Lamar Latrell

[Hawkeye]

Hypothetical.Question --- Cooper Cronk played in 3 successive premiership GF's and won has his own 3peat.
If Souffs won the premiership this year ...and I've vomit burped even just writing that ! would Latrell be credited with a 3 peat as part of the vermin team even though he doesnt take part in the final half dozen games ?

[milanja]

Do we count tetavano as a two time premiership winner? and possibly a 3peat this year too.

[Rooster1908]

No he wouldn't

[Thirteen]

Hypothetical.Question --- Cooper Cronk played in 3 successive premiership GF's and won has his own 3peat.
If Souffs won the premiership this year ...and I've vomit burped even just writing that ! would Latrell be credited with a 3 peat as part of the vermin team even though he doesnt take part in the final half dozen games ?

If you are not in the 17 you are not a premiership player.

[Johnny Tobin]

Funny how early in the season we said vermin couldn't win with Lattrel at f/b , now they cant win without him at f/b . Don't wish harm to anyone , hope he recovers and comes back better than ever otherwise its such a waste

I didn't think they could win - with or without him.

[Johnny Tobin]

I wish Latrell all the best in his recovery.

I always have a soft spot for ex Roosters unless they carry on too much.

Saying he wasn't enjoying his footy with us, that he has never enjoyed playing more and thanking Souffs but not mentioning us when he got 100 games up isn't carrying on too much?

Do you want him to take a hit out on Uncle Nick?

[ROC181]

I didn't think they could win - with or without him.

Parra have been doing what Saints have been doing for years...put all the effort early in the season to be April Premiers but by the pointy end fizzled away. They have been pretty shit for a while and it's no surprise that they were smashed by a team that have been better coached than what Arthurs can. So Souffs have been hot for 2 games and now Latrell is their Messiah to win the comp? Souffs would have been back down to earth this next round against the storm with or without Latrell.

[ROC181]

In that situation, why isn’t it classed as tackle restart as the defender has touched the ball? There are plenty of other times where a player accidentally touches the ball and the tackle count restarts, why not when somebody is deliberately playing at the ball?

If it becomes a struggle to strip the ball from a player, it should be 6 again because it's just delaying the play of the ball...Watching past seasons, way past, this stripping of the ball (even 1 on 1) was almost non existent. The only way to get the ball from a player was to hit em hard and hope they cough it up.

[Tommy Smith]

If it becomes a struggle to strip the ball from a player, it should be 6 again because it's just delaying the play of the ball...Watching past seasons, way past, this stripping of the ball (even 1 on 1) was almost non existent. The only way to get the ball from a player was to hit em hard and hope they cough it up.

Josh Hodgson slowed our PTBs down in the GF to a snail's pace by pretending to strip.

When a player is in the act of stripping the ball, the ref gives the defender an extra 3-4 seconds to slow the ball carrier down.

It's ridiculous.

[4 the all in brawl]

Agreed. IMO the nuance is...
- On a personal level I don't want a bloke with small kids who has won 2 premierships with us to be going through a serious injury. It's totally undeserved and I hope the recovery goes well.
- The vermin are a bunch of so and so's... it feels like karma given all the pre-season dramas they caused TBH. Hope they go shyte and we pull their pants down in round 20!

Nailed it Jizz.....

[JAF]

I wish Latrell all the best in his recovery.

I always have a soft spot for ex Roosters unless they carry on too much.

The second paragraph is key here ...

The fact that we were willing to release him to the Vermin speaks volumes.

Fark Latrell and fark Souffs ...

[ism22]

Josh Hodgson slowed our PTBs down in the GF to a snail's pace by pretending to strip.

When a player is in the act of stripping the ball, the ref gives the defender an extra 3-4 seconds to slow the ball carrier down.

It's ridiculous.

What frustrates me is that we'd win by 50+ against them if they weren't given such a generous interpretation of an incidental change of the interpretation of a strip (not even a rule change, just a change to the ref's guidance notes on how to enforce strips!!!)

It's fukking annoying!!! This all happened because back in ~2017 we were up by ~30+ against some flogs (I think the Tigpies?) and an oddity happened for the first and only time in history. A player attempted to do a gang-bang tackle on our ball runner, a complete IDIOT peeled off thinking the tackle was finished, ball runner then busted the tackle (due to shyte tackling) and almost scored. The bloke who had peeled off managed to do a last ditch 1-on-1 strip and then the ref said 'actually no... technically you can't do that because you were part of that failed gang-bang tackle so you can't strip'. We got a penalty and added to their pain by scoring more points.

The media had a whinge that this was an oddity in the rules and somebody said 'I KNOW!!! LET'S CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE BY TELLING OUR REFS THAT ANYBODY CAN STRIP SO LONG AS IT'S 1-ON-1 AT THE TIME OF THE STRIP!!!!'

