Griff

I'll tell you what was really bad news - the twelves and eights era. Soccer folk had already booked the stadium for the first three months of the rugby season, up to early May. When the fixtures came out for the eights part of the season, soccer folk had already booked the stadium for August and September. Throw in a few weeks where the groundsmen were reseeding and there was only about six weeks of the season where the rugby club had a free choice of dates.

Yeah - short gripper socks and Catalans "sleeves" covering his shins.

It's a city - and our foothold for the professional game in Scotland.

You're right, of course. To be honest, Les, I'm fed up with folks making ex cathedra statements instead of just reading the laws of the game. I' m leaving this thread. Despite the OP not wanting an argument, there are some very provocative statements being made on here.

I didn't see Hendo at Swinton yesterday.

Ok. I disagree.

Dunno. Nobody's done it for over a century so far as I know.

Well, again, for there to be a voluntary tackle, there has to be a tackle. Not just a few defenders waving their arms in the air.

Playing the ball randomly isn't a voluntary tackle. A voluntary tackle needs to have a tackler involved. The deliberate knock on rule was brought in because Albert Goldthorpe made a successful ploy of punching the ball over an opponent's head before running round him and catching it. It wasn't about attempted interceptions.

Grey at the bottom or the top?

No. But then, I wouldn't be thinking of changing the laws of the game - or the accepted interpretation of them - based on one incident. That's what RL tends to do and it usually has unintended consequences. Refereeing's hard enough, referees don't need to be coerced into making value judgments on players' intentions.

Fair enough. But if you don't answer the point, the natural assumption will be that you take it as valid.

Voluntary tackles should've been abolished once limited tackle rugby arrived.

I'm not sure that a reflex reaction gives a player time to assess in depth the probability of catching the ball. A second would be generous. How long did you think about it before posting the query?

Probably footless socks rather than cut off. They'd more than likely fray. Some players have socks with exra grip on the soles. Gives them a better stability in play. The footless socks are just for fancy.

And miles rounds to kilometres I suppose.

What attractive odds are you offering on Halifax?

Hard to say. The Charities Commission will give you details of income on their website but how much is specifically for the women's game is anybody's guess.

Confirms it's a bad idea.

Typos, eh?

Who knows? Even if you knew one player's salary, it might not be the same as the others. But once you go down the employment route, you're stuck with the National Minimum Wage. So, say a couple of two hour training sessions and four hours on a match day and you're looking at £80+, just to comply with the law. Plus holiday pay.

Struggling to see your logic here. Folk continually complain about Rugby League being an M62 sport but the reason for that is that that's where folk who are interested in Rugby League live. in the same way, there might be a lot of folk living in Paris but are they interested in Rugby League? The last incarnation of a Paris team suggested no. Apart from a staggering number of curious folk taking advantage of freebies at the first game against Sheffield.

Is that in the same way that the NRL needs four New Zealand teams?

There'll be a big variation in the quantum of these payments, I would imagine.

£10m arguably insufficient.