Michael Howell has been charged with a Grade 2 Striking charge for his
effort against Casey McGuire on Friday night. He'll only be out for a week.
Bad news for the Bulldogs with Corey Hughes charged with a Grade 1 Dangerous
Throw. That will see 5 players unavailable for Friday nights match against
the Broncos. The Broncos will be without 10 players but I don't think it
will be as one sided as some people predict.
Full list of other charges at http://www.nrl.com/thegame/judiciary.cfm
paul <paulw@no-spam> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:06:18 +1000, Deb S <debs@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:35:12 +1000, "Mick"
>> <mksharp.nospam@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Howell has been charged with a Grade 2 Striking charge for
>>> his effort against Casey McGuire on Friday night. He'll only be
>>> out for a week.
>>>
>>> Bad news for the Bulldogs with Corey Hughes charged with a Grade 1
>>> Dangerous Throw. That will see 5 players unavailable for Friday
>>> nights match against the Broncos. The Broncos will be without 10
>>> players but I don't think it will be as one sided as some people
>>> predict.
>
>>
>> Don't know who those people are. It could be one-sided sure. The
>> catch
>> is, one-sided which way?
>>
>> Nothing would surprise me.
>>
>> DebS
>
> This is called not counting on a victory until it happens, especially
> one that is fully expected. A wise strategy indeed.
>
> However, as a supporter of a team other than the Dogs, who have quite
> an interest in Brisbane's reserve grade losing this one by plenty, I
> am not constrained in the same way.
>
> GO THE DOGS. Dogs by 50.
>
> I have a further interest in the Dogs winning by a cricket score as
> well. Bennett's persistence with picking his Broncos (and as has been
> pointed out, players from teams coached by his mates) for SoO despite
> their repeated failures needs to be rammed where the sun don't shine,
> and what better way than by the mother of all hidings for the Broncos.
Doggies to have their noses rubbed in their own doggie doo-doo.
Broncos to gallop home against all odds.
Sam
"Deb S" <debs@no-spam> wrote in message
news:qdmmgvg29uhgg8ne3kpuip6jcht0naf8nd@no-spam
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:20:39 GMT, paulw@no-spam (paul)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:06:18 +1000, Deb S <debs@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:35:12 +1000, "Mick"
> >><mksharp.nospam@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Michael Howell has been charged with a Grade 2 Striking charge for his
> >>>effort against Casey McGuire on Friday night. He'll only be out for a
week.
> >>>
> >>>Bad news for the Bulldogs with Corey Hughes charged with a Grade 1
Dangerous
> >>>Throw. That will see 5 players unavailable for Friday nights match
against
> >>>the Broncos. The Broncos will be without 10 players but I don't think
it
> >>>will be as one sided as some people predict.
> >
> >>
> >>Don't know who those people are. It could be one-sided sure. The catch
> >>is, one-sided which way?
> >>
> >>Nothing would surprise me.
> >>
> >>DebS
> >
> >This is called not counting on a victory until it happens, especially
> >one that is fully expected. A wise strategy indeed.
>
> No, it's called the Bulldogs without Braith Anasta, Steve Price,
> Travis Norton, Willie Mason and Corey Hughes.
>
> And the Broncos not often losing two in a row.
>
> I didn't say I think the Broncos will win -- I'll probably still tip
> the Dogs -- but it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be
> one-sided the Broncos way.
>
> The Broncos are far more used to getting by without the core of their
> team at Origin time. I can't remember the last time it happened to the
> Dogs. Normally our players just get ignored.
>
> DebS
So you're tipping the Broncos then Deb?
