My first Bradford parkrun today for a while...29.30. Not bad IMO but will have to beat that next week if I aren't working.
Edited due to terrible grammar. (not that IMO probably comes under grammar..lol..er)
I might be popping into the Bradford parkrun on 14th March - I was at the Hockney exhibition yesterday and want to go back again. Let me know if you're running that day and I'll go round with you as I've got a race on the 15th and want to go steadily (for me!)
I ran the Rother Valley parkrun on Saturday to bring my total for February to a record 108 miles. I then ran just short of 21 miles last night, ending up in driving sleet. Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right?
I've already said they both deserved sin binning. But surely even you can see that a deliberate high shot intended to injure a player should probably get a red but an unintentional reactional high grab might only get a yellow.
We were always taught as refs that "reckless" or "dangerous" were the type of description that would warrant a red, regardless of intent. I would argue this was both. International games seem to work on a completely different basis, where you have to pull a gun out and shoot someone to potentially get a yellow. Unless you're Adrian Morley against Australia.
I've seen teams playing short handed in RL - 10 v 13 + subs at times and never once have I seen a team not trying. They've asked me to blow early because they were knackered and getting injured, but only if the opposition agreed.
This team should be fined and docked points for bringing the game into disrepute.
I watched parts of Wales-England and parts of Italy-Ireland. It genuinely occurred to me that some talented rugby players were being inhibited by 2 things.
1. Too many players on the field too close together leading to...
2. Unlimited "phases" where it's nearly impossible to get the ball back. At several tackles Italy literally committed NOBODY in the ruck.
What they need is fewer players, say, 2, and/or a bigger gap, say 5m for starters and a limit to the number of phases. If they don't like the handover concept of RL, simply abandon the rucking rules after 6 phases. Allow handling, in from the side/back etc. Make it a proper contest.
In normal circumstances the RFL should be running the whole game - I don't think there's any question that there should be a single NGB. However history has left rugby league in a position where the NGB is not trusted to run the game at grass roots. Very sad.
It's just they're going to kill the game by having the clubs fund a development department, why even have a development department? Not to go all Monty Python but what have they ever done for us?
If any club (or small set of nearby clubs) could raise money themselves without being subsidised, they'd be better off paying for their own personnel part-time than funding someone centrally. That's basically what the North Derbys Chargers are doing.
Don't see any problem with accepting sponsorship from Ladbrokes but didnt the R.F.L accept the Stobart deal because they didn't want to go with a gambling sponsor who was going to actually put money into the game?
No, I repeat for the thousandth time "didnt the Super League clubs accept the Stobart deal"
If football can bombard us with Ray Winstone's disembodied head demanding that we "bet in play" then I think we can live with Ladbrokes. It's better than nobody, and probably more lucrative than Carnegie.