I would love to see 10 minutes in the bin for dissent.

Players can clarify the ruling....

What Smith and other regularly try to do with some success "ref management" they are trying to get better calls on future decisions.

If I was a ref, one warning then 10 in the bin, automatic 10 in the bin for the next player from that team, I'll happily sit 5-6 of them down if that is what it takes to get the message. I agree with Dman in that the refs and NRL are lacking a spine.

Where I disagree is that the game used to flow in the 1970s and 1980s, in that era refs also made blunders, and sometimes it was a big deal, NRL is a game that needs a flow. Good refs can keep up with a fast paced game and still get the major calls mostly right.

The gamed changed when smart coaches started discovered the value of controlling the ruck,  with surrendering in tackles, wrestling etc.
All attempts to NRL made to control "game management" just slow the pace of the game and robbed fans of entertainment.

So in summary, get the overall tempo and balance of the game right, then find decent refs who can ref properly at that tempo.
Don't give us 70 mins of wrestling, video ref, arguing with refs, and 10 mins of footy.

Just been reading about Greg Inglis. That's a tough situation for anyone to be in. His shoulder is so bad with untreatable arthritis he can't raise his arm beyond horizontal.
Wayne Bennett wont let him play on with pain kill injections, so Inglis has to decide whether he can/will play on or retire. At first I thought maybe he could get a few more matches in on the wing, but now I don't think so, being targeted by high kicks, contesting the ball in the air etc. At centre there'd likely be more contact with the bad shoulder, so that'd be more than difficult as well. He's a tough character but things like that are enough to break anyone in half.

This has a always been a problem with professional sport, players bodies take a pounding.

If anything GI is a victim of poor rehab processes in the past, there is a conflict there often a team needs a player on the field ASAP, the players best interest are served by a slower longer rehab.

Injury management has improved out if sight, but I hate playing injured players in the team early to mid-season, late in the season or in the semis games are vital  so sometimes players have to back up.

So true.
Also the temptation to take the extra $50k here or $100k there for every rep match would've taken its toll. His seasons were as long as any.
Every coach would've wanted him on the field no matter what & he would've shrugged off rehab concerns himself as something to worry about later. 
Unfortunately for him that day is today. Not something any decent person would wish on anyone.
At least he was paid well for a young bloke, so that'll make life a bit easier.

Mole reckons Bryson Goodwin back to souths from England immediately to replace GI.

Given he's been around since about 2005 (14 years) with the best part of those on big bucks (over 1M per season) I'd say he is one of if not the highest paid RL player of all time. 

He's definitely on the downward end of his career with more injuries and MH issues plaguing him so an "early" retirement is not all that bad. 

Worst thing he can do is chase the extra few dollars by playing on and risking chronic health issues down the track.

Same goes for Foran who is also younger.
Medical retirement is a distinct option for them to consider....

Foran is very handy to have around for the present, to show the young guys the ropes, and help build a winning culture.
 
But he is unlikely to last long enough to be part of our next premiership, if Cogger and Lewis handle the job well in his absence, we progressively need him less and less.

So I would honour the existing contract (unless he decides to retire), but extending him on big dollars might not be a wise move. 

This particular injury is a bit of a freak event, I would not read too much into it, but we do have to consider how many games per year he plays.

When he is on the paddock, he definitely puts in and is fearless, so no problem with attitude ...

Yes.  With the MH aspect I think he needs to transition from playing with a meaningful role within the club.  He has to see purpose in the role he is given and he has to be psychologically monitored. 
There also needs to be a focus on preparation for a life outside football.  The club or insurance will surely have to pay out his contract.  It would be better if this payment was structured the same way as his normal football payments during his transitional period, rather than one lump sum.

You sound like you want to meet him at the airport and kidnap him...woops..just noted it was BN not Tony

Many fans (Bulldogs and outsiders) use to criticise SBW for how many games he played coz he was injured a fair bit. But in my opinion, he played to such a high level in the games that he did that I felt the dollar value per game played was not justified. 

Foran for us has not been good value this far and I cant even say that on his good games, has been exceptionally good. I would say decent without being exceptional. From a dollar value, he is a bad investment. 

In any case, we move on. As you say, it would very unwise to consider him for an extension so we will just see his contract out or let him leave early if he wants. 

Not saying Cogger is our answer, but he is definitely better value.

He was outstanding in our win against the Tigers....there I said it. Exceptional..woops said that too. He is the class act that could elevate us to a higher level and also the kind of player who can prove invaluable for the Jack Coggers and Lachlan Lewis's of the world. Yes, he has had bad luck yet again but don't write him off just yet. 

Do points scored in golden point count towards for and against?  Should a team get 83, 85 or 90 minute to get a win and, potentially, deny a team that only had 80 minutes, a place in the eight or maybe a minor premiership?  Many teams finishing fast would have won with extra time.

JT expert commentary - " I'd like to see more of Mbye sniffing around the ruck and putting pressure on the Broncos forwards"...
He must have never seen Mbye play...

