Talk:National Rugby League season 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject on Rugby League The article on National Rugby League season 2006 is supported by the WikiProject on Rugby League, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

At least the Broncos start the season on top of the table. :) --dan, dan and dan 22:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And the Tigers are dead last --Cyclone James 07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Warriors

Have started a seperate section in the article re: Salary Cap. Developing events which may explode a la Dogs 2002. If the matter turns out to be far less serious, I will merge it into the preseason news section. --Cyclone James 15:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with 2006 NRL season?

I wanted to find out, should this article be merged with 2006 NRL season as they seem to pretty much be the same thing just a bit of different info on each page? Lummie 13:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Ive merged the info from that article here, except the ladder because there already is one here -- Astrokey44|talk 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home team

My thinking is that, since the grounds are being linked to already (eg. "Aussie Stadium"), and it is clear on stadium pages which NRL team(s) are tenants of the ground, there is no reason to mark a team as a home team UNLESS:

  • The two teams share the ground (eg. Bulldogs vs Souths at Telstra Stadium)
  • The ground is a neutral one (eg. Panthers vs Storm in Adelaide)
  • The "home" team is taking their "home" game at their opponent's home ground (eg. Dragons vs Roosters at Aussie Stadium)

So, the "home" team for any of these scenarios should be denoted by (H), and an appropriate note below the round.

Might seem superfluous, but worth explaining in detail I thought. Gonzerelli 12:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The home team should have been listed first, rather than the winning team. This saves confusion especially for those not familiar with which team plays out of which ground.
Home team Score Away team Score Ground Crowd Date Report
Wests Tigers 24 St George Illawarra 15 Telstra Stadium 27,865 March 10 NRL.com.au report
Newcastle 25 Parramatta 6 Energy Australia Stadium 26.198 March 11 NRL.com.au report
Bulldogs 22 Penrith 24 Telstra Stadium 17,510 March 11 NRL.com.au report
Manly 14 Canberra 27 Brookvale Oval 17,135 March 11 NRL.com.au report
Warriors 16 Melbourne 22 Ericsson Stadium 10,035 March 12 NRL.com.au report
Brisbane 4 North Queensland 36 Suncorp Stadium 46,229 March 12 NRL.com.au report
South Sydney 22 Sydney Roosters 40 Stadium Australia 16,741 March 12 NRL.com.au report

Mike2680 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that looks so much better than the presently pretty s*** round wrap up. Take a look at the 2006 Super 14 season article for true perfection of a competition wrap. It looks far more pro than this one! Ronan.evans 10:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Ronan - I also did the same format on the Super 14 page - but others were unhappy (probably NZ'ers or Saffers) about linking match reports from rugby.com.au IMO I think linking the match reports is one of the best things about the round wrap-up.. so in that regard, I think the NRL format will be even better, and I don't like how people post the ladder after every single round over there. Mike2680 02:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
ok I think future seasons can be updated using this system, perhaps you would like to volunteer to change rounds 1-8 to the new table? --Astrokey44 11:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey I've also created a new style of presentation. Whilst the text is smaller, it probably looks a little neater and is similar to the tables I've used for National Rugby League and soon for State of Origin.

Home Score Away Match Information
Date and Time Venue Referee Crowd Report
Penrith Panthers 30 - 20 Parramatta Eels 19 May 2006 7:30pm CUA Stadium S. Clark 16764 NRL.com
New Zealand Warriors 34 - 12 Wests Tigers 20 May 2006 7:30pm Ericsson Stadium J. Maxwell 8210 NRL.com
Newcastle Knights 34 - 12 Canberra Raiders 20 May 2006 7:30pm Energy Australia Stadium J. Robinson 18236 NRL.com
Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles 22 - 12 Melbourne Storm 20 May 2006 7:30pm Brookvale Oval G. Badger 9338 NRL.com
Canterbury Bulldogs 32 - 24 Cronulla Sharks 21 May 2006 2:30pm Telstra Stadium T. Archer 12728 NRL.com
Sydney Roosters 28 - 26 South Sydney Rabbitohs 21 May 2006 3:00pm Aussie Stadium S. Hayne 13221 NRL.com
Brisbane Broncos Bye
St George Illawarra Dragons Bye
North Queensland Cowboys Bye

Any comments?

