Wellsy4HullFC

My concern exactly.

Hull have apparently accepted a bid for Davy Litten from Wakefield for a significant fee, according to Matt Shaw. That's not a good sign for Hull.

Basically along the lines of "they should sort out the state of the league first before expanding", "game's getting unwatchable", "blowouts", "we haven't got enough players", "look after the failing clubs first", "game's a joke", etc. Sounds very familiar!

The comments on that tweet are depressing.

52 seconds a point would be 5 minutes 12 seconds per converted try. We've seen teams getting 140 put on them over here in the lower leagues.

The difference their being the vast majority of Premier League money doesn't come from attendance revenue. York are only in their first year in the SL. There's a lot of connections to make yet and a lot of people won't be aware if them just yet. I've no doubt they'll kick on with a few years behind them if given the chance and the funding.

Do kids even know what broadcast TV is these days? Everything is streamed from on app. Many houses don't have a TV aerial anymore.

The hooter sounds at bang on the time I believe. It didn't used to, they used to wait until play had finished (including kicks).

Came to say exactly the same. This is exactly what I said would happen. Players would hang around the ruck pretending to be getting out the way. The refs don't know what to do about this it seems. It's a penalty for the ruck infringement. Simple as that.

Surely that's not legit?

Last comment on this from me. He's the relevant International Laws: SECTION 15 - PLAYER’S MISCONDUCT Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if they: [snip] (i) Behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game. In terms of law interpretations, the RFL don't publish this (or at least I can't find it), but the NRL do, and the RFL usually copies or is most certainly influenced by the NRL interpretation: "Dummy Half Passing Ball into Defending Player at Ruck Where a dummy half deliberately passes the ball into a defending player caught in and around the ruck who is not actively taking part in the play, such an act will be deemed to be contrary to the true spirit of the game and constitute misconduct under section 15(1)(i) of the Laws of the Game, and a penalty will be awarded against the attacking team. This does not in any way absolve a defender of his responsibilities to clear the ruck and the defending team will still be penalised if it is deemed that they are interfering with play." Unless the RFL are using a completely different interpretation that completely absolves the defender's responsibility to clear the ruck (which would be barmy), the referees got it wrong and have misinterpreted who is "actively" involved in the play to mean "intentionally". You can be actively involved without being intentionally involved. I rest my case, your honour

Err... Yes he was. In fact, he was not only given a chance, he was given a second chance through a Captain's Challenge.

They're meant to roll away and stay out of play. The ruck being quick is not an excuse got them to actively get up and in the way.

Who has even suggested it did? It's because it was such a poor interpretation of the rules that affects the game itself that I'm unhappy about it. The ruck is a mess and this makes it even worse.

That's just whataboutism. There are loads of things that were missed, or where difficult to judge at the time or were close calls. This isn't one of them. It's the ramifications for the game itself (not the match) that bothers me about this one. It's like when they gave a red card for an accidental head clash a few years ago. It's the wrong interpretation being made by the decision makers.