On Monday, the NRL announced that the Roosters have been granted special dispensation to allow 17-year-old Joseph Suaalii to play in their first-grade team, despite the existing rule in place that requires players to turn 18 before they are eligible.
On Tuesday, NRL CEO Andrew Abdo made a comment that such an exemption would be “very rare”.
I have no doubt that those charged with making the decision about Suaalii’s inclusion did their due diligence; in fact, my understanding is that Suaalii has been observed over a long period of time.
He has been benchmarked physically against what is considered ‘average’ for an outside back in the NRL by an independent, high-performance specialist, and has undergone a psychological evaluation.
But it is still unclear why an exemption was made and if the NRL is willing to consider ‘special cases’, then why bother having the rule at all?
The rule is clear: a player must turn 18 before being allowed to play first grade. If the NRL is interested in making limited exemptions, then change the rule.
Over the summer we saw many rule-changes brought in, with many questioning the process behind their introduction. It’s clear that decisions can be made quickly, so why not allow some flexibility with this rule if the NRL want to go down this path?
My understanding is that a similar rule exists in the Super League. A player must be aged 18 years of age before playing, but there is some flexibility to consider edge cases.
The rule in the NRL does not give the governing body such flexibility, which means that there is a lack of transparency around the process.
It is unclear as to why an exemption was made for Suaalii and in what circumstances an exemption could be made in the future.
Is it because he is talented? Is it because there is a fear he could return to rugby union? Neither of those are player-centric reasons and while I don’t doubt that utmost care was taken by the professionals evaluating Suaalii, being held to ransom by another sport is not a good enough reason to allow a young teenager to play one of the most physically demanding games in the world.
Newcastle Knights fans may be cranky with this decision, with Bradman Best being required to wait until he was 18 before playing.
Why wasn’t Best given the same opportunity to undergo stringent evaluation? Was it because there wasn’t enough interest from rugby union?
Bradman Best (Photo by Mark Evans/Getty Images)
I also have concerns about this decision from a duty of care perspective. Again, while I am sure that the people charged with evaluating Suaalii have done so with the utmost care and professionalism, there is a reason this rule exists.
I know that age is just a number and that players develop differently. A couple of months may not make a difference for Suaalii, but potentially they do.
Rugby league is a tough, physical, contact sport. Why take the risk for the sake of a couple of months?
It’s been said that Suaalii is unlikely to be selected this weekend, so if there is not any immediate need for him in the team, why make the decision when he will be eligible in a couple of months?
We’ve seen the demands of the game. For the Roosters alone, Boyd Cordner is no doubt towards the end of his career and will miss half the season due to concussion. Similarly, after a head knock on the weekend, Jake Friend may consider his playing future.
Why risk a teenager? Not only physically, but mentally too.
I have not heard one good reason for this decision being made. Worried about his returning to rugby? That doesn’t worry me at all. The NRL is full of explosive and incredible talent, with many teenagers waiting for their opportunity.
To make it clear, this article has nothing to do with Suaalii. I genuinely wish him all the best for his career. I hope he is hugely successful and he stays with rugby league.
He did not make this decision and at his age, he is probably focused on playing sport at an elite level.
But my focus is on making sure that players are given the best opportunity to succeed and to have long and fruitful careers. I’m not sure that this decision accords with that line of thinking.
Pomoz
Roar Rookie
No, it proves that the Tiger's forced him out. He did not renege on his contract.
— COMMENT DELETED —
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Clearly himself said????? Yeah that proves it then!!!
No never implied anything happened before ge left....bulldogs...Toulouse and SBW came to an agreement
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Sounds like a champion , I wonder if someone hit him with the ''age is just a number'' pearl of wisdom when he went to get out of bed in his forties?
Zenn
Roar Rookie
Neil Fox in Super League? Born 4 May 1939 he retired from Bradford Northern in 1979. In fact he starred for Bradford Northern against the touring 1978 Kangaroos when aged 39. Then Fox was player-coach of Huddersfield Underbank Rangers, and achieved a Holliday Cup and promotion double in 1981–82. Fox retired with the record for most points scored in Anglo-Australian test match history until overtaken by Mal Meninga in 1992. Named one of England’s top 10 greatest players he is perhaps England’s equivalent of the late, great Artie Beetson.