--mdmanser 06:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I like how the teams are opposite their scores and how the byes are in the table. I will add it to the article. Maybe you would like to make one for round 10 as we will be missing a week? By the way why were there 3 byes in one week? --Astrokey44 06:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll gradually update the rest of the weeks as long as everyone's happy with the layout. I just think it'd look more professional if all the NRL pages use a similar format of tables and infoboxes. Twice in the 26 rounds of the NRL do we see 3 byes in a week. This is because of the structure of the competition with everybody getting 2 byes each (30 in all). These two weeks usually occur in the weeks before Origin I and Origin III. --mdmanser 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
sure, but at the moment it would be better to keep it up to date and not worry about the changing the past tables. Maybe it could even be simpler, 2006 AFL season uses a simpler table and theirs is updated fairly regularly --Astrokey44 13:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

I have no problem with matches being added as they are completed. However, I want to ask that the competition ladder not be updated until the end of each round. If the ladder is updated with games left to play, it all gets messy and becomes a headache to edit when the rest of the matches have been completed.

Ta muchly, Gonzerelli 13:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it gets that messy? Most sites including the official NRL site update the tables pretty regularly after each match. I can understand if you don't want to update the table after each match but using another website to see what the standings and stats are and update doesn't seem to complicate things. Lummie 13:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The trouble is, sometimes people edit it immediately, and sometimes they wait until the next day. Makes it messy trying to work out if it is indeed current. Leaving it all until the end of the round solves the inconsistency problem.
That's my point. Besides, when updating the whole table with some teams already updated and not others, it gets confusing when working out who has & hasn't been updated. Also, teams can swing up and down the ladder quite dramatically on a match-by-match basis, but much more smoothly round-by-round.
So I'm sure it's not too much to ask that the table be updated on a round-by-round, not match-by-match basis. I'm hoping noone would have a problem with this?? Gonzerelli 09:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If its a huge problem then I will respect that thinking and leave it alone. One alternative could be to put some small mention next to or near the table that indicates what was the last game played when the table was updated. So for example if the Broncos and Roosters had just played the person who updated the table could just put in the mention that the last game played was Broncos vs Roosters and so it was known when the table was updated. But look seeing as its frustrating I will not update the table until after the round has completed. Lummie 12:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The following comments regarding round 23 seems POV:

Refereeing woes continues in a thrilling Golden Point clash at Campbelltown, marred by referee Steve Clark's incorrect interpretation of the offside rule. Failure to penalise resulted in a late field goal to Canberra, winning them the match.

Sure, Robert Finch later admitted that Clark did err; however I won't call it an "incorrect interpretation". Bill Harrigan suggested that Clark was in error only "if you want to be pedantic"[[1]]. A better wording would be simply "...where a late field-goal by Canberra was disputed because of a controversial not-offside ruling".

[edit] 2006 etc

The article for each year features a large template on the right of the screen. This includes a sport section with a link to Australian Rules Football - this year it links to 2006 AFL season. If AFL is there - I'm a bit suprised to see there is no link NRL? Or is this because Rugby League is a bit more international - maybe between each of the Rugby League projects you could set up a disambiguation page for each year, pointing to each country's major competition pages? --Garrie 01:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Channel 9 games

There is no need to point out which games have been broadcast on Channel 9. This is an article about the Rugby League season, not the broadcasting schedule of Wide World Of Sports. Gonzerelli 12:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with it to be honest - Channel Nine has become an integral part of the game and those learning about the game might want to note which game(s) are televised on free-to-air television in Australia. Why should they have to trawl through pages of wikipedia simply because you "don't think it's appropriate?" Especially now that I have bothered to place the draw in advance on the page, this is a valuable resource. Each to their own though I suppose Timmah86 06:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not denying its value. But Wikipedia is not really the place for it. National Rugby League details Channel 9's involvement in broadcasting the games. As I said above, this article is about the games on the field, not broadcasting patterns. The efforts on the field deserve the recognition in this article without being shadowed by broadcast details.
Point not taken sorry... I think if anything it enhances the recognition of the on-field success, as more often than not the form teams are granted spots on Channel Nine's selected games. Either way, I can't see how a tiny notice with the words on 9 at the end of a line overshadow the onfield performance, I don't believe they harm them. Timmah86 11:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note on the ladder

