Talk:National Rugby League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Flag National Rugby League is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.
WikiProject Australia To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Rugby league, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rugby league on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

It looks to me that this page should be split into 2 seperate pages NRL_competion, and NRL. With the former being about the comp and the later the organization itself. Any objections? Steven jones 04:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] News Corp Template

As the NRL is only half owned by News Corp, is it appropriate to consider it a News Corp asset (as per the template that has been added)? It is equally an ARL asset.--dan, dan and dan 07:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the template to read National Rugby League (50%). Thanks for pointing that out. Kurieeto 13:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teams

I have made a couple of small changes to this list.

  1. I have taken the asterisk away from Souths that says "exiled..." etc. Partly because it could be a NPOV issue, but mostly because Souths status is dealt with in the history section. The teams list is just a list, not a place for explanations of when they were in the comp or not, otherwise you would also have Manly being exiled.
  2. I have put the Gold Coast under the heading "To be admitted" changing it from "readmitted". The Titans are a different team to the Seagulls/Giants/Chargers. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they are from the Gold Coast. Saying they are the same team is like saying that the Roosters and the Rabbitohs are the same team because they both come from Sydney.--dan, dan and dan 21:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

I have updated the defunct teams to have them in a table like the others, but I think it looks a bit messy. I like the look of the teams table on Queensland Cup (rugby league competition) which appears a bit neater. Does anybody else have some thoughts on this?--dan, dan and dan 06:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think consistency is the key - so long as we keep things consistent within this one page, we're doing well. It *does* look a little uneven with seven teams, but if you add Gold Coast Chargers it will balance things back out.

I'm searching for an Illawarra Steleers logo of appropriate quality (the logo currently on the page is the Leagues Club's logo, and the logos I'm coming across are the 1982-1996 logo - the 1997-1998 logo is the one used in the NRL, and still used in junior comps)

Please note that I've added notes to the teams reflecting joint ventures, since St George, Illawarra, Balmain and the Magpies did not go defunct, rather they combined their forces in joint ventures. As such, the history of these clubs has not gone unbroken. Rather than renaming the section to a "more politically correct term", I found it much more explanatory to make brief italicised notes as I have.

Gonzerelli 22:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistically, they are defunct. Nothing will be added to Balmain's or Wests' records in the current make up of the comp. (This in no way tarnishes Balmain and Wests fans from celebrating a title, I might add). You've argued that this is the same as the merging of the comps, which is a valid thought, but in reality it's went the other way and the previous history has been retained. Which makes the Past Winners table a bit misleading, Brisbane have 5 Premierships not 2, qualifying them into comps isn't really done. --Paul 05:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey everyone. It's interesting to see the comments on the changes I made to the list of teams. The reason why I didn't use the table like the one that was on that Queensland Cup competition (similar to the AFL one I think) is that it takes up a lot of room down the page. If all of you don't like the uneven look from the section of the 7 defunct teams, I can change it to show 4 teams on the top row and 3 in the spaces on the row below to make it more symmetrical. Gonzerelli, if you're looking for Rugby League logos I suggest you go to http://nrl.galahs.com.au/2005/index.html . Hopefully what you're after is there somewhere. Cheers, mdmanser 08:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC) -- Thanks, I've updated the Steelers' logo to the appropriate one. Gonzerelli 09:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season Summaries

Hello there.

I have added a season summary for the 2005 season and am currently working on 2001. Will add more as time allows. I have tried to be consistent with the 2002 NRL season template that is already in place, although I have added a table for the Dally-M medal in the season summary. Cheers --Cyclone James 23:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. They look great at the moment, although I'll change some of the team logos to the ones that were used in that season. Perhaps you'd also consider joining WikiProject Rugby league? --mdmanser 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
No problems. Consider it done. --Cyclone James 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaches

