17 year old Joseph Suaalii gets the go ahead to make his NRL debut

[Davo5]

4 hours ago, MattSantos said:

They are linked from a player welfare perspective though.

The Roosters clearly have a track record of supporting players with concussion; Boyd Cordner rested for 12 weeks etc.

We live in a grey world, it's good to have a rule, but exceptions should be able to be sought after. Clearly, the lad is an exception.

Yes but a 13 yr NRL veteran experiencing concussion problems at the back end of his career has nothing to do with giving a 17yr old his NRL debut as the poster I was replying to was stating.

[MattSantos]

Just now, Davo5 said:

Yes but a 13 yr NRL veteran experiencing concussion problems at the back end of his career has nothing to do with giving a 17yr old his NRL debut as the poster I was replying to was stating.

It shows a pattern of putting a player first; i'm confident that they wouldn't be pushing for him to play unless he was ready. These 2 incidents are absolutely related.

The rule in it's strictest guise is silly. He's not ok the day before his birthday, but he is ok to play come the big day?

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

24 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

It shows a pattern of putting a player first; i'm confident that they wouldn't be pushing for him to play unless he was ready. These 2 incidents are absolutely related.

The rule in it's strictest guise is silly. He's not ok the day before his birthday, but he is ok to play come the big day?

They aren’t pushing for him to play, they just want to have him as an option if they pick up injuries, without injuries to other players he won’t debut at 17.

[MattSantos]

Just now, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

They aren’t pushing for him to play, they just want to have him as an option if they pick up injuries, without injuries to other players he won’t debut at 17.

Semantics. Play / Be in a squad.

I agree.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, MattSantos said:

It shows a pattern of putting a player first; i'm confident that they wouldn't be pushing for him to play unless he was ready. These 2 incidents are absolutely related.

The rule in it's strictest guise is silly. He's not ok the day before his birthday, but he is ok to play come the big day?

But you could apply that logic to any age related rule, whether it be drinking, smoking, gambling, driving, voting etc. With just about any rule there has to be a cut off point.

[MattSantos]

19 minutes ago, Damien said:

But you could apply that logic to any age related rule, whether it be drinking, smoking, gambling, driving, voting etc. With just about any rule there has to be a cut off point.

Agreed.

As mentioned earlier, the rule in the strictest sense is silly. We live in a grey world, especially in sport. Allowing an exemption in this case makes sense.

 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

Agreed.

As mentioned earlier, the rule in the strictest sense is silly. We live in a grey world, especially in sport. Allowing an exemption in this case makes sense.

 

I disagree, you either have the rule as it is, change the age limit or you don't have it at all. Exemptions smack of favouritism, especially given the reasons cited in the article.

[MattSantos]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

I disagree, you either have the rule as it is, change the age limit or you don't have it at all. Exemptions smack of favouritism, especially given the reasons cited in the article.

How is it favouritism? Souths were given an indication that they would have had the same treatment. Can you quote other examples of players not being allowed after an exemption was asked for?

[Damien]

1 minute ago, MattSantos said:

How is it favouritism? Souths were given an indication that they would have had the same treatment. Can you quote other examples of players not being allowed after an exemption was asked for?

They have allowed an exemption to a rule, that is favouritism. As I said you either have the rule as it is, change the age limit or you don't have it at all.

[Davo5]

19 minutes ago, Damien said:

I disagree, you either have the rule as it is, change the age limit or you don't have it at all. Exemptions smack of favouritism, especially given the reasons cited in the article.

Favouritism to whom 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

15 minutes ago, MattSantos said:

How is it favouritism? Souths were given an indication that they would have had the same treatment. Can you quote other examples of players not being allowed after an exemption was asked for?

Newcastle wanted to play Bradman Best before he was 18 - that was declined. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Davo5 said:

Favouritism to whom 

To whoever gets an exemption. As the majority of NRL clubs are against this and only one club benefits thus far its hard to dismiss those concerns. It is making a rod for the NRL's back for absolutely no reason. Is an exemption solely based on a little bit of sucking up to V'landys and making a good impression with kids, as the article implies? Doesn't seem like logical, quantitative criteria to me.

Does Suaalii being 6'5" make him anymore ready than someone that is 6'2" or even 6'0"? Height certainly doesn't equate to maturity, either physical or mental. However it seems to have a huge bearing in this case.

I have no issue with the rule as it was being set at 18 as I see the logic. I don't particularly have an issue with it being set at 17 if it was felt that this needs to change. Exemptions are just silly especially so when, as in this case, they are based on the judgement call of one person being impressed. I don't think that's the right way to go.

[MattSantos]

10 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Newcastle wanted to play Bradman Best before he was 18 - that was declined. 

Interesting. Didn't know that. 

[MattSantos]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

To whoever gets an exemption. As the majority of NRL clubs are against this and only one club benefits thus far its hard to dismiss those concerns. It is making a rod for the NRL's back for absolutely no reason. Is an exemption solely based on a little bit of sucking up to V'landys and making a good impression with kids, as the article implies? Doesn't seem like logical, quantitative criteria to me.

Does Suaalii being 6'5" make him anymore ready than someone that is 6'2" or even 6'0"? Height certainly doesn't equate to maturity, either physical or mental. However it seems to have a huge bearing in this case.

I have no issue with the rule as it was being set at 18 as I see the logic. I don't particularly have an issue with it being set at 17 if it was felt that this needs to change. Exemptions are just silly especially so when, as in this case, they are based on the judgement call of one person being impressed. I don't think that's the right way to go.

All fair.

On reflection and further reading, i think he's been given the exemption to stop him going to Union...

Scrap the rule! Scrap the rule!

[Davo5]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

To whoever gets an exemption. As the majority of NRL clubs are against this and only one club benefits thus far its hard to dismiss those concerns. It is making a rod for the NRL's back for absolutely no reason. Is an exemption solely based on a little bit of sucking up to V'landys and making a good impression with kids, as the article implies? Doesn't seem like logical, quantitative criteria to me.

Does Suaalii being 6'5" make him anymore ready than someone that is 6'2" or even 6'0"? Height certainly doesn't equate to maturity, either physical or mental. However it seems to have a huge bearing in this case.

I have no issue with the rule as it was being set at 18 as I see the logic. I don't particularly have an issue with it being set at 17 if it was felt that this needs to change. Exemptions are just silly especially so when, as in this case, they are based on the judgement call of one person being impressed. I don't think that's the right way to go.

Souths started the ball rolling last season in an attempt to ward off losing him to Union with V’Landys indicting then he was open to individual exemptions based on stringent criteria.

[Davo5]

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/joseph-suaalii-approved-to-make-nrl-debut-before-18th-birthday/7f1f0fad-a676-4d2e-8eaf-8be0da38c10a?ocid=Social-NRLFS