As it maybe have been noticed, I have inserted pink background into those teams who can no longer make the 2006 Final Series. At the completion of the 26 competition rounds, this will be reverted, with the green simply indicating the qualifying top eight teams. I'm basically using the pink as an "on the move" indicator for the next two weeks before the finals. I will endeavour to keep the final series based on the same format as 2005's page. Over the coming weeks I will also add pointscorer and tryscorer feats. Timmah86 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the ladder - as a matter of consistency with every season at the least. Also, it is important to indicate which position each side is. Timmah86 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
For consistency, I put that ladder in. You may not have noticed, but I'm currently in the process of doing every season since 1908 and this I think is the best way of doing it. The numbers are basically trivial - the top 8 is clearly in green for everyone to see, and this is practically the critical point of such a system. Discussions will be done in the future to decide on minor changes like this, but for the time being, let it be. (Apologies for my edit summary, I naturally assumed such a revert was done without an explanation here). --mdmanser 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No worries mate, just was looking back at 2005 only. If that's going to be the standardised format I'm all for it. As long as for the remaining rounds you're happy to keep the non-qualifying teams in red until the top eight is final, that's fine. Although not sure what "put 30-0 back in" meant... did someone delete the result? Timmah86 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I accidentally reverted 2 edits back, and only realised that I'd actually reverted something else though, so I put that back in. Also, I'm not saying we'll get rid of the ladder numbering positions - this could and will be discussed over time. My only concern is consistency at the moment, and I think that is what our priority should be. The earlier seasons did not require numbers because there were only eight teams and it was easy to see where each team came on the ladder. I do, however, find the compressed ladder a little better on the eye. --mdmanser 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weekly results

I'm not too sure what the point having every single result listed out is. It'd be a lot better in my opinion if we moved results to a subpage, and just kept the season news and finals text on this page. Apart from taking a lot less time to load, it'll be much more to the point as well as providing a quick reference for what users around the world actually want to see. I highly doubt anybody will need quick referencing to a specific result. Also, I'm also requesting whether anyone has the knowledge required to create a bracket of the McIntyre finals system for this page, similar to what they have at FIFA World Cup 2006. It not only looks good but it also illustrates quite effectively how the finals system works. I've tried doing it myself in the past with absolutely no luck at all. --mdmanser 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by some of the previous discussions regarding "results tables", it seems most members are happy with them being there, they just wanted a standardised version that's clear and concise. They quoted 2006 Super 14 season as a good illustration, and I agree.
As for the bracket, the nature of the McIntyre system makes it difficult. Specifically, there is no direct correspondance between first-round outcomes to the subsequent games, unlike the FIFA World Cup. A bracket from week 2 onwards is entirely possible, and should be encouraged.--Alexio 08:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Technically speaking it would be possible to create such a bracket with a number of optional values that could change the direction of the black lines accordingly. However, standardisation is probably the most important thing of all, so it wouldn't really work after all. Right now I'm just thinking of a similar bracket that is currently used, however, there are 4-2-2-1 games played respectively over the weeks. Lines should only be drawn between weeks 2, 3 and 4. I think a link to the McIntyre System page would be appropriate to help out people who are not entirely sure how it works. --mdmanser 11:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhhh... colours?

I'm cool with the colours, good idea. I believe the Telstra Premiership logo should get a run but ok.... my biggest concern is the colours. Penrith ditched the brown a very long time ago, now using black, rust red and teal green. Can this be fixed? Timmah86 11:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it sure can. I only added the colours for some representation of the team in the absence of a logo. They're given a run in the AFL userboxes at the moment so I figured I could create some more for the NRL. I'll take requests for different team colour schemes over the months if you feel they're necessary. Perhaps the ones I've added in the tables should be sized down a bit too in order for the cell heights to be unaffected? What are your thoughts? --mdmanser 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel their size is a problem, and between the 15 / soon to be 16 teams the colours have been set out so as not to clash as far as possible, which is good.
The only exception to this, as has been mentioned, is Penrith. If you look closely at their "black" jerseys, you'll see the colour is a little on the chocolate side, whilst still clearly black. So perhaps, the brown could be darkened further, and the white replaced with rust (top corner) and teal (above-left of centre).
This may not be the most convenient place to bring it up, but while the discussion is happening, it seems an opportune time. Gonzerelli 17:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok I'll make that then. Perhaps this discussion should be brought up elsewhere on the site, perhaps on the Wikiproject talk? Also, do all of you think we need a column for reports? The NRL deletes their site anyway every year so the links won't work in the future anyway. It would also allow us to add consistency in row heights with other cells not running over two lines, such as Energy Australia Stadium. --mdmanser 02:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably a bit narky, but as a Bulldogs supporter I can assure you 100% in terms of the football club we are just 'Bulldogs' - I realise this might take a little longer, but Wiki is supposed to be factual and there is no team known as the Bulldogs anymore.Timmah86 03:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I understand the use of white on Melbourne and Brisbane's colour box thingies, however, I don't truly believe white to be representative of what their team colours are, even though it's part of the away jersey. No one would EVER consider Souths to have black along with red and green, yet they do in their away jersey. Just my thoughts, just suggesting that the guy who made the pics might want to take up my idea. Nintenmo 11:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand whre you're coming from, but in all honesty, I truly believe that white was part of the original Melbourne jersey in 1998 just as much as the yellow was. When you look at the foundation teams their colours were quite simple because design wasn't as important as it is now. I think this trend follows through most of the century until the late 1980s where new teams came in. Brisbane had white as a main colour in 1988 as well, and many teams in the 1990s just went overboard and started using four colours. The pictures you see on this page represent the "foundation" colours of each team. It's a very subjective matter this one and I figured there'd be argument sometime, but you have to remember we simply can't have 50 different colour schemes for each team. I believe that unless there is a dramatic change in franchise (i.e. Auckland to New Zealand, Gold Coast Seagulls to Chargers) we should keep one set of colours. Just my thoughts. --mdmanser 11:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, no worries, I just thought the colours were for their 'now colours'. Good stuff in putting them up anyway.Nintenmo 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll refrain from pointing out the error above ;) But, like my edits with St George Illawarra, if you see it, rather than simply get annoyed at it, change it. While this isn't the best place to discuss this in particular (this is the "random section" anyway :-p ), there would be huge limitations preventing the Canterbury Bulldogs page from being put on a "Bulldogs" page instead, and so people would automatically see the Canterbury there, and assume it to be correct, through no fault of anyone.