Any objections to listing the coach along with the team in the premiership table? I have already done so in 2001, 2002 and 2005. Where coaches have been replaced mid-season, I have split their win-loss record with their successor (e.g. Anderson/Murray in Melbourne 2001, Sheens/Hurst at Cowboys 2001) to the best of my knowledge. --Cyclone James 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of including coaches into the season summary, but not in the "competition ladder" as such. I think that should be reserved for the ladder itself (I missed out including points for and against in the ladder - that could be a later task). Instead, shouldn't we have a separate table for captains, coaches, biggest win, biggest loss, biggest winning streak etc. for each team? Just a thought. --mdmanser 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. I have changed the 2001, 2002 and 2005 tables back to their previous form. --Cyclone James 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Have added the premiership winning captain and coach, and grand finalists' captain and coach, into the information bar for each season. Decided against putting a little * next to Andrew Ryan for 2004 because, although Steve Price was The Leader of the dogs, he certainly didn't play in the GF. --Cyclone James 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finals in same page as season

Hello again!

Would there be any objections to attaching a short summary of the finals series underneath the competition table in each season? It wouldn't be as comprehensive as the wiki pages already constructed over the 2005 NRL finals series etc, but would still set it out in an easy-to-view table. Here is an example. Obviously some tweaking with formatting will be required. --Cyclone James 02:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Winner Loser Referee Venue Crowd
QF Canterbury 12 Roosters 8 S.Hampstead SFS 23 478
QF St George Illawarra Dragons 34 Melbourne 10 B.Harrigan Olympic Park 15 653
QF Parramatta 30 Newcastle 16 S.Clark Parramatta 22 053
QF Cronulla 42 Brisbane 20 T.Mander Shark Park 13 713
SF St George Illawarra Dragons 28 Roosters 18 B.Harrigan SFS 31 056
SF Melbourne 24 Canterbury 22 S.Clark SFS 20 075
PF Melbourne 18 Parramatta 16 B.Harrigan SFS 27 555
PF St George Illawarra Dragons 24 Cronulla 8 S.Clark Stadium Australia 51 827
GF Melbourne 20 St George Illawarra Dragons 18 B.Harrigan Stadium Australia 107 999
Love your ideas so far. Absoutely, no problem at all. A summary of results is good, and as you said, match reports and scorers could be included in the finals series section instead. --mdmanser 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you really have to choose that finals series as an example though? :-P AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 09:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why finals page can't be shifted to the season page in toto? --Paul 10:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a Dragons supporter, are you, Albino? lol --Cyclone James 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Grrrr AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be better off if we had columns for the home and away teams, rather than the winner? Anyone can see who the winner is from the scoreline but only league supporters could tell who the home team is by the stadium it was played at. Suggestions?
No problems, although what would happen in Weeks 2-3-4, when there is no official 'home team' as such? Higher ranked team on the right, lower ranked team on the left? Alphabetical order? --Cyclone James 06:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

A few soccer fundamentalists are hijacking the term football in Australian articles. See, for example, [[Category:Football_in_Australia]]. We need concerted action to stop this. Grant65 | Talk 10:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh how I loathe those sokkah fundamentalists! AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, how about we don't respond to your little call to arms here, Grant. The issue is ridiculous enough as it is without people running off to round up a posse. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Like it or not, "Football" is the official name of the sport we call soccer to over half the world's population. I would assume this comes under a set of similarly formatted pages (eg. "Football in Brazil", "Football in Argentina", "Football in Czechoslovakia"... You get the picture). So long as they don't go around calling themselves Rugby League, we'll be right.
Besides which, Rugby League has always been referred to as "one of the four codes of football played in Australia" - League, Union, AFL & Soccer. I wouldn't call it a hijack by any means, especially since it is us who have adopted the "foreign" title of the sport!!! Gonzerelli 06:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
League, Union, AFL & Soccer That's right, it's not League, Union, Aussie rules & football. (and Grant can fill you in on the history of word football, if you think it belongs to soccer). Anyway, I don't think anyone is arguing that the world doesn't generally call it football, but more so the use of the word football in an Australian context. But I've said too much, wouldn't want start it all again here. --Paul 06:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Much better

I'm from Melbourne, but I love learning about other sports too. It was really hard to get any information from this page, but now it's much easier to understand the long history of the league and clubs. Only thing is that some of the teams individual pages could use some extension especially their older history. Other than that, well done.

