart its a mandatory sin bin, then i'm fine with no warning, everyone knows the rules then and the rule is the warning and if its a written rule it will be for the most part applied consistently, but whilst ever its down to an individual referees whims, then i think a warning needs to be issued so the defending team gets a chance to correct their behaviour

[-TW-]

The mole reporting starling has signed a 2 year deal with raiders.

Happy with that, gives us enough time to see how Hodgo comes back from the 2nd ACL.



Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[BJ]

Mole reporting it not BJ Mole.

I have no faith in reporting this until well after the ink is dry and verified by a Raiders media release.

[greeneyed]

The mole reporting starling has signed a 2 year deal with raiders.

Where is he saying two years? Have found the article, which I'll post as well (but it doesn't say two years).

[greeneyed]

Rookie Raiders rake earns new contract

Tom Starling's two-try performance for the Raiders in their comeback win over the Bulldogs on Sunday night has clinched a new deal for the young hooker. There were fears that the club may have to let the promising 22-year-old go, but the Raiders rate Starling so highly that they will find or him in their top squad next season - even though the NRL has yet to settle on how many players clubs will be allowed.

Read more: https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/mole-brisb ... d0a1f951d5

[zim]

I reckon Havili should be leveraging what he has now instead of opening himself up to be squeezed next year. Lock in a 3 year deal at another club. Somewhere like the Titans who are ticking up and have a good coach, and a real black hole in the hooking department.

[BadnMean]

I reckon Havili should be leveraging what he has now instead of opening himself up to be squeezed next year. Lock in a 3 year deal at another club. Somewhere like the Titans who are ticking up and have a good coach, and a real black hole in the hooking department.

Yeah Havilii has played a great role in some successful years here. Definitely a good FG player. But his role is going to become redundant with Starling progressing so well + suiting the new style of he NRL to a tee.

We have a glut of quality middles when fit and whilst Havilii is right in the mix with them, it's going to be real, real competitive for lock/prop rotations next season here with all fit.

If he exercises his option then fair play, we'll have a great 3rd hooking option + a worthwhile bench middle contender and who knows, if Hodgo misses parts or goes full Campo then Havilii will be right in the mix again.

Just for himself though, he may get a FG hooker contract and for sure worth a guaranteed #14 role at a number of clubs.

[Seiffert82]

I'd like to see them do it. I think if there is 3 in a row, the referee should award an actual penalty, and that would serve only as a means to stop the game to issue a formal warning to the captain that if there is another one in this attacking raid, they're in the bin.

Terrible idea. Continues this trend of rewarding deliberate penalties up until the point they stop the game and rob the other team of momentum. Then you’ve been warned so you just stop for a while.

The way it was done was exactly how it should be, as long as the infringements are awarded legitimately and they’re willing to do it across all teams.

I'm still clueless as to when and why a referee blows a penalty instead of a set restart in the attacking half. Teams are missing out on opportunities to kick a penalty goal instead of getting 6 again.

Randomly awarded restarts, inconsistent penalties, questions when a sin-bin is required. The whole thing is so arbitrary that it's a complete lottery in how it is officiated. I thought so at the time the rule was introduced and nothing has changed my opinion. Teams will win and lose finals games on the back of this nonsense.

[Seiffert82]

Great news about Starling. The best 3rd string rake in the comp.

[greeneyed]

I'd like to see them do it. I think if there is 3 in a row, the referee should award an actual penalty, and that would serve only as a means to stop the game to issue a formal warning to the captain that if there is another one in this attacking raid, they're in the bin.

Terrible idea. Continues this trend of rewarding deliberate penalties up until the point they stop the game and rob the other team of momentum. Then you’ve been warned so you just stop for a while.

The way it was done was exactly how it should be, as long as the infringements are awarded legitimately and they’re willing to do it across all teams.

I'm still clueless as to when and why a referee blows a penalty instead of a set restart in the attacking half. Teams are missing out on opportunities to kick a penalty goal instead of getting 6 again.

