glossop saint

I was doing a long drive yesterday evening and listening to 5live sports extra. They had the hundred commentary. A competition which gets a lot of stick (and a lot of support) from cricket fans. There wasn't a negative word said despite a fairly one sided game. Straight from there they went to the second half of the Hull match. Despite much preferring rugby I very nearly turned off as the moaning and complaining by the commentary team was incessant. Mostly fair points and commentators aren't primarily cheer leaders but anyone who stayed tuned in would have had two very different experiences, and not in favour of rugby.

I feel that that would have been incredibly harsh on the York player involved with the Feldt HIA.

I think you mean a lack of in rugby league's case.

I think that they were saying 'it could be a blood bath'!

I think it was too. Maybe they would do the same if there was a closer game expected this round. It's not a surprise that the BBC chose London v Bradford. Having said that part of me seems to think that one of the ties that got picked up might have involved Leigh when they were storming the championship so I might be completely wrong!

I genuinely can't remember but was that covering SL v champ ties? I wonder if the downside of this round and the seeding means less interest for broadcasters. Though I suspect we will end up with similar coverage in the next round so maybe not.

They won't. It's the reason it might/will happen. It gives those borderline clubs a stay of execution as it will likely be York or Toulouse who finish bottom and get relegated. Then they can come up with some other system to keep them safe for the next year.

As with pretty much everything done over the last 6 months. I don't mind the headline of 14 clubs and with the correct 3 clubs as far as I'm concerned. However, too soon, too rushed, no thought of appropriate funding, very little consideration to player pool, what happens in future, what happens to the lower tiers, what effect it has on grassroots, the international scene, the relationship with Sky, Sport England, pretty much everything. All seemingly because of losing a thousand or so away fans (which ironically wouldn't have happened thanks to Bradford finishing higher than TO in the ranking anyway). I really hope that the 14 team league works but it will be despite the process, not because of it.

No wonder they got in with 2.25 out of 2.2!

Big gap between 12 and 13. And between 14 and London (assuming Salford are completely ruled out).

Admin Degsy booted me after too many vinos

Is there any coverage or is it a case of watching various X accounts (or waiting for them to be posted on here)?

Why is that the bigger question? No one, absolutely no one, would say that the bottom SL team would win more than a couple of games at the very most, most years in the last 10, they would probably have 50 points put on the in the majority of games. There is no questioning the strength in depth of the NRL. Where the top SL teams slot into the NRL or the bottom NRL teams fit into SL is definitely a more interesting question.

Well done Hull KR. A great season. Also, I think that these 2 coaches are two of the absolute best, not only as coaches but as people. Full credit to both of them for what they have done the past few seasons and they both display multiple characteristics that should be championed and celebrated.

Is this genuinely a question aimed at me or just a chance to moan about minimum standards and Odsal again? I deliberately steered clear of directly mentioning any minimum standards, facilities points etc. Just focusing on the performance points (on field performance that applies to the grading), what effect that will have and the potential consequences.