[edit] NRL in the Media

To be honest, this section seems to be very superfluous, not to mention how messy it appears.

I think it's obvious that the NRL will be reported upon regularly in the media (particularly news programs & publications), since it is one of the premier sporting competitions in the country (alongside AFL).

Perhaps this section could be better written outlining:

  • TV: Channel 9 has the free-to-air broadcasting rights for matches, with Foxtel also broadcasting every match
  • Radio: 2GB, along with ABC Radio (and affiliates of both), are the only radio stations to provide commentary of matches.

To me, this covers all relevant information. Thoughts? Gonzerelli 09:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great..

See what they did to the Aussie rules page? Now we can't use those images as decoration and you'll just have the words written there where the teams are. It's something to do with fair use. It's gonna stuff the whole page up.

Sorry mate, not quite sure where you're going with this... Care to elaborate? Gonzerelli 12:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I think he/she means that the club logos will have to be removed from the tables on this page due to fair use. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we're breaching the conditions of fair use... However, if it happens, it happens. We can keep the tables, and individual club pages (which we already link to) will still allow the logos to be shown. Gonzerelli 13:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are either and neither should you. It would stuff up this page like it stuffed up the AFL page.

This ludicrous injustice has just come to my attention. In my opinion, the logos are not used in a decorative manner at all, but as the Fair Use guidelines state, should be used "for identification". Now of course, everyone has their own opinion, but if something does come from this issue then we can fight it all the way. --mdmanser 12:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The other thing is, most of those logos that are in the tables now are past logos, and may not fall under copyright anymore. Wouldn't that make them exempt from the tag? --mdmanser 14:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can prove that they're out of copyright, then yes, but I find it unlikely that their copyright has expired. See the discussion at talk:Australian Football League. Who are you "fighting"? Are we building a free content encyclopedia or what? They're simply not free. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Australian copyright law common to all types of images alike, including logos? If that is the case then you'll find that most of the logos I've put on those lists are now free. Look, I'm no lawyer, but the last time I checked, anything more than 50 years old is deemed to be released. --mdmanser 10:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same lists? At National_Rugby_League#Teams I see a mass of very modern logos that are definitely under copyright. At National_Rugby_League#1908:_The_beginning_of_the_NSWRL_Premiership are some older ones, which might have copyright expired now, but I would check that very carefully. Then after that two more sections where some are definitely copyrighted. So if you spend hours researching the copyright status of the old logos, and you end up with a hodge-podge of random-logo-here and no-logo-there, don't you think it will make the article look rather strange? (BTW since signing the FTA with the US, anything still in copyright as of 2005 had another 20 years life added to it - so it's 70 years now.) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly... WHO CARES??? If this were really a legal issue, then a Wikipedia moderator would have addressed it by now. Take a look at the individual image pages - I'm sure you'll find that it outlines there the terms of fair use, and taht we're following that model closely. Gonzerelli 20:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are these "Wikipedia moderators" that you think are going to come out of the woodwork to stop us from breaching copyright? This is a collaborative community project, and WE are the moderators. It is OUR responsibility to do the right thing, legally and morally. WHO CARES??? - We do. Or at least we should.
In reply to Mdmanser's questions, Wikipedia is hosted in the US, and so is under US law. Fair use is a US concept. Personally I doubt whether any of the logos have remained unchanged for so long that the artist has been dead fifty two years, but if you are right in saying that some of the logos are no longer under copyright, then great - we can use those ones. But the rest cannot legally be used except under fair use provisions. I have copied below what I said on the AFL talk page. I stand by it here too. Snottygobble 11:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see the logos there too, but they are copyrighted material and using them in this way is absolutely not fair use. The key to fair use with images is the text needs to directly refer to the subject of the image. If we take the West Coast Eagles logo as an example, it is fair use only when the subject under discussion is the West Coast Eagles logo, and your sole purpose in displaying the image is to show what the logo looks like. It is not fair use if the image is used to indirectly signify the West Coast Eagles club, or to show what an eagle looks like, or for any other purpose not directly related to the logo per se. For example, you can fairly use the West Coast Eagles logo in article West Coast Eagles, because that article is an appropriate place to discuss and illustrate the club's logo, and the purpose of displaying the logo is to show what the logo looks like. If you knew who designed the West Coast Eagles logo, you could fairly use the logo in an article about the designer, as an illustration of their work, again because the subject under discussion is the logo itself, and your purpose in displaying the logo is to show what the logo looks like. You could even make a fair use case for using it in article Eagle, not to illustrate an eagle but to illustrate a cultural reference to eagles in sports marketing, because the subject under discussion is the logo itself and the purpose of displaying it is to display the logo itself. But in this article, the proposed use of the logos is not to show what the logo looks like. The purpose is to provide an attractive visual cue that signifies the West Coast Eagles. The logo is not a subject of discussion in the article. Therefore not fair use. Snottygobble 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's NOT decoration. It is providing educational insight into clubs old logos and their present revisions. Simple as that. Revert the edits! Ronan.evans 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the Australian Football League page? Maybe you could do something like that. It's better than nothing.