Nawry <wassup@no-spam> whilst enjoying the feel of that sweet,
sweet wood moaned:
> "Deb S" <debs@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:qdmmgvg29uhgg8ne3kpuip6jcht0naf8nd@no-spam
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:20:39 GMT, paulw@no-spam
>> (paul) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 16:06:18 +1000, Deb S <debs@no-spam>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:35:12 +1000, "Mick"
>>>> <mksharp.nospam@no-spam> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael Howell has been charged with a Grade 2 Striking
>>>>> charge for his effort against Casey McGuire on Friday
>>>>> night. He'll only be out for a week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bad news for the Bulldogs with Corey Hughes charged with a
>>>>> Grade 1 Dangerous Throw. That will see 5 players
>>>>> unavailable for Friday nights match against the Broncos.
>>>>> The Broncos will be without 10 players but I don't think
>>>>> it will be as one sided as some people predict.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't know who those people are. It could be one-sided
>>>> sure. The catch is, one-sided which way?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing would surprise me.
>>>>
>>>> DebS
>>>
>>> This is called not counting on a victory until it happens,
>>> especially one that is fully expected. A wise strategy
>>> indeed.
>>
>> No, it's called the Bulldogs without Braith Anasta, Steve
>> Price, Travis Norton, Willie Mason and Corey Hughes.
>>
>> And the Broncos not often losing two in a row.
>>
>> I didn't say I think the Broncos will win -- I'll probably
>> still tip the Dogs -- but it wouldn't surprise me if it turns
>> out to be one-sided the Broncos way.
>>
>> The Broncos are far more used to getting by without the core
>> of their team at Origin time. I can't remember the last time
>> it happened to the Dogs. Normally our players just get
>> ignored.
>>
>> DebS
>
> So you're tipping the Broncos then Deb?
Which bit of "-- I'll probably still tip the Dogs --" didn't
you get?
Daniel.
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:49:39 +1000, "DaNRL" <asrltopposter@no-spam>
wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>> I didn't say I think the Broncos will win -- I'll probably
>>> still tip the Dogs -- but it wouldn't surprise me if it turns
>>> out to be one-sided the Broncos way.
>>>
<snip>
>> So you're tipping the Broncos then Deb?
>
>Which bit of "-- I'll probably still tip the Dogs --" didn't
>you get?
Ah, probably the bit where I said "I'll probably still tip the Dogs" I
reckon.
To be fair, I did hide those words in amongst a whole bunch of other
words :-)
DebS
"paul" <paulw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0b8c56.401890@no-spam
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:59:22 +1000, Deb S <debs@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >The Broncos are far more used to getting by without the core of their
> >team at Origin time.
>
> They haven't had to do it this year. Some creative draw-making with
> the byes.
Since the Broncos have been in the premiership there have been 3 seasons
with byes. This is how they were spread:
1999: Before Origins 1 and 2.
2002: Before Origins 1 and 3
2003: Before Origins 1 and 2
Creative? No. Standard? Yes.
"paul" <paulw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f0c0857.32146953@no-spam
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:39:48 +1000, "Chris Cox"
> <cjcox@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >Since the Broncos have been in the premiership there have been 3 seasons
> >with byes. This is how they were spread:
> >
> >1999: Before Origins 1 and 2.
> >2002: Before Origins 1 and 3
> >2003: Before Origins 1 and 2
> >
> >Creative? No. Standard? Yes.
> >
> Yes of course, my point exactly. I just wonder why the Broncos receive
> this advantage.
Because the Broncos always supply between 8 and 12 Origin players every
year. Why should that matter? Well, 3 Broncos games without their stars
will be a financial disaster. I have grave fears for the crowd this Friday
night because there's no Darren Lockyer, no Shane Webcke, no Gorden Tallis -
the names that bring people to the football. Compounding it, there's no
Willie Mason or Braith Anasta, two other drawcards on the Bulldogs side.
This year Newcastle received both their byes around Origins 1 and 3.
No doubt next season the Roosters will receive two byes around Origin
instead of just the one, given how many they've supplied this year.
I honestly think people get all upset about it for stupid reasons. The
disadvantage you'd mete on the Broncos, on and off the field, by forcing
them to play three matches a year without their stars would far exceed the
advantage they get from having two byes at that time.