Dunbar

Really, you don't think there is any place for accidents in a high speed full contact sport like Rugby League?

True, but they usually fall into a category we know that the disciplinary panel/ref's are looking for... a late tackle, a high shot, a tackle on the kicker. I would ask anyone to answer this - if you were watching that game and saw that tackle and Isa got up and played the ball and the game carried on, would you recognise any foul play?

Well, it is all theoretical but my opinion is that if Isa got up and played the ball, that tackle would have gone completely unnoticed along with almost all the others in the match.

Do you think of there was no injury this tackle would have recieved attention from the committee, and if so a ban issued?

I think we could find something like this many times in a game. Isa suffered a serious injury and that is awful but I personally believe that they are punishing the outcome here, not the action.

The charge detail says "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." I just cannot see this as there is no attempt to bend, twist or apply pressure that would cause any risk.

Sure. I agree it is a very wide ranging set of responsibilities and even if he has people under him to help execute, he is the guy who has to lead it all. And that's a big ask.

Didn't want to start a new thread but Sylvestor Namo has received 5 matches for his tackle that injured Isa in the Cas Wigan game. For the life of me, I can't see the reason. A horrible and unlucky outcome but surely this is a tackle we see a hundred time a game with contact around the hip of Isa.

Well that's what it says his role will be on the club's website.

I kind of had that in mind when I mentioned performance management. But yes, there will be a lot of processes he will need to understand and perform (maybe even create if they are not all there). A manager could go through several years of development and coaching before he/she attains a role of this seniority and responsibilities. He will need to learn a lot quickly.

The Sky Sports article says the following; Myler's position will involve him overseeing all on-field performance aspects of the senior and academy teams, including rugby operations, recruitment, and the management of the club's coaching staff. So, for a start he will not only be managing people but managing people who manage people. In other words, he is being parachuted into a senior leadership role with no obvious examples of him managing people on his CV. All Rugby Operations and recruitment means the building of a squad of players (within a fixed budget) and the associate plans for player development as well as the budgets for non playing staff. For recruitment, he will need to work internally (for Academy graduates) and with a network of scouts and agents for player availability both here and abroad. Following identification of available talent, he would need to negotiate, length of contract and terms (again within a fixed budget). I expect this type of role would have to put into place performance criteria for the coaching staff and managed people against that criteria. He will also be an escalation point for any disputes, grievances and appeals so will need to sit in chair of those sessions. Finally, I expect he will be the person explaining club performance and culture upstream to the owner and board to stakeholder management will be a key skill. This is a role leading maybe 60 to 70 people and a circa £3 to 4 million budget. There will be more but this feels like a lot for a recently retired player to handle who hasn't progressed through a management or coaching role within the game. Good luck to him.

Not a bad idea. Two years in Union for a suitcase full of cash and then 3 years at #1 for the Roosters. You should be an agent.

You know, I think you may be on to something there.

This pretty much sums it up. But a different case to RTS. He went to play Union in New Zealand to try and fulfil an ambition to play for the All Blacks – and certainly wasn’t going to make a lot more money (I may be mistaken but he could have been on less money than he was in League). Now, unless Manu grew up dreaming of playing Union in Japan, this is a shift for money. And that is fine, that’s his prerogative as this is his job. He will get a lot more than $1M per year. He can do what he wants and I will go on watching and enjoying the NRL and Rugby League in general.

Have to say, this doesn't make a lot os sense to me. Yes, the Super League Grand Final has surpassed the Challenge Cup final as the premier event of the year - but that doesn't mean you remove an event, it means you have two. There are plenty of loud voices inside Rugby League that Super League is too repetitive (loop fixtures), regular season games are not meaningful enough (and the League Leaders Sheild not relevant) and has not had enough winners (just 4 since the inception of the Grand Final). The remedy to that is not to remove meaningful knock-out games and a competition which has delivered Hull FC, Catalan, Warrington and Leigh as winners in the last decade over and above the teams that have also won Super League. Blowout games are a part of every sport - they are nothing to be embarrassed about or to make knee jerk reactions from. The game between Warrington and St Helens was superb and a great advert for Rugby League, while the final last year was one of the most memorable occasions in British Rugby League for a long time. Binning the Challenge Cup would be the biggest mistake the sport would ever make, luckily it is not going to happen. Edit: add to the above the Community and lower league sides getting the chance to play against semi-pro and higher league sides in the cup - I am sure such games (even in losses) will be a much remembered and a highlight of a player's season.