Zenn
Roar Rookie
The cost of Suaalii's "stringent evaluation" must be included in the Roosters' salary cap.
bigbaz
Roar Guru
the point is that at 17 you are judged to be old enough to be a serviceman but not old enough to play footy. seems strange to me.
MUCK
Guest
At what age does he start on the supplements program , 17 or 18 ? What is the NRLs rule on that ?
Noosa Duck
Roar Rookie
BOOZE :The analogies you are making are quite different so no it was not a short sighted post because Joseph is not getting behind the wheel of a car on a learners permit after going to the pub and drinking under age and can kill someone intoxicated behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We are talking about something that has several precedents over the years if you go back through the history of the game there have been several who have played first grade prior to turning 18 and it may surprise you the number that did.
Noosa Duck
Roar Rookie
Mary if were a fair dinkum system they would not play top level until 20-21 when I am told medically the body frame is fully formed. Now that was many years ago and young men have become bigger. taller & stronger than when I was a young bloke . I played open age group Australian Rules in Melbourne when I was 17 and played against grown men. I know how tough it can be, I copped a pretty serious concussion in one game that put me out for 4 weeks. I was 5' 10" tall & 11 & 1/2 stone (73 kilo) and played centre half forward as it was in those days. Joseph is 6 ft 5" tall and 16 1/2 stone (96kg) I reckon he will be almost 18 when he gets a full game and is already playing against 18-20 year old's now. However I do understand your point about consistency, but in all honesty in the past 10 years or so when have the NRL been consistent about anything on several fronts ?
Greysy
Roar Rookie
Adam Ritson is probably the most notable example of a player who debuted at 17 and didn't have a long career. Instead, he ended up retiring at 19 due to a brain injury.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Absoultely right Mary. Sometimes wonder why the NRL bother having rules at all, as they just ignore them when it suits. And what do the Roosters have over V’Landys and Abdo? Is there some secret s3x tape the Chooks have a copy of that they threaten to make public when the want something? Last year, V’landys did everything to ensure SBW got to Sydney except throw in some steak knives with the deal; it was frankly embarrassing. Now SBW taken the money for a few short runs and wandered back to boxing. This time, it’s the kid. You nailed it – why bother for the sake of a few months? We never want to see injuries, but gee wiz they better hope tat the kid doesn’t get hurt. And even if he doesn’t, what about all the other 17 year olds? What if clubs start paying for their own independent assessments too? Maybe the next big talent will be 16! Punch him in the ribs and ask if it hurts, and if he says he’s fine send the bugger out there and to hell with the long term consequences! Time for the NRL to grow up, it’s not 1970 any more.
Greysy
Roar Rookie
What hyperbole. He's hardly 'too much' for players below NRL. He may look good (personally I don't think he looks any more than good from what we've seen yet), but he's hardly laying waste to his opposition to the point where they need to invoke a duty of care. NRL players go back and player lower grade footy regularly and no duty of care needs to be invoked in those cases. And Frank Burge may have played first grade when he was 16, but you know what, the game's changed a bit since 1911. Particularly ya know in terms of players' size and strength and the amount of damage they can do to each other as a result.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Age is a number but not only a number. I can't see too many 40 year old's playing in the NRL.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
He didn’t buy it out. He agreed to a settlement for the Bulldogs to not continue to pursue the matter. Buying out implies there was an agreement before he left.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Young player? Youth is like beauty, it can be very subjective. What do you consider young? 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23? Lloyd, no one is saying that the day that someone turns 18 they are adequately prepared to take on professional football. It's a bit like drinking alcohol, not everyone has the ability to be drinking multiple beers at the age of 18 but the Govt has to draw a line somewhere & stick to it. What most people agree with is that the older the player is the more likely they are prepared. There is no perfect science so the NRL should set a rule & stick to it. What happens now when the next club applies for an exemption for a player that is 17 years & 1 month old?
Max
Guest
The man is physically too much for the players in the levels below NRL. The duty of care means the NRL really must let him play NRL, for sake of all the other players not yet ready for first grade. Frank Burge is the NRL Hall of Fame and made he was playing first grade age 16. If Suaallili playing first grade is bad, then so too is having Burge in the hall of fame as it sets a bad example.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Correct, if an exemption is given to a less successful club, there would be an outcry that it was given to assist an unsuccessful team. Like most things in the game including the salary cap, the NRL has to draw a line in the sand somewhere & stick to it. If it doesn't, where does it all end?