Wiltshire Warrior Dragon

None - just the same ref and touch judges each week as yesterday!

Fairfolly and Dixiedean raise good questions. My hope would be that somebody at the RFL is quietly getting on with the business of spotting all the questions, such as those raised by FF and DD above, and seeking meetings with senior civil servants from the relevant department(s) to discuss them. Such work is necessarily low profile and may need an element of confidentiality, at least initially. It also won't make headline news: the chance to write "Red Hall top brass seek meeting with civil servants of at least grade 5 level seniority" is not likely to excite John Drake et al! But just a short word of reassurance somewhere from the RFL would be, well, reassuring! I anticipate that various employment sectors will plead special circumstances. Some will be low-key but necessary (seasonal veg pickers on the Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk fens, for example) [well, 'necessary' if you want roast spuds and two veg with your roast beef and Yorkshires on a Sunday!] Others will be high profile; that will include various elements of entertainment, including sport. Politicians being politicians will want to be loved and popular; there will be no sudden ban on foreigners in soccer's Premier League, you may rest assured; nor is the RFU likely to sit idly by and not engage its friends in high establishment places. As part of its work on this, the RFL should be monitoring what those two other sports are exploring.

Good question, DM, and - to be honest - like Dave T, I don't know the answer. An interesting perspective on this is presumably employment law - and more specifically, variations in it - in the various jurisdictions covered by a single club sporting competition. Currently, in SL, there is one set of laws that will appertain - that of the EU - albeit with courts within France and England possibly putting a different spin on any matters that require their attention. Next year, post-Brexit, that will become two - the EU for Catalans and England for everybody else. Does that have any implications which the RFL has not yet thought through? Again, I confess I have no idea, but I would hope that the question has at least been asked within the office corridors of the RFL. Toronto in the SL would add in Canadian law. What I assume (but again, it is merely an assumption on my part) is that nobody can run an international, sporting competition and dictate rules of employment that all clubs in it must follow, even though they are contrary to the established law of the land in one or more of the countries which host clubs in that competition.

True, but the Boro losing to Aston Villa in the play-offs may have dampened local spirits for a while.

Well, I wish I could agree with you, Dave T, but...

Thanks - will do. (Great singers too!)

In skim-reading the first three pages of this thread, I note an inclination to talk about changing the season, aspects of the rules and other 'structural' things. However, I would like to see a team whose coach, within the context of current laws and seasons, etc, explicitly tells his team to vary things from what has become current 'custom and practice'. So, how about: kick off short, and look to challenge for the ball fifteen metres inside the opposition half, with most of your team lined up on the side where the ball goes. And I mean from the word go, not when you are 18 points down with eight minutes to play! kick off short, but kick it in the opposite direction from that which your opposition expects you to be doing. kick off 'medium length', with a high steepling place kick, designed to come down round about the opposition's 30 metre line, with your own players there in time to challenge for it. This is something which I think Pat Richards at Wigan used to do sometimes and I presume it is only possible with a modern kicking tee (and lots of practice!) in receiving a kick off, pass it along the backs line straight away (TWP did this to some effect in the opening 10 minutes of their game with Warrington, and I think York did too against Les Dracs) in receiving a kick off, kick it back immediately over the heads of the onrushing opposition. in taking a drop-out under your posts, kick for touch (occasionally seen now), or kick it short and straight ahead, and have three men chase it, ideally with the middle one taking possession. I remember Lee Briers do this once or twice to good effect. put actual forwards in the scrum and then move the ball along the backs line quickly (occasionally seen, but too rarely for my liking) also from a scrum with your put-in, kick the ball from the base of the scrum diagonally for your backs to run on to. in general play, with some regularity, kick after the second or third tackle. Some of these would inevitably backfire, but my point is that a tactically conservative and hence predictable team is surely much easier to defend against (I think that explains, at least in part, the paucity of scoring by Catalans this season) My general point is that, from a neutral spectator's point of view, it is good to see a defending team unsettled by really not knowing what on earth is coming next. I am not a Wire's fan, but it was always a great joy to watch someone like Briers because you just didn't know for sure what was coming next. We need more like him!

Thanks for you thoughtful reply, Saint 1. I take your point about average size increasing, but also note hvy wg's comment about the tallness of the population in RL areas of the south of France (well, at least some of them)

My observation, Saint 1, was not specifically about forwards; that refinement seems to come later in the thread than my previous contribution. Random Tiger made an observation about the French team as a whole. Like you, I take it as a given that some size is helpful, but I fear we nowadays see too much emphasis on it, sometimes at the expense of guile and skill. In my more optimistic moments, I do see some smaller players thriving (and Fages again this weekend reminded us that a good, round-the-legs tackling technique is a commendable thing, arguably too rarely seen, even in some two or three-man tackles) To specifically answer your query, try this team for size (literally!): full back - 5' 3" (11 stone 0 lbs) wings - 5' 9" (12 4) and 5' 8" (11 11) centres - 5' 8" (11 11) and 5' 5" (11 0) half backs - 5' 8" (12 4) and 5' 5" (11 11) props - 5' 9" (13 5) and 5' 9" (13 8 lbs) hooker - 5' 7" (12 10) 2nd row - 6' 1" (15 4) and 5' 10" (14 9) loose forward - 5' 9" (13 8 lbs) My worry is that, nowadays, half of those players would be told they were too small and/or too light for professional RL and should think about trying another sport. And in my more grumpy moments, it is that which I find depressing. For the record, that's the French team that won the first test in Sydney in 1951 by 26 points to 15, and by all accounts opened the eyes of the Australian public to how the game could really be played! So there is one point in the game's history where a team didn't benefit from having a big set of forwards.

Lancashire United transport service 82 in my school days, but that may have changed!

I suspect you're right, RT. How utterly depressing! if you look at the size of the French players who, on tour half a century ago, opened the eyes of the Australian players and public to how our game could be played, they were mostly under six foot and not grotesque parodies of normal male physique! As I say, how utterly depressing...

Thanks for clarifying that, OF. The BBC's own RL webpage seems to be trying very hard not to admit this!

Thanks!

Sorry, Krzzystuff, and I am truly not being rude, but I have absolutely no idea what the section of your contribution I have highlighted actually means! Any chance of enlightenment?

Yes, but if he thinks the Rockies and Gibraltar are made of clay, I presume he doesn't have a degree in geology!