RP London
Coach-
Posts
7,352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
RP London last won the day on July 18 2023
RP London had the most liked content!
About RP London
- Birthday 08/11/1977
Member Profile
-
Gender
Male
-
Location
Sheffield
-
Interests
Warrington, Sheffield Eagles, England and expanding the game as a whole!
Recent Profile Visitors
6,955 profile views
RP London's Achievements
6.3k
Reputation
-
Midlands Hurricanes stadium boost
RP London replied to Hopping Mad's topic in The General Rugby League Forum
While that is a fair point, Iffleyfox has literally, in the post you quoted, explained why they may not gain any down the line. History, as always, will be 20-20, sadly when trying to make history you have to, sometimes, be pragmatic when there is no evidence which way is right and which way is wrong. -
And yet watching the NRL this morning penrith and Melbourne both have them...
-
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
RP London replied to Sports Prophet's topic in The General Rugby League Forum
totally agree with you on this. I haven't seen much around how prevalent it is in the general society or a study around those that do have it and what they have done (not just contact sport) in the rest of their lives etc. Only going by what I have read it does not appear to be a comment form of "dementia" (I dont know where it fits on that type of scale) outside of having some brain trauma but to be honest its more a case of "reading between the lines" rather than the fact I have seen that written anywhere. -
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
RP London replied to Sports Prophet's topic in The General Rugby League Forum
Its interesting becuase you cannot just ignore the science especially if the recommendations are in excess of what you have as that will leave you open to future law suits etc.. they will need to do their own studies that are peer reviewed etc that show that what they are doing is enough.. someone in the scientific community is going to make a fortune out of all the research that is going to be needed over the next 10 years or so to either prove or disprove or just go around in circles. -
New Zealand coach wants more games
RP London replied to Mathius Hellwege's topic in The General Rugby League Forum
Just play an "in season comp" with normal rules and let youngsters have a crack, may show who the next generation are and some will surprise you.. young players need injuries suspensions to be given their shot an awful lot of the time lets just build 3 games in where they can do that. -
bar the Harry Smith one, which is a fair comment, are there really that many examples of things they shouldn't have looked at but did and banned, or those that they didnt look at that they should? When you look at loads of the incidents you can see exactly what the issues are, and if the players just stopped doing them (as pretty much all are choices) then they wouldnt need to sit there doing this.
-
Its actually a really good example of where video evidence is useful.. he has no excuse for it.
-
Trial by video is fine as it also works the other way and if the offence isn't actually that serious then that can be show too. If people just stop doing these things then there would be less to worry about. Not sure why the criticism is of the technology etc and not of the players TBH.
-
he could definitely have avoided him..
-
New Zealand coach wants more games
RP London replied to Mathius Hellwege's topic in The General Rugby League Forum
This... 3 breaks, if aussies want to do SOO rather than internationals then go for your life.. but at the moment they are stopping other countries from having any opportunity to do this with their actions.. they can still make sure all eyes are on SOO by having it on a weekday before the "break weekend" as well if they wish I am sure other countries don't want to battle SOO for viewers but it does seem as though its a selfish act from the aussies that its ok for players to play those extra games as long as it benefits them (and before anyone says it i do understand its their comp etc etc) but there is a whole "benefits all will benefit them" argument to this too. -
I do agree with the last paragraph 100% they have been too weak in the past and bent to the clubs, it would not surprise me (but my memory of the era is fading away) if that had been the case in the period of the likes of Fozzard and be used as proof ie you knew there was an issue, you put in rules but you did not enforce them and that is therefore liability.. in a business sense HSE legislation is there, businesses have procedures, people can break the rules but if the company turns a blind eye it is then on them, if they "punish" then the responsibility for the breach is all on the person breaching.
-
if this is the one you mean Then it deserves a penalty and perhaps a card as they are trying to clamp down (dont know what his previous is like but that does affect the ban).. He has gone in bolt upright. not the slightest bit of a duck to make the tackle, the attacking player is running in upright (we dont want them to duck into the tackle) and therefore there is a clash of heads.. its not a big one granted but it is still one and if Tom Amone bends his back even slightly to get his head down he is ok, tackle is made and there is no issue and that is what we need to encourage. If he is bolt upright that could be a lot worse, frankly for both parties. He had the time, he wasnt stepped, the attacking player just ran straight in. For me that one is on Amone, the rule is there and he has plenty of opportunity to change his angle of tackle. application of the rule by the ref or the bans by the MRP are different from the rule itself as we are seeing at the moment with the Nu Brown incident.
-
If the player has gone around the torso and the attacker ducks into it then there are mitigating factors to the tackle and it is graded accordingly by the RFL and is not as serious as straight on tackles to the had and not treated as such, it is laid out IIRC in some of the posts on here about the way they go through the process, it is certainly laid out in the actual documents if not reproduced on here.. they have thought about this. IMHO I would penalise the attacker as RU do which has meant less people risk it. I havent seen the Tom Amone one and cannot, from the description you have given, picture it so will just not comment and see if i can find it when i have a sec. On your last sentence we are not asking them to deliver tackles around the leg area, just not around the head.
-
In Union it is supposed to be a penalty for anyone ducking into the tackle (this is at age grade and community game due to the sternum tackle rule), unless you are within 5 of the try line. It has IMHO stopped some of this but it hasn't been strictly enforced by the refs, equally I haven't seen head highs coming from it becuase the players themselves have readjusted. IMHO there is a lot of knee jerk reaction to this at the moment. The rules are there for a reason and players need to adjust. If there are constant issues due to these rules then that is different and the RFL seem to be looking at these, but equally the players do need to adjust themselves and some of the tackles while not being viscous have been reckless and while there is the argument of "best players on the pitch" that surely has to count for players getting injured through reckless, needless tackles.
-
totally understand what you are saying. My point is that its still profit from a world cup that apparently didn't make any profit and surely just shows that we need events like that making money like that to fill the holes or to bolster the coffers.