Well I managed the first 7 minutes. There were 4 line outs, each taking over 30 seconds. Let's call that 2 minutes. There was one scrum. That took 3 minutes and 10 seconds. Yes, I timed them out of curiosity. So 5 out of the first 7 minutes was taken up by line outs and scrums. That doesn't include rucks and mauls, and thankfully, there were no attempts at kicking goals. After the scrum was won, the scrum half kicked it straight back in to touch. And this is supposed to be a game that Sam Burgess is struggling to cope with. Give me strength.
The rah rah game being a six nations game played at Twickenham in front of 80,000 fans the league game the 4 nations final played in front of 25,000 people (in a stadium that will hold 36,000).
I guess people prefer to watch proper scrums with pushing despite the hyperbole around league being more spectator friendly
So, Tiny Tim's response in all of this is to say that more people watched a Union game than a League game. No attempt to justify the three collapsed scrums then a penalty, against the running rugby that we see in our game. If more people prefer watching collapsed scrum, followed by collapsed scrum, followed by collapsed scrum, then penalty, then good luck to them. Certainly not something that I can watch for any length of time.
Explain why there was a ban on players professionalising themselves then? What was the reason for it? Please note that it included making money from the game via sources such as books and/or other media and not just being involved with Rugby League. They must have had some rationalisation for the ban. What was it?
I don't recall any players being banned for appearing on A Question Of Sport. Please don't try and tell us that they did for free and paid their own train fares and hotel rooms. And are you trying to say that Union players and officials never wrote autobiographies? Do you want a list? So who did get banned for things such as this? Come on, Gosman. Back up your outrageous claims with some facts for once.
However, I agree with you, the BBC really didn't trail the 4N very well at all. I was fortunate that I saw the highlights of the 4N final as I was waiting for the RU internationals. Glad I did, cracking final.
Bigger than a new fangled, hybrid game of netball that is being tried out in schools? That got a full 5 minutes of coverage, yet the 4 nations final, about to be kicking off and covered live on another channel of the BBC got zilch. Absolutely nothing. If you think that that is ok, then fine. I don't.
In an attempt to answer your point on the ball in play time, TBH this isn't something that bothers me that much. I do get annoyed when there are a constant stream of reset scrums as the front rows puff their chests out and point out their oppositions transgressions to the officials but I can't say I clock watch all that much. Saying that I am in favour of stopping the clock at scrum time and restarting it at the put in.
If anyone has watched the New Zealand v Australia Four Nations final, and then watched the Wales v Fiji union borefest, and can seriously say that they prefer Union over Rugby, I'd love them to explain why.
There is no more chance of Australia failing to get the required victory margin, than there is of Boxhead admitting he is wrong about that no try. An Aussie ref will make sure the victory margin is sufficient.
No. Absolutely nothing. Our kicker was put out of the game every time. And no penalties against Australia for lying on. That no try at the end should be blown up and put everywhere. Cheats. Pure and simple.
If there was anyone to take Charnley's position it would be Joe Burgess, surely? A guy who has played wing all year and has come up big in some of Wigan's most important games...not that I particularly think Charnley needs replacing...
But surely Burgess plays on the left wing and Charnley on the right. Keep them on their respective wings. For me, on the right, it is Makinson ahead of Charnley, and on the left, Hall over Burgess. But isn't it great to have these options?