Wellsy4HullFC

Remind me, was that before or after the drop?

I think the issue with the "voluntary tackle" is that most people don't actually know what one is so they spout there mouths off claiming one when technically it never occurred. A voluntary tackle is not someone throwing themselves on the ground. It is if they play the ball when not being tackled. I've seen this a couple of times (saw Stanley Gene do it when he played for Huddersfield). He ran into a player, fell to the floor in his own then played the ball to try and catch everyone offside. That's a voluntary tackle. A surrender tackle is punished by giving defenders more time to wrestle them in the ruck and set their own defence. If you don't want them to do that, don't surrender in the tackle. I really don't see any issues here.

There's no way they'll allow London to be relegated... There's no way they'll allow Catalans to be relegated... They can't help it.

The difference being that in the NFL, winning the conference means your the best out of that group of teams and winning the Super Bowl means you're the best out of ALL teams, so one is obviously better than the other. Winning the LLS and winning the Grand Final are different ways of beating the same opposition, so you'll always have comparisons. Just because it is recognised by the NGB to be the Championship doesn't necessarily mean everyone should agree it's the best way to declare them. If we split into conferences, the Grand Final would unanimously be the best team as it would be the only competition that directly pits all teams against each other on the way to it.

Bloody hell, you could bike to all seven games if you lived in Leeds. Lucky ######.

I agree. They should rewrite the history books too so that every club that finished top in the regular season is the LLS winners. Here's a list of all teams that were to after the regular season but didn't win the LLS: 1) Hull

Let's be fair, sometimes you get drawn against the same side in a few comps.

People keep saying the RFL will change the rules. I don't understand why they think this? When have they done it in the way they'd have to to save the Bulls? It's all paranoia. The Bulls are going down. It's unfortunate, but it's deserved. If they have anything about them, they'll come back up. There's not much of a club to save at the moment. They need to get their act together first.

The one time I want Rovers to win. Bloody useless.

C'mon Toulouse, sort it out.

I don't see why people have an issue with this? Shop window in the biggest rugby league market in the world. Not just fans - sponsors and players too. Someone mentioned the Aussies aren't interested in SL. Who else is? Don't they want second tend to support? Don't they want be rivals? You only get people interested if you actually go out and do something. I doubt money will allow (or work!), but I'd love to go.

Not sure about anyone else, but I've never found a debt exciting!

I've anyways thought there was huge potential at York, ever since they reformed in the early 00s and started getting the occasional 3k crowd. Hopefully this is the start of something big for them.

If Hull or Wigan qualify for the WCS, then these can be warm up games for it and they can play it over there.

I think the ones that fear their club will be replaced are doing so because the strategy for expansion is not clear. For me, the thought of 6 English clubs and 6 foreign clubs is ridiculous. If we have the ability to have 12-14 full time English clubs, why ditch them? If we see so many foreign clubs, then they can break off into their own comp like in union. In theory, if we let a few in now, eventually there'll be enough to break away. Then expansion will never be in issue for the English league. Expansion clubs can join that league (and come together in a separate competition with the English clubs).