The NRL must go further in remedying the Parra problem

Good on you Kay well said

The most I think that could be done fairly to other clubs is to change the results to draws.

Irrelevant.

Classic comment here mike. Probable winner: eels. There it is. I'll take it. '07 & '09. Go Parra.

Yes its too late to re-award 2007 and 2009 Premierships because if Melbourne's wins were re-defined as "forfeits" (and premiership points allocated to the other teams) then the Final Top 8 would have involved a different make-up:. Example - 2007 Season - with ALL Melbourne matches deemed forfeits: 1. Manly 2. North Queensland 3. New Zealand 4. Parramatta 5. Canterbury 6. South Sydney 7. Brisbane 8. Wests Tigers So, with the McIntyre Finals System: Qualifying Finals: * Manly vs Wests Tigers (likely winner = Manly) * North Queensland vs Brisbane (likely winner = North Queensland) * New Zealand vs South Sydney (likely winner = New Zealand) * Parramatta vs Canterbury (likely winner = Parramatta) Semi Finals: * New Zealand vs Canterbury (likely winner = Canterbury) * Parramatta vs South Sydney (likely winner = Parramatta) Preliminary Finals * Manly vs Parramata (likely winner = Parramatta) * North Queensland vs Canterbury (likely winner = Canterbury) Grand Final * Parramatta vs Canterbury (likely winner = Parramatta)

History tells us that this won't happen. Manly didnt get credited with the premiership in 2007 when they lost to Melbourne's cheats in the GF. Parramatta also in 2009...although they might have been cheating as well.

I’m with Epiquin on this one. The teams that beat the Eels get disadvantaged. And what happens to any team that loses to the Eels for the remainder of the season? Do they get 2 points as well? If they don’t they can cry unfair treatment. If they do, then look forward to the Eels remaining undefeated for the rest of the season as no team would turn up to play them, since they get two points anyway. And what about the teams that played the Eels and won (or lost for that matter) but that had players injured during these games that has affected their ability to win further games? Can of worms opened.

Not saying that we weren't cheating but the teams fielded whilst we were over did not include an injured Watmough. You've already got 700k on the sideline there. Added Foran played about half those games so another 800k - 1mil out. There is no way to remedy it, but taking the p/d off for those rounds goes a long way. Giving teams wins when they lost those games is more inequitable in my opinion.

I fail to see how timing makes a difference. You still have one team that has won 1 or 2 more games than the team who qualified for the finals above them. Do you honestly think that players, coaches and fans would be satisfied with that scenario? Do you think that would be a fairer outcome? Let's pretend for a moment that Newcastle got smashed by Parra by 80 points - would they have won this match had Parra not cheated the cap? Would they deserve an extra two competition points for that performance? The fact is there is no winner when a team is docked points, but taking victory away from a team that cheated is better than giving victory to a team that doesn't.

Wont matter Doggie. Dogs are only making up the numbers in September anyway. Way off the pace this year.

Agreed and I look forward to Parramatta being awarded the 2009 premiership at the same time. All fair right ??

It's just a competition points penalty, Fiddling with their F&A was stupid enough, let alone mucking about changing the results of games.

Hmmm... Say you have a team that didn't lose to Parra this year finish in 8th spot. Then the NRL awards two points to the team that finishes 9th because they did lose to Parra this year. Suddenly, 9th leapfrogs into the 8 and qualifies for the finals even though they lost where the other team had won. Can the players honestly feel like they deserve to be there? Can the fans? How does this benefit anyone?

For the last few years we've had the Roosters and Rabbitohs derby book-ending the season with clashes in rounds 1/2 and 25/26. I really like this scenario because, as you say, it was always interesting to see how far the teams had come and the clashes were always a big deal. This year they played each other twice by the end of round 6 and the second clash was a non-event.

They should give them to the Bulldogs as well.

I don't get how that's a good thing (play each other within a month). All teams should play each other once, then have the second lot of games from there. It gives us all a good indication of how teams are faring at round 17 (well I think it would be round 19 with byes, but you get the idea).