[edit] Feautured Article

The page is looking pretty good these days. I'm thinking of pushing this towards Feature Article status pretty soon. A few things that may be better for this page though could be:

  • A longer introduction (which is essential).
  • A few free pictures (preferably taken by someone) of either of NRL events (season launches, presentations etc.), of the NRL trophy or of matches.
  • Perhaps adding some more information about the history. I was thinking of adding the "That's My Team" campaign in somewhere here.

If anyone could help out with any of these things or even something else that'd be fantastic. I'll do my best to make it even better too.

Well we cant go featured now cause it looks crap since the logos were removed! Ronan.evans 00:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Cheers all, --mdmanser 12:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also there needs to be some info about the salary cap. There are a couple of paragraphs in the article salary cap, but nothing here on how it works/exemptions/criticisms/Bulldogs/Warriors etc. I think its essential as its obviously played a big part in evening up the comp over the last 3-4 seasons. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering, why do we NEED the logos? Cricket has not a single logo in sight yet it became featured. I think the key is to keep it simple, "un-become" a rugby league supporter when you write, ie. take the perspective of someone who's never seen rugby league before. There's no point researching legal precedents on logo use and fishing for free-use logos, might as well keep the article clean and clatter-free - I think that's far more conducive towards the article being featured.--Alexio 12:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go NRL!

A new fan from Victoria here. I went to my first NRL match last night, Roosters Vs Storm. One of the best nights of my life. I'm hooked on Rugby now. I'll do whatever it takes to help Rugby in Victoria--sliat_1981

Good to hear. Hope you've got tickets to the Origin down there! AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 02:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Going to ring right up now! Rugby Rules!--sliat_1981

Excellent to hear at least some penetration is being made down south of the border... A little hint though. I don't know how the game's promoted down there, but "Rugby" tends to refer to Rugby Union, League's older but poorer cousin ;) So my reccomendation is to call the sport either Rugby League, or League for short. Regards, Gonzerelli 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Great to hear you enjoyed the game. Shame the Storm had to win though :P . --mdmanser 04:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Not really, I probably wouldn't have been this enthused if Sydney had won. There is certainly room league for it in Melbourne. The more Storm wins, the better it will be for league. And Gonzerelli, I will use the word league, but being this page is about the NRL, it's safe to call it rugby and know what I'm talking about. I've added to friday night football page that it is shown in Victora as well as Northern Territory (at a ridiculous time). Hopefully when 9 looses the rights for footy next year, we'll see more NRL on tv down here.sliat_1981

I got tickets to the state of origin. I don't kow if you've been there, but Telstra Dome is a great venue to watch sport. I'll be oficially neutral as I have nothing against NSW or QLND. sliat_1981

[edit] Membership and supported clubs

Can we have a little on the information of the amount of members each club averages? Being from Melbourne, it's hard to know what the most and least supported clubs are. sliat_1981

