Dave T

Good luck getting answers to any of that.

I made a similar point earlier in the thread, but to expect to be able to provide enough world class athletes to fill 10-14 teams within the narrow confines of the North of England is flawed, and that's why we end up where we are. I dont just go with the opinion that clubs can just make more effort and we can have full teams of English lads. Accepting that we can always do more. In the past we had player pathways from Union, bringing players in from all over the UK. We've never replaced that, we've just kept talking about the Northern heartlands. Robust pathways in London, Wales etc are a must for the future of the game - expansionist agendas are not just for a laugh.

One of the challenges around time wasting is that you struggle to get much sympathy when as a tackler youve spent all the rest of the match making the play the ball as slow as possible.

Isn't it something vague like 'without delay' or something?

I do think people just need to chill. We dont need to kneejerk just because some people don't like a ptb taking 10 seconds instead of 3.

Indeed. Its almost like its the perfect t argument as to why the clubs shouldn't be the ones deciding stuff like this.

Great stuff. But jeez, that's an ugly graphic in that post.

Well, the last person who had proper control was Wood. There was an owners coup when he ousted them.

Yup, its been a problem forever, but the evidence against it is coming thick and fast right now. I dont even necessarily think its just an 'I'm alright Jack' problem, running things so complex by committee is impossible.

Club owners come and go.

Double post

Hmm. You can't pull people for fiction and then deny what actually happened in 1995/6. London were parachuted into the new top flight for 1996. They did not earn on-field promotion, them and PSG benefited from being handpicked, everyone else was based on league rankings. Now, I dont agree with the poster you are replying to, and am more in your camp that London needs far more support than they have. But we dont need to claim they werent parachuted into SL (or given overseas players dispensation). I would argue that is the case for many areas, I notice you ask for London to receive the same patience and support that has been extended elsewhere - im not sure i see much patience and support for any clubs, we have a long history of throwing clubs under the bus. Catalans benefited from being handpicked, and protection for the first year or two, but outside of that nothing really. Let's be honest, if they were as bad as what London put on the field, theyd be left to the lower division. Catalans first few years was fine, but after that they've been left to themselves, and let's be honest, the terms of their participation are worse than other clubs. So we shouldn't really be looking for London to have similar support to others, we should be looking for expansion/special strategic clubs like this to have a hel of a lot more support than they have ever had.

Yeah, its ok, but it looks a little Samoa-y

If I was IMG I'd be getting out of here tbh.

Yes. History does rather suggest that we need a strong leadership team who will make decisions without being micromanaged by a committee of clubs.

I think the RFL are pretty clear about what you can't do and why, and I think its really simple to never be penalised for this in your whole career, and I'd say 99.9% of players never will. Interestingly, I think Horne actually slowed it down more with his mucking about!

TBH, it looks to me like they have just looked at the incidents and have rather accepted that Martin's was very little: "The panel concluded that this incident does not meet the criteria for Unnecessary Contact as per the regulations, describing the contact as “de minimis” meaning virtually nothing"

The thing to be crystal clear on here though is that the agreement to bring in IMG was the clubs. The agreement to approve reimagining RL was the clubs. The agreement to go with grading was the clubs. And if we nip back a few years, the decision to go with licensing, was the clubs. The decision to change their mind a few years later, was the clubs. And Super 8's, the clubs. And so on. And all of the above is fine, I'm perfectly happy that the clubs get their say, but doesn't it strike you as odd that they keep changing direction every 3 years or so.

Is there a video of the Martyn one, because the edited clip I saw, it looked pretty much nothing in Martyn's i.e. a shirt tug rather than a lifting of the player.

Let's be clear here though. The tackler can't pick up the player. That isn't his role. You don't get to tackle the player and then pick them up and control the ptb.

What I would say here is that there is only a split second between the tackler getting up and him pulling the ball carrier. Its not like he has lay there for 3 or 4 seconds. Watch it with the time running, its less than a second. So I think to claim there is time wasting is odd.

You can of course choose to do whatever you want with your time, and if you dont like the sport, it is definitely time to move on and do something else. But this just smacks of sulking because something has gone against your team.

Why didn't you question your support when other players were banned for it?

It can't work like that. What happens if next time somebody has a broken neck and the tackler decides to just lift them like a rag doll because they can't control their discipline?

This is possibly the easiest thing not to get banned for.