Randomly awarded restarts, inconsistent penalties, questions when a sin-bin is required. The whole thing is so arbitrary that it's a complete lottery in how it is officiated. I thought so at the time the rule was introduced and nothing has changed my opinion. Teams will win and lose finals games on the back of this nonsense.

It is becoming more and more of a farce.

[-TW-]

I'd like to see them do it. I think if there is 3 in a row, the referee should award an actual penalty, and that would serve only as a means to stop the game to issue a formal warning to the captain that if there is another one in this attacking raid, they're in the bin.

Terrible idea. Continues this trend of rewarding deliberate penalties up until the point they stop the game and rob the other team of momentum. Then you’ve been warned so you just stop for a while.

The way it was done was exactly how it should be, as long as the infringements are awarded legitimately and they’re willing to do it across all teams.

I'm still clueless as to when and why a referee blows a penalty instead of a set restart in the attacking half. Teams are missing out on opportunities to kick a penalty goal instead of getting 6 again.

Randomly awarded restarts, inconsistent penalties, questions when a sin-bin is required. The whole thing is so arbitrary that it's a complete lottery in how it is officiated. I thought so at the time the rule was introduced and nothing has changed my opinion. Teams will win and lose finals games on the back of this nonsense.

Penalties seem to be when play breaks down/the ref wants to use the bin.

I'd wouldn't mind if the offence is tackles 1-3 it's a penalty, 4-6 is signalled 6 more but players can signal for the penalty.. like the advantage rule in AFL.

The whole reason this was brought in was that teams were happy to give away penalties late in counts under pressure on their line. Awarding 6 more on tackles 1/2 when a team is rucking it out doesn't really give much disincentive to not slow play down.

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

You're only stopping it once, its not going to dramatically change the course of momentum and the pay off for the attacking team is they're one more away from playing a man up

If the rule is iron clad that on the 3rd or 4th consecutive restart its a mandatory sin bin, then i'm fine with no warning, everyone knows the rules then and the rule is the warning and if its a written rule it will be for the most part applied consistently, but whilst ever its down to an individual referees whims, then i think a warning needs to be issued so the defending team gets a chance to correct their behaviour

That’s rubbish. A team slows down 3 plays intentionally and then you stop the game for 30 seconds while the captain dawdles over so the ref can tell him one more and you’re in the bin? That doesn’t change the course of momentum?! Of course it bloody does, it’s why teams do it.

The momentum is likely already halted by three consecutive infractions and that’s why it should just be straight in the bin.

I’m sick of the millennial Bull of “you didn’t give me a warning”. I’m usually anti rules that aren’t black and white but in the instance of deliberate or consistent infractions I think the refs view is the lesser of two evils. It should be stamped out by harsh penalty, not encouraged to a point by letting you know when the real punishment comes next.

[Neeeegz]

Anyway.. what about that Tommy Starling hey, have we given him an offer or not ?

[Botman]

That’s rubbish. A team slows down 3 plays intentionally and then you stop the game for 30 seconds while the captain dawdles over so the ref can tell him one more and you’re in the bin? That doesn’t change the course of momentum?! Of course it bloody does, it’s why teams do it.

The momentum is likely already halted by three consecutive infractions and that’s why it should just be straight in the bin.

I’m sick of the millennial Bull of “you didn’t give me a warning”. I’m usually anti rules that aren’t black and white but in the instance of deliberate or consistent infractions I think the refs view is the lesser of two evils. It should be stamped out by harsh penalty, not encouraged to a point by letting you know when the real punishment comes next.

There is no way the "refs view is the lesser of two evils" opinion will hold up the second you feel like the interpretations of a dozen different officials are resulting in adverse results for the Raiders.

But maybe its a long game... give the officals more chances to apply their own arbitrary interpretations on thing and feed the anti-raiders beast

I dont trust these idiots to apply it consistently across the 80 minutes of a game, least of all as a collective unit across 8 games a week for 24 weeks a year. Just make it mandatory. 3 in a row and you're in the bin. Simple. I'd have no problem with that for the same reason i had no problem with the Starling sinbin. It would be, and was deserved.

[gangrenous]

I’m not saying they’d get a free ride and I’m not going to get annoyed by discrepancies.

