Dave T

When we had better TV deals, the lower leagues got more money iirc.

Are you arguing with yourself John?

I'd like to see a schedule with these games in advance of the Ashes. In terms of who, I think the key point is to make the fixtures as commercially viable as possible. I'm not a fan of made up teams being pulled together so ideally teams with some meaning, we do have a few international teams there so ideally the odd Test match in advance would be good. In terms of losing warm up games, it's not a big issue imo. In 1988 we lost 3 games in Oz and in 1992 we lost against Parramatta. Interesting to note that we started both of those tours in PNG, so maybe that is an option, it feels like PNG have earned a game, particularly after beating GB last time they played.

I do get it, I was very critical of Steve Price at Wire despite us finishing 3rd, beating Saints at Wembley and making other finals. I've consistently banged the drum for entertaining RL. This is meant to be entertaining and exciting, I couldn't care less for coaches giving an identikot interview about playing the percentages and so on. It's why for his faults I will always celebrate the likes of Dufty at Wire.

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!