Official sources for this are hard to come by, and I'm sure if an attempt were made to find these figures then some clubs would fudge the figures...
Having said that, it is generally accepted that Brisbane Broncos have the most supporters, since there is only one team in a city of over 1½ milion people (Closer 2mill? I don't know any more), and Queensland is a state that loves its League.
The St George Illawarra Dragons by all accounts are the most supported club from New South Wales, in terms of both membership numbers, and surveys which have been run.
Now, having said that, actual paid memberships to NRL clubs is much less than to AFL clubs. As an example, St George Illawarra (mentioned above as the second highest supported club) broke the 8000 member mark last year, while I hear that this is even less than the AFL clubs with smallest memberships. I don't know what to make of that, to be honest :P
More accurate than membership statistics could be average crowds, both home and away. Using the example of the two teams already mentioned, Brisbane draws big crowds at home, but when playing away games the crowds are much lower. St George Illawarra attract great away crowds (games in Brisbane involving St George Illawarra attract higher crowds than others), and their home crowds are fair (2006 has seen some horrible weather come the Dragons' way ;) ). On the other end of the scale, South Sydney Rabbitohs and Melbourne Storm struggle to attract crowds over 10,000, whether home or away.
Long-winded I know, but I hope this helps. Gonzerelli 06:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That does help. You'd think there'd be a site for it. Sad about Melbourne though. They may not have that much, but there supporters are very passionate, believe me. Why are Rabbitoh based in Telstra Stadium if there membership is so low? Are Sydney Roosters and Bulldogs big? sliat_1981

To be honest, the move to Telstra Stadium confused me too - South Sydney Rabbitohs have always prided themselves on their tradition, yet Telstra Stadium is a fair way west of their traditional areas. I believe they got a good deal (in terms of finances) to move to Telstra Stadium permanently. But Telstra's a huge ground - any less than 60,000 people and the ground seems empty - Wests Tigers and Canterbury Bulldogs are both permanent residents there, and draw crowds two to three times as big as Souths, but the atmosphere is dead... But that's another discussion for another time.
There's nothing significant as far as I know about the Roosters' or Bulldogs' membership/support (except of course the violent reputation of Canterbury's fans. Realistically, to my knowledge, all clubs have roughly equal support, except:
Gonzerelli 09:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian football

I've added the NRL to 'Australian Football Competitions' catergory. If those soccer fantatics think that that 'football' catergories is only going to be reserved for soccer from now on, they've got another think coming. I urge people to keep an eye on it and make sure they don't remove them. – —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs).

Erm Australian Football League and Barassi International Australian Football Youth Tournament have both been in that category for some time, I don't see how it is "reserved" for association football articles. And in any case, one of its subcategories is Category:Australian rugby league competitions – where this article is already listed. By Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines (point 3), an article should not be in a category and its subcategory. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
However, I see your side of it, so I've re-categorized all of this so the soccer is separate to the league, union, etc:
This should solve the problem, and in my opinion makes more sense than having the football codes all mixed up in the same category. Let me know if there's an issue with this. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like what you've done there. Could you do the same to the category Football venues in Australia? sliat_1981

I'll have a go, it will take a bit more time because obviously some stadiums (Aussie Std for example) are used for more than one code. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I got no problems with stadiums being listed as both soccer and footbal stadiums if soccer is usually played there too. sliat_1981

Since it only contained soccer venues (I was expecting it to contain venues from all codes), I've listed it at categories for renaming. All four codes have categories in Category:Sports venues in Australia, there is not much point IMO in splitting this further to "Football", then league, union, soccer, afl as I did with the competitions category. Put your vote in so it can get done quickly... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How do we vote? sliat_1981

Just go here and add a "Rename" vote to the end of the list. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the link there no longer therw and why does it remain the same? --Sliat 1981 09:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's here now, just got moved because it's been up for a certain amount of days. Don't worry it will be changed in the next few days. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I new problem. To widen the pages they appear on, I have added the clubs to the sport in sydney, sport in new south wales, sport in queensland etc categories. Problem is chuq keeps on reverting them back. I think he only wants soccer to feature in those categories. He's really getting on my nerves. These clubs have as much right to be there as the soccer clubs. --Sliat 1981 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate players

