Dave T

Hull are a weird example. People are making out they are bad now because they have no risk of relegation. Yet they've been bad for years when relegation was in place. They really aren't doing too much differently in 2024 than they have for the last few years.

I do think though clubs are allowed to make rubbish rugby decisions, that's part of the fun. My team have under-performed over the last couple of years, and Leeds aren't where they maybe should be. But these are the clubs that are strong off the field - playing in good grounds, doing well financially, getting sponsors, big crowds. The fact that Hull have been hovering around 8th for the last decade is for them to be peed off with, but they are still delivering 5 figure crowds, including one of the biggest games of every year. I think it's OK that a strong club is getting it wrong on the field, that's the interesting sport bit.

Your third line is an interesting one, and I do get where you are coming from, but I think that is where the word 'unnecessary' does a lot of heavy lifting, and is clearly open to interpretation. On watching it, it does make me uncomfortable, I think it is a poor tackle - we see loads of these tackles where a players knees are not involved, which is the first thing I'd consider (so it wasn't an inevitable accident). On the disciplinary, we do see plenty of injuries that don't lead to a ban, and we see plenty of third man in tackles that don't lead to a ban, so I'm not too uncomfortable with it tbh.

does the sport look any different, or is it just ignored?

If it's a freak accident, there would be no charge - but the onus is always on the player. Players coming in 3rd man to hit around the hip don't normally have their knees involved. He got it wrong - that isn't on anyone else.

On your first line - I don't agree - the word unnecessary is important here - as per my first viewing, I think the tackler's body was in an unusual position, we see many third man in tackles that don't involve your knee being part of that tackle. On your second line - I'm not sure why you think it is impossible to do that intentionally or recklessly? The fact that these tackles are not common suggests it is possible to not do it - I don't think because he did do it it is accidental.

This escalated quickly

"Dangerous Contact - Defender uses any part of their body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player." This is the charge and I think the wording does cover this incident. (red words to be excluded as irrelevant)

That seems a odd thing to put yourself through when it's irrelevant as it's legal right now mate.

As a few people have pointed out, it is likely to be covered by the words "used his body to.... apply unnecessary pressure". In this case, the tacklers knee applied pressure on Isa's leg. You can't tackle and use your knee on the ball carrier's legs in a dangerous way - I think there is clear wording for a foul to be called. Whether we believe it was dangerous/intentional/reckless etc is the bit for debate.

I don't have an issue with Hull FC being graded as an A club. They are absolutely the kind of club that we should have in SL. I think it's one for their fans and board to be annoyed about that they don't play great rugby!

I'm not sure I agree, although Hull do make it hard to defend as they are a bit of a basket case, but then they were just as bad under the previous few systems we had too. But in terms of wanting a league with strong clubs, Hull absolutely would be in there. The fact that they are making bad rugby decisions doesn't massively change that. Considering they have been poor on field, they still outperform most RL clubs in the country off the field. I suppose it all comes down to whether you buy I to he principal of strong clubs rather than strong teams.

I'm loathe to spend too much time debating Wilkin's words, I think he is useless, but I don't buy that clubs aren't interested in winning and they are just happy with safety. There is no money to be made in RL, so spending money to just be at the top table for a club like Hull makes no sense.

I just hope they don't see the videos of you celebrating on the BBC. You'll never live it down, daring to celebrate and all that.

I think the club were guilty of falling for this whole 'culture' narrative. I was one of Price's biggest critics, but I'm not sure how anyone could seriously watch the team and highlight culture as being the biggest issue. Imo it was frustrated fans repeating it, and the lazy media jumping on it it's an easy soundbite to repeat. Culture means so many different things to different people that I think they went a but basic and Powell appeared overly aggressive. Focusing on getting rid of the likes of Charnley, Hill, Cooper, Hughes etc was odd. It feels to me like the last couple of years was the response to frustrations within the club, and I think that led to us getting the actions wrong. And I'll be honest, I was very excited when Powell was announced - for me, our biggest shortcoming during Price's reign was tactical - we were negative and often went within ourselves. I think had Powell been given the brief of addressing that we may have seen a different outcome. Because I don't think Powell is a bad coach, although his brand is definitely damaged!