Anyway... I agree, the NRL.com report column is completely superfluous, as all statistics can already be accessed through another site already linked at the bottom of the article (which, in my opinion, is far more reliable anyway...)

Gonzerelli 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finals Match Reports

I added this recently to the finals section but it was later removed:

“ In a fiery game, Newcastle and Manly kicked off the 2006 Finals Series with a closely-contested match on September 8, 2006 at EnergyAustralia Stadium. In a spiteful match, former Newcastle player Ben Kennedy lead the Manly forward pack throughout the entire match and helped Manly get off to lead at half-time 12-0. However, star Newcastle player Andrew Johns lead the fightback in the second half to come back from a 18-6 deficit to square the game 18-18 with only minutes to play. Newcastle interchange player Jarrod Mullen plotted a field goal in the dying stages of the match to give Newcastle the lead for the first time in the match, but things ended up seeming far from over. Manly then received two successive penalties to advance them to just 30m out of the Newcastle line, following a Danny Buderus spear tackle on a Manly attacker moments earlier which led to Ben Kennedy being sin binned for instigating some unrest following the incident. Consequently, Manly had a chance to win the game with a minute to play but Matt Orford missed a tough kick from the sideline, with Jarrod Mullen collecting the ball and running over 100 metres to end up inches short of the tryline. Newcastle winger Brian Carney managed to cross the line moments later with just seconds on the clock to consolidate a well-earned 25-18 victory in what will go down as a most memorable match. ”

I can somewhat understand why it was removed, but don't you think that we should be providing at least some sort of commentary on the season as well as a heap of tables? It's one thing for readers to come across and analyse a stack of numbers but it's all pretty shallow if they have little idea of what actually happened on the field as well. We have a number of options for the direction of this page:

Personally I'm more of a fan of a mix between the last two. I truly believe a written article is far more interesting and effective than what the AFL page has. It may be a little too late to resurrect this page to featured status given that over half a year has passed without any critical commentary on the page, but perhaps this is how we should do next year's season page. Results tables could still be included for the finals, but personally I believe the normal rounds should be moved to a separate page. Wikipedia also strongly discourages having a long list of contents (we have Rounds 1-26). How does everybody think about the above summary I did and what direction should we go to for this page? --mdmanser 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We have provided some form of commentary about the major events of the season in this article. However, to keep it all relevant, we have not spoken for too long on each topic, giving the basic facts as to what happened. My initial reaction to the above quote is that it is wayyy too long. Not saying it was poor quality, but its length wasn't what (I feel) would be appropriate for this article.
As for the format of the article itself, I think we need to keep the results from the regular season here. What are we gunna do, have separate articles for each of the rounds? Or have one article for the regular season, and a completely separate one covering just nine matches? I personally don't see the point - as long as we don't waffle on, we can have match details (scores, grounds, crowds), and a few sentences for each round, without making the article too long. We're already separate from Rugby league in 2006.
Just having my say, Gonzerelli 05:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television ratings

I would like to see the rating for the grand final, particularly in Melbourne.

[edit] Ladder

The ladder has an error: after giving each team 2 points for a win, all but the Warriors had an extra 4 points. Was it that instead of taking 4 from the Warriors, the NRL gave 4 points to each of the other teams?

- Actually, each team receives two points whenever they have the bye during the season. Each team has two byes, therefore they receive an extra four points.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENational_Rugby_League_season_2006_ca52.html"