Jump to content

Wellsy4HullFC

Coach
  • Posts

    11,365
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Wellsy4HullFC last won the day on December 11 2021

Wellsy4HullFC had the most liked content!

About Wellsy4HullFC

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hull

Recent Profile Visitors

44,798 profile views

Wellsy4HullFC's Achievements

6.3k

Reputation

  1. What did you think of the "neutral venue" proposal out of interest, Martyn? For arguments sake, if you kept the format the same this year (SL clubs entering at round of 16)... The combined Last 16 attendance for 6/8 games was 24,028 (Batley and HKR didn't give their attendance). A safe guess would be around 6k combined. The bar is set at about 30k. Surely the clubs aren't making money off that? Last 10 years Round 6 aggregate attendances: 2023 - 31,650; 2022 - 29,509; 2020 & 2021 - COVID; 2019 - 36,677 (2 big ties); 2018 - 28,748; 2017 - 31,847; 2016 - 26,706; 2015 - 33,597 [average = 31,248] The Magic Round 1 day attendance is about the same. By going the Magic route, potentially you could double the round attendance, create an event of it that people want to attend, have all games broadcast live and hit a target city. Or, you could carry on with sub 4k average attendances that make SL clubs look unattractive. In addition, the QFs have had around 25k combined over the last 10 years, only 1 year broke 30k. Less than one day at Magic. I'd say take the show on the road and make it something unique.
  2. Thanks for the reply Martyn. To push back a bit on your reply, you've already noted that we've moved away from that. I'm assuming that's in relation to the fact that teams enter the cup at different stages. SL clubs entering in the round of 16 (rather than the ribs of 32 as previously) has killed a lot of the enjoyment of the cup for me, but regardless all teams don't enter at the same stage so it's not entirely open and unrestricted. I don't think being open and unrestricted is necessarily the main selling point of the cup either. I'd say more people spoke about the fixtures involving SL v Championship clubs this weekend than Leeds v Saints. I'd say the USP is that variety. The CC needs to offer something completely different to that of SL, which is why I proposed the initial round of guaranteeing SL clubs don't meet each other, as well as magic-style neutral grounds thereafter. I'd even consider a French-only bracket to the draw to garner interest there. Catalans, Toulouse and two Elite 1 teams at the round of 32, with winners playing each other at round of 16 (just to guarantee only 1 overseas club could make the final and protecting the event from a potential low attended final). In an ideal world, you'd have all pro clubs ever at the same time (as well amateurs) with an open random draw, but that wouldn't necessary be more attractive, just more "open and unrestricted". Attracting the punters is the number one objective, which is why we've got to offer them something they want to come and pay for. So far they only want to see a Wembley Final (and even that is dying down).
  3. Really enjoying these podcasts, Martyn. Keep it up! In regards to the headline question, my take... The problem with the Challenge Cup is that its early rounds are compared to SL, thus it looks an inferior version of something we already have. Same teams playing at the same venues in front of lower crowds. I'd have all SL teams (except the champions) entering at round of 32. All seeded away to lower league sides (different venue, different opposition). SL champions have a free weekend to play WCC. All remaining rounds (Ro16, QF, SF, F) played at a neutral venue like Magic Weekend. Gives a fixed date in the calendar, a fixed venue to sell to a new local market, can pool resources together to create a unique event, all can be televised easily with one setup, won't be compared with SL fixtures as it's at a neutral venue, has a low bar set in terms of crowds (did the combined attendance of the last round even break 30k?). Also gives new life to Magic Weekend and removes an extra loop fixture from the league. I await my invite to a future podcast panel
  4. We've signed some average players to replace far better ones leaving. We haven't actually replaced them all. No leaders. No halves. No discipline. Really, what were we expecting? Our forwards spend more time off the pitch being punished (in and out of games). At this stage, I'd really appreciate some honesty from the club and not the same old tired "stick with us, we're working on it, we're hurting, blah blah" because it's just not good enough anymore. We need something to be optimistic about. Our season is over before Easter.
  5. I've been saying this a while. We bang on about our youth, but it never kicks on. We've had some above average players develop. When they get to the first team, they never develop further.
  6. I'd agree, but he'd no doubt go to another club and they'll suddenly become world beaters The hardest job in rugby league is this. Any coach who thinks they're worth their salt should take on this to see if they're as good as they think they are!
  7. The Friday overlap annoys me. I can't choose which game I want to watch and when I do, you know I'll end up not picking the most exciting one! Came in late on Friday so chose to watch Leigh v Leeds after HT scores. Always fun watching Leeds get beat, right?... Should have watched the Saints/Salford game! First World problems!
  8. I don't think that's true. For it to be a voluntary tackle, a player must play the ball without being called held. There doesn't need to be any tackler involved (hence the voluntary part). Example: I recall (whilst at Huddersfield) Stanley Gene getting penalised for throwing himself to the ground before making contact with the defenders and playing the ball as if he'd been tackled. I assume he was anticipating contact within that maneuver and attempting a quick PTB to catch them offside. It's the exact type of play the rule is designed to prevent.
  9. Unless we abolish the offside rule, it is imperative that we keep the voluntary tackle rule. Otherwise you'll see players in possession playing the ball randomly to trap players in offside positions (a bit like the "dumping" tactic in touch rugby). As for the deliberate knock on rule, could it possibly be that the interpretation may players who are actually in possession of the ball deliberating throwing it to the ground?
  10. Golden try, silver point. One potential issue (but not impossible to solve): if one team gets 3 penalties, then the other team gets a try, does the team that has the try immediately run despite being 2 points worse off? The answer should obviously be no, but the wording wouldn't agree and need tightening up.
  11. Why does everyone suggest 9s? It's never been successful.
  12. The protocol basically forgot to mention exceptions. The RFL are taking the blame off the ref, which is fine. In all of my reactions to the red card, I was never angry at the ref, I was angry at the RFL for this poorly executed new directive (and before anyone says "it wasn't poorly executed", it's easy to say when your side hasn't been affected and screwed of a fair shot at winning when they were arguably on top, not to mention the knock on effects). I hope this response from the RFL gives referees the confidence to include a little more common sense in their judgements.
  13. "This has highlighted a lack of clarity in the procedures regarding head on head contact, which left the officials at Friday’s game in an invidious position. The section of the Framework relating to head-on-head contact will now be amended, emphasising that it applies only to initial contact. Once the mechanics of the tackle become more fluid, officials are able to use their knowledge and game-understanding to mitigate the sanction, to reflect the level of culpability of the tackler." I read that as they forgot to mention what doesn't count, so the referee followed direct protocol, and now they're "debugging" their protocol. I don't think any referee would have given that if they felt it wasn't protocol. Like I said before, I think all the talk of head injuries has created a fear of not punishing head contact, so if in doubt get a card out. I'm pretty sure that ref wouldn't have pulled a card out if he thought he could avoid it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.