I have noticed on the NSW and QLD pages for Australian rules football for those states, they also point out notable players from there in the AFL. Surley if so many from those states have played in the AFL, there must be a few VIC, WA, and SA players that have played in the NRL. I'd like to see and notable players listed on their rugby league stae competition pages. --Sliat 1981 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fact is there aren't that many notable rugby league players coming from outside NSW and Qld. To date, Matthew Petersen (Parramatta/Cowboys winger) is the only WA home-grown player to make the NRL. Jon Grieve (Manly/Western Reds) was supposedly raised in Perth, but he only began playing league whilst in NSW. If anyone else has further info, please share.--Alexio 12:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Daniel Holdsworth, who played for St George Illawarra and is now with Canterbury, I believe came from WA. I also vaguely remember someone saying something about current Dragon Danny Wicks being from WA, but I'm not sure. But Ashli's right, apart from NSW and Qld, the other Aussie states bring up AFL players not Rugby League players of any note. Gonzerelli 14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
rl1908.com[[1]] has an outstanding section on WA rugby league, confirming that Holdsworth and Petersen as the only WA-players to reach NRL (in additions to Grieve and one Russell Addison who was with Souths in 1960/61). As for Victoria, Fagan declared that Melbourne-based players are still "decades away". Adelaide prop Nathan Vagg played for Cronulla in 2003[[2]]. That, unfortunately, is about it.--Alexio 08:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Darren Waters, who played for the Raiders in the 80's was from WA, I think, but probably in the learned the game elsewhere category.

[edit] Contradiction

I tagged the article with this tag because the discussion on how the fixture is prepared contradicted itself. First, the article makes this statement:

Teams who finish the regualar season in 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th and 16th will make up Pool A, while teams who finish 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 14th and 15th will make up Pool B.

but then the article says:

Teams that are locked together in Pool A are:
  • Team 1 and Team 4
  • Team 5 and Team 8
  • Team 9 and Team 12
  • Team 13 and Team 16

If team 4 is in Pool B, it cannot be locked with a team in pool A. Furthermore, the pools are of different sizes.

I think the error lies with the incorrect assignment of team 4 to pool B. If team 4 was transferred to pool A, then the article would be consistent. The pools would also be even in strength. However, I know little about the details of NRL fixturing so I cannot be sure that such an edit would be correct. Therefore, rather than simply make a correction that may be factually incorrect, I chose to tag the article so someone with more knowledge in this area can make the correction. Primum non nocere. --B.d.mills 04:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is correct, Team 4 is in Pool A.
However, I have to point out that this is for the 2007 NRL season. While it is all we currently know of the 2007 draw, its worth within the article at this stage could be called into question.
Gonzerelli 13:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a few sources [3], [4] explaining the draw, although nothing on the NRL site so far as I can see. So if it's actually going to be in the article, may as well be as described there.

[edit] Interstate teams grand final

Although most of you probably hate it (we've had it for 3 years running in the AFL) it's the best thing for Rugby League in Melbourne. No Victorian teams in the ALF this year and a Melbourne team in the NRL. For the first time in histroy I am looking forward to the NRL grand final and I'm not the only one.

[edit] Continuation of merged teams

By the very nature of the joint ventures between StGeorge/Steelers and Wests/Balmain, the four "original" clubs did not at any stage cease to exist. As these mergers were brought about directly by the NRL, I would say it is more than relevant to say that these four clubs continued.

(The only exception is Northern Eagles, which eventually dissolved to just Manly, but North Sydney did continue for three further seasons as Northern Eagles...)

I initially added these notes, however it was someone else who re-added them (I simply corrected this re-addition).

I have not reverted the removal of these comments, rather I was hoping to get the opinion of other users. Gonzerelli 11:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NRL Under 20's national comp

I want to add a page for the new under 20's comp that the NRL is bringing in around 2008 but I'm not sure what I should name it. Any ideas? Bongomanrae 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a stub sized article to start off with at National youth competition. Bongomanrae 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENational_Rugby_League_4c1c.html"