Worst rule in rugby league. One foot over the line so you can hit the ball out. But inly if the ball's moving.
It's confusing. It's negative. It doesn't reward a great kick. Why the hell was it brought in? Everyone was happy when it went after 2002.
and some wont bother listening, wont bother looking, and dont take that much part.
I dont think it is complicated, i think it is too complex and you have to know too much about it to say where you are and what you are playing for, and the vast majority of people in this country simply wont take the time to bother to learn about it and will be turned off from watching a game where they dont know what they are playing for.
There isnt a sport on TV where you could watch a game and not know what is actually being played for at any stage. The Premier League play for the premier league, the championship play for the championship and promotion, NFL the superbowl. The champions league play for the champions league. Pick any game at random and you know immediately what the game is for or contributing towards.
Our system you simply dont, you would need to either have kept up with the season or you would need to research it. Are you playing for a place in the top 8? the top 4? the top 3? are you playing for the title? this weird shield thing at the bottom? to stay in your league, to be promoted from it? are you playing to be top 3? are you playing to be 5th which in one of the extra bits has very little difference to 4th, and in another wouldnt qualify you for the next stage where as 4th would? a game in the middle 8 between 1st and 2nd sounds like it should be a big important game, realistically it makes little difference, to those that know really it is the battle for 9th place, its pretty unimportant.
In the Super League, you play for the Super League. In the Championship, you play for the Championship. I don't understand how it is a different concept?
Questioning whether you're playing for a place in the top 8 is the same as questioning whether a Premier League club is playing for a Champions League spot (top 4) or a Europa league spot (5th to 6th, I think, or something to do with winners/runners up in separate cup competitions?). It's exactly the same thing. I honestly couldn't tell you how you qualify for the Europa Cup, but they're pretty excited about it round these parts.
Trying to use the NFL as a simple comparison is also laughable. The NFL seasons is incredibly complicated how the work out who plays who and who doesn't play who over God knows how many seasons cycles, yet they get hundreds of thousands watching in their stadia every week.
If you want to know the far end of a fart for everything, then yeah the finer details become a bit of a read.
In simple terms, there are two leagues of 12. They split into three leagues of 8 after a round robin and then a small play-off. You're playing to finish as high as possible and win your play-off.
If these fixtures are just chosen by the clubs involved, it is effectively just a pre-season friendly tournament like the Emirates Cup in football. It wouldn't be a proper WCC if it's not based on merit. That's the issue. If it wants credibility, it has to have qualification based on merit.
So what do you think the makeup of the 2017 RLWC will be?
Automatic - Australia, New Zealand, England, Fiji, Samoa, France, Scotland
Europe - Wales, Ireland, Italy
Pacific - PNG, Tonga
America - Canada
Middle East/Africa - Lebanon
Will be a close call for the likes of USA, Jamaica, Cooks and South Africa I reckon.
Personally, I think the third qualifying place from Europe would have made for a good repechage tournament, likely between Italy, Cooks, USA and South Africa. If they held it in Australia, they wouldn't have to travel far!
If we applied P+R to last year then 14th was a relegation spot. Salford finished in 14th ergo they finished in a relegation spot.
But your argument (again which you've slightly changed thinking I wouldn't notice) was:
Salford finished 14th in a non-P&R season.
A P&R season means that 14th is relegated.
Therefore, had there been P&R, Salford would have been relegated.
It's a fallacious argument. It's not just me that sees it.
Here are similar arguments to show your fallacy:
A car runs a green light.
If a car runs a red light, it's illegal.
Therefore, had the light been red, the car would have run a red light.
It has the appearance of logic, but it ignores the fact that if the light had been red, the car might have stopped.
It is you that has created a hypothetical season, your argument is based on a fallacy.
If Bradford as big as they are found SL tough then the smaller replacements will simply find it tougher.
The key is the governing bodies controlling club finances much stricter
Well no, that's not true at all is it? If it were, then that would surely mean that every club you consider smaller than Bradford would find it tougher (including those currently in SL). The fact that Warrington are winning trophies and Huddersfield are competing at the top dispels that logic completely.
Just because a big club messed up doesn't mean there's no hope for the smaller clubs. It means that anyone can mess up, regardless of how big they are.
Second half, Saints were awful. Just dropping the ball left right and centre. Had Hull had any idea in attack, we could have stuffed you tonight. The amount of possession we had in the second half on your line should have seen us at least score enough to win the Prescott Cup.
Im not sure i can explain it any simpler than to say again. Salford would have been relegated at the end of last year, their attendance growth is demonstrably down to franchising.
Their attendance growth is down to the fact that a rich man with a lot of money bought a load of star names and has been a one man publicity machine in order to get Salford into the media.
The fact that Salford weren't relegated doesn't mean franchising is the reason they had growth at all. It just happens to be the system that this happened in.
The fact that they finished bottom and almost went out of existence could be arguably down to franchising.
Had said rich man not turned up, would you be arguing that franchising killed Salford?
If Franchising didnt exist, and we didnt have it, the Salford wouldnt have posted the growth they had last year because they wouldnt have been in the league to do so.
Had relegation been in play that season (depending on the numbers), Koukash may have invested more, quicker, in an effort to stay up, so you can't say they finish bottom regardless of the system.
It could be argued that franchising allows clubs to coast.
Demonstrably? Think you need to look outside the box more.
surely not they're rugby league mad and fiercely loyal to their clubs in Hull.
Do you really think there is a correlation between Hull's diminished attendances and no prom and reg?
You don't think the club's mediocrity and lack of challenging for silverware might be an issue?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here to be fair.
Each attendance drop probably has its own individual circumstances as a main contributor. To use them to say licensing was working (Parky) or isn't (others) is a bit pointless really as you could never prove it wasn't because of these individual circumstances.
For anyone to say that Hull's wasn't down to being dire for 7 years, Bradford's due to admin, Salford due to nearly dying, London for being poorly mismanaged, etc. is going to have a hard time convincing anyone with no other facts to go on!
Anyone can spin a line about what a stat means. Anyone can twist it to what their agenda is.
It all comes down to personal opinion, not who's right and wrong.