But your 6 again calls are just as arbitrary. Your solution looks more black and white, but practically it’s actually just as grey.

So I’ll take the option that suppresses cheating instead of encouraging it thanks.

[Botman]

On Starling himself, if we could some how convince him to stay for 2 years instead of just a 12 month extension, then Stuart deserves another huge round of applause.

[boomer]

The mole reporting starling has signed a 2 year deal with raiders.

Where is he saying two years? Have found the article, which I'll post as well (but it doesn't say two years).

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/09/03/clu ... s-in-2021/

This article is reporting 2 year offer was made.

[greeneyed]

Pocket-rocket Starling launches career into orbit at second attempt

Tom Starling walked off the ground after making his NRL debut for the Knights in 2018 convinced he wouldn't be a one-hit-wonder at the club. So what went wrong after that?

"I got that one NRL game in at the end of the 2018 season but after that to be honest, I didn't hear back from them," Starling says. "I waited a while after the season finished, kept training with a few of the boys but I never heard anything back.

Read more: https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/09/04/poc ... d-attempt/

Peter Mulholland says Starling is now set to sign a two year deal with the Canberra Raiders, his manager has asked to proceed. Really good story and very good news.

[zim]

Very interesting insight into his effective defense.

[Cranky Old Man]

Very interesting insight into his effective defense.

Particularly by a coach who apparently cant coach and never improves any players.

[Botman]

Fascinating quotes in there about his contract situation from DFJ.

[Finchy]

Fascinating quotes in there about his contract situation from DFJ.

I didn't see any quotes in that article from DFJ, but I may be blind or reading the wrong article.

[raiderskater]

Very interesting insight into his effective defense.

Wow, I spent all this time wondering what junior coach gave him that technique, only to find out he didn't learn it until he got here! He looks so natural doing it I'd assumed he'd been doing it all his career!

What kind of idiot thought trying to get literally the smallest player in the NRL to tackle over the ball was a good idea?

[BJ]

Ricky can never be excused for not quickly understanding the basics of rugby league. As a player and as a coach he has always simplified the basics of the game.

[zim]

Very interesting insight into his effective defense.

Wow, I spent all this time wondering what junior coach gave him that technique, only to find out he didn't learn it until he got here! He looks so natural doing it I'd assumed he'd been doing it all his career!

What kind of idiot thought trying to get literally the smallest player in the NRL to tackle over the ball was a good idea?

I wonder how many coaches tried to get Maloney to tackle differently .
Baptiste used to run with a very similar technique to Starling. Wonder if he picked that up here too.

[Seiffert82]

I wonder how often a player is let go without any explanation as to why. I guess it's more common than not. Funny that his manager didn't ask the question.

[Botman]

For players at his level, id imagine its a lot.

[Damoni]

We all know the score

Fair play to him

[Coastalraider]

I took great pleasure on seeing SBW getting hit hard in his first run.

I took much more pleasure when I realised it was Starling who made the first big contact.

[Seiffert82]

Haha, yeah run at the little guy and get put in your place!

[Groundskeeer Willie]

I reckon Havili should be leveraging what he has now instead of opening himself up to be squeezed next year. Lock in a 3 year deal at another club. Somewhere like the Titans who are ticking up and have a good coach, and a real black hole in the hooking department.

Yeah Havilii has played a great role in some successful years here. Definitely a good FG player. But his role is going to become redundant with Starling progressing so well + suiting the new style of he NRL to a tee.

We have a glut of quality middles when fit and whilst Havilii is right in the mix with them, it's going to be real, real competitive for lock/prop rotations next season here with all fit.

If he exercises his option then fair play, we'll have a great 3rd hooking option + a worthwhile bench middle contender and who knows, if Hodgo misses parts or goes full Campo then Havilii will be right in the mix again.

Just for himself though, he may get a FG hooker contract and for sure worth a guaranteed #14 role at a number of clubs.

Starling can't play in the forwards like havili can though. They'll he fighting to the death for their spot in the 17 and starling is no guarantee of getting picked ahead of havili.