Panthers have an odd number 'for' after last weeks field goal so yeah they count...
An interesting point you raise though...
GP in its current form is a joke... Either play five each way, or golden try at worst...

Marki, I agree with the referees letting the game flow if it is not interfering with the shape of the contest, but the refs seem to miss forward passes, pi$$ poor PTB and laying about in the tackle. If letting it flow means put the whistle in your pocket then it is a better spectacle  to just penalise the crap out of the game and make the teams play correctly. Not much of a game from a spectators point of view but it gives an honest result.

Suncoastdog, I am not a fan of golden point and believe there is no need for an outright result in regular season games. I am of the understanding that the fans were unhappy with a drawn game and therefore golden point was introduced. This very subject was discussed last season on the BDP and as golden point is now part of the game I believe a fairer system for all would be as follows:
3 points for an outright win.
1 point each for a draw in regular time and an additional point for a team that scores in golden point. In the case a draw remains after extra time that additional point is lost. Nothing for an outright loss.
I also believe that the extra time should be played out in it's entirity and not stopped after the first team to score.

Short term pain for long term gain... If they'd have not buckled on several crackdowns in the last decade a lot of the crap would be out of the game...

I never met a fan that had a problem with a draw... Some of the greatest games I've seen ended with scores level...
NRLol are the ones who pushed the fans want a result line to look like they were innovative and/or actually listened to the fans....

They've had 80 minutes to win the game. Extra time for a select few disadvantages the rest.

A) Yes they count
B) No. They get no advantage. Just think of them scoring in the 79th minute instead of 88th.
C) If anything, they are slightly disadvantaged since playing the extra few minutes for the win could lead to injuries, fatigue, or suspension.

If you have through golden point, you have done it the hard way.....

If you have won *

Extra time to achieve a result is a privilege not afforded to the other teams.  It is as flawed as declaring a win if you hit the lead in minutes 70 to 80.  

It isn't perfect, but the logic is both teams on the field get the same amount of time to secure a win - if they're good enough - be it 80mins or 85mins. 
If your team is behind by 4 points with 10 seconds to go, there's no point complaining that you only have one tackle from a set to do something before full time when other teams elsewhere force a draw & get the extra time. There were 79 other minutes to get those points on the board - if your team was good enough on the day.
Full time is full time, it's been that way for over a century since it started & the extra time rule is strictly for a drawn scoreline at the end of regular time.

It's the same rule for all teams, so any disadvantage or advantage for one team is also a disadvantage or advantage for all the other teams.
There's several ways the extra time rule could be changed, some ideas may be better than others, but for now, it's just the way it is.
It's not as bad as all teams don't play each other twice with equal home/away matches & then there's hand-picked draws along with countless other inconsistencies. 

The tennis deuce rule is crazy in its own way too, there's no time constraint, you have to win it by 2 in a row or keep going until you do, so it swings from both players needing 2, to one player needing just 1 & the other needing 3 in a row, maybe back the other way to deuce again & so on. 

I agree it's not perfect.  What I don't get is that both teams had 80 minutes to get the required points and came up short.  Why should they get special treatment.  
I also don't like the duration of a game relating to a first score rather than a time.

Their idea is that being a draw earns those 2 teams one last throw of the dice to get a win, but it can still finish a draw after extra time. 
Maybe it's supposed to be exciting for spectators or whatever. 
You could also argue that a close winning result after the regular 80mins could deserve extra time as well, especially if a 50/50 ref call determined that scoreline, but there's nothing we can do about it but add it to the list of frustrations & flaws. There's no shortage of those with the comp in its current state.

My suggestion is make a win worth 3 points.

Draw at full time, both sides get one point and play for the extra point via "Golden Try".

If no one gets a try, they walk away with a point each.

The problem with golden point as it stands is there is an element of luck in field goals and penalties. Ref tend to stop blowing penalties (even more than normal) and sometimes the game becomes an entertaining shambles or is won by luck, or a bad call from a ref.

For Semis they can play Golden Point after Extra Time and Golden Try, as once it gets to that stage, we need a result some how.

Not a league post, but it's funny :

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-47902968/what-trump-has-said-about-wikileaks

What are you talking about?
ANY game could go to extra time golden point.
There is no privilege. 
Trust me, teams want to win within the 80mins but if they need to do it in the 88th minute, they'll take it.

Dont make it sound like it benefits some team more than others.

It's just a framework. Teams still need to score a point to win.

The only time I see a team disadvantaged in extra time is if all your halves and regular field goal kickers have been ruled out by HIA and cant take the field.

Your only hope then is to score from a try, penalty or hold on for a draw. Unless of course an unknown hero steps up to the mark...

I'm neither here or there with golden point or extra time trying to find a winner.
It was concept brought in to make the product more exciting and sold as something fans wanted. Let me tell you, if your team is involved, the 1 point isn't such a bad result. But for fans of non competing teams, it is in fact more exciting to see them fight it out to scramble a win. 

I wouldn't be upset if it were abolished, but I certainly wouldnt say it gives an advantage....