Since then LITERALLY NOBODY has broken off a group tackle, moved into FB and stripped a player who has busted the tackle. Why? Because it was stupidity that led to this situation in the first place!!!! Literally the only circumstance it'll happen is if somebody strips off before the completion of the tackle and as a result, the ball carrier gets a tackle bust (which is fukking stupid!!!)

In the off-season Bellamy + Sticky had a beer together and were like 'aaaw yeah we are the smartest two footy brains out there... this means you can just keep a hand on the ball the ball the whole way through the tackle, get everybody to peel off once he says 'I have stripped it boys!!' and then dramatise a '1-on-1 strip' that literally never happened (ball was stripped during the tackle already). They went to the boss of the refs at the time, sought a formal confirmation they could do this and since that was approved they've been allowed to do it!

As a lawyer this is a fukking nonsense piece of 'plain English' interpretation. In plugging a non-issue they've informally agreed that a hand on the ball and a shot at stripping the ball after the completion of the tackle is okay! It makes no sense and IMO under the official rules this tactic is still banned (however, refs have been instructed to ignore it). Sooo fukking stupid!!!!!

So how did they fix it? 'I know... let's let refs call 6 again if people slow down the ruck... that'll fix it!!!' Result? A billion ACL injuries in 2020.

How about for once we don't change the rules? Rather, we just enforce them properly, DON'T do deals with Craig Bellamy (tell him refs aren't gonna treat his request for clarification - they'll call the game as they see it) and see how the game naturally evolves when teams get used to the rules rather than trying to learn how to play with rules that are being made up on the go!

[Thirteen]

What frustrates me is that we'd win by 50+ against them if they weren't given such a generous interpretation of an incidental change of the interpretation of a strip (not even a rule change, just a change to the ref's guidance notes on how to enforce strips!!!)

It's fukking annoying!!! This all happened because back in ~2017 we were up by ~30+ against some flogs (I think the Tigpies?) and an oddity happened for the first and only time in history. A player attempted to do a gang-bang tackle on our ball runner, a complete IDIOT peeled off thinking the tackle was finished, ball runner then busted the tackle (due to shyte tackling) and almost scored. The bloke who had peeled off managed to do a last ditch 1-on-1 strip and then the ref said 'actually no... technically you can't do that because you were part of that failed gang-bang tackle so you can't strip'. We got a penalty and added to their pain by scoring more points.

The media had a whinge that this was an oddity in the rules and somebody said 'I KNOW!!! LET'S CLARIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE BY TELLING OUR REFS THAT ANYBODY CAN STRIP SO LONG AS IT'S 1-ON-1 AT THE TIME OF THE STRIP!!!!'

Since then LITERALLY NOBODY has broken off a group tackle, moved into FB and stripped a player who has busted the tackle. Why? Because it was stupidity that led to this situation in the first place!!!! Literally the only circumstance it'll happen is if somebody strips off before the completion of the tackle and as a result, the ball carrier gets a tackle bust (which is fukking stupid!!!)

In the off-season Bellamy + Sticky had a beer together and were like 'aaaw yeah we are the smartest two footy brains out there... this means you can just keep a hand on the ball the ball the whole way through the tackle, get everybody to peel off once he says 'I have stripped it boys!!' and then dramatise a '1-on-1 strip' that literally never happened (ball was stripped during the tackle already). They went to the boss of the refs at the time, sought a formal confirmation they could do this and since that was approved they've been allowed to do it!

As a lawyer this is a fukking nonsense piece of 'plain English' interpretation. In plugging a non-issue they've informally agreed that a hand on the ball and a shot at stripping the ball after the completion of the tackle is okay! It makes no sense and IMO under the official rules this tactic is still banned (however, refs have been instructed to ignore it). Sooo fukking stupid!!!!!

So how did they fix it? 'I know... let's let refs call 6 again if people slow down the ruck... that'll fix it!!!' Result? A billion ACL injuries in 2020.

How about for once we don't change the rules? Rather, we just enforce them properly, DON'T do deals with Craig Bellamy (tell him refs aren't gonna treat his request for clarification - they'll call the game as they see it) and see how the game naturally evolves when teams get used to the rules rather than trying to learn how to play with rules that are being made up on the go!

So much to say but that’s right you’re a lawyer.
Can you please do a bullet point summary for me and keep it to under 1000 words.

[Thirteen]

Josh Hodgson slowed our PTBs down in the GF to a snail's pace by pretending to strip.

When a player is in the act of stripping the ball, the ref gives the defender an extra 3-4 seconds to slow the ball carrier down.

It's ridiculous.

But he was actually trying to strip.

[The Skeez]

So much to say but that’s right you’re a lawyer.
Can you please do a bullet point summary for me and keep it to under 1000 words.

Irony is that as a lawyer, they go through the contract (rules) looking for loopholes and .. voila a variation to the stripping rule.

Coupled with his disdain for anything to do with Canberra. Self loathe