Would make a lot of sense, it is such a specialist position.
massive!!! that’s 110+ tackles gone
Who the **** is Chee Kum?
You can and it gets evaluated on a case by case basis. However, we’d have to get this ‘Chee Kum’ a registered NRL contract within 24 hours and I’m not even certain he exists. He’d also count towards our 30 man squad, so it’s a huge gamble on a player the club has never heard of.
Pretty sure thats what I got at the noodle hut the other night
On the hooker... Though even that would be a bit much for me at the moment... I'd give it a go though... 🙂
As long as he can tackle that should have been number one decision choice "can the bloke tackle his heart out"3
| Team | P | W | D | L | PD | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bulldogs | 11 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 74 | 22 |
| 2 | Raiders | 13 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 72 | 20 |
| 3 | Warriors | 12 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 20 |
| 4 | Storm | 11 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 147 | 18 |
| 5 | Sharks | 12 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 44 | 16 |
| 6 | Cowboys | 11 | 5 | 1 | 5 | -28 | 15 |
| 7 | Sea Eagles | 13 | 6 | 0 | 7 | 42 | 14 |
| 8 | Dragons | 11 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 14 |
| 9 | Roosters | 12 | 5 | 0 | 7 | -22 | 14 |
| 10 | Rabbitohs | 12 | 6 | 0 | 6 | -58 | 14 |
| 11 | Dolphins | 12 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 42 | 12 |
| 12 | Broncos | 12 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 14 | 12 |
| 13 | Tigers | 12 | 5 | 0 | 7 | -58 | 12 |
| 14 | Knights | 13 | 5 | 0 | 8 | -65 | 12 |
| 15 | Panthers | 12 | 4 | 1 | 7 | -13 | 11 |
| 16 | Eels | 12 | 4 | 0 | 8 | -87 | 10 |
| 17 | Titans | 11 | 3 | 0 | 8 | -112 | 10 |
