Jump to content

Exiled Wiganer

Coach
  • Posts

    8,815
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Exiled Wiganer

  1. 1 minute ago, Scubby said:

    Yeah but it's another year away and we can concentrate on NRL and 2022 SOO before we have to think about the RLWC. That is exactly the thinking.

    But they are suggesting something which looks impossible, unless much more money is stumped up, and they must know that. Oh, and they can’t even be bothered by now acknowledging the calamitous knock on effects for the rest of the world. 

    For years the Oz papers have referred to the pro game as NRL rather than rugby league. This is the natural endpoint of that. They are literally a law to themselves. 

    • Like 2
  2. What still amazes me about the NRL’s statement and indeed the entire Australian me me me approach is that there is no suggestion as to how a 2022 World Cup would happen, or any acknowledgement of the efforts other sports are taking when faced with the same challenges and the costs and vast wider impact associated with any rearranged tournament. Or are they offering to pay for the delay, and I missed it? 
     

    It seems to me that NRL is now a rival sport intent on destroying anything it can’t control. 

    • Like 6
  3. 35 minutes ago, londonrlfan said:

    What makes people think they won't do the same in 2025 too? Going ahead without them is the best option. 

    And that is a massive question. Or, looking at it another way, why would anyone - individual, government or sponsor -invest money, time and effort in preparing for a World Cup if that is completely wasted because NRL go “nah”? 

    • Like 4
    • Sad 1
  4. 3 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

        Captains Challenge anyone.One each half you get the challenge back if right.Would it have been overuled .I would say 50/50 depends on which view the video ref takes.Mamo did the right thing in playing to the whistle and contact by Charnley was accidental.

    Something can be accidental and still be a penalty. Marshall was on the ground with the ball - what was likely to happen if Charley carried on running at him? We see penalties all the time for challenges on kickers which were the result of a player’s momentum. I think it’s an academic debate, as we would have lost anyway, but it’s a toss of a coin for me. 

    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Cheshire Setter said:

    I think the problem with these sort of events is that we sometimes spend too much time watching the slow motion replay, and overthink it.

    At full speed, Marshall slips over while Charnley is running in. There’s no way any decision could be made to avoid contact.

    A point being made is that, like when a player ducks into a swinging arm, the offence flows from the contact with the head. Someone mentioned the Hull FC ball drop above - that’s entirely different, as no one touched him. Here it is simple enough, we had contact with the head, the player was hurt and then the ball came free. That sequence of events is not in dispute - it seems to me (and plenty of other, but not everyone) - that that could have resulted in a penalty. I don’t think we usually apply a “he didn’t mean it” or “to couldn’t have been avoided” test normally to head shots, but I may be wrong. 

    Anyway, we only managed to score 8 points, so we would probably still have lost. 

  6. 1 minute ago, EagleEyePie said:

    The ref got the call wrong. It was contact to the head which is a penalty, accidental or not. You can't claim accidental contact and play on when Charnley hasn't even made any attempt to go with his hands. He's just walked up to the player and kicked him in the head while he's on the ground. Mamo then taking the ball from the hands of a clearly injured player is really poor sportsmanship.

    Just look at the incident in the first half with Philbin. Isa immediately stops. He isn't even tackled but Hicks immediately stops play due to injury.

    He should have stopped play immediately when Marshall went down, but having not done so it's staggering that he didn't go to the video ref. He must have been following the play so he must have seen it but still didn't refer it.

    It's the wrong call and it's a big call so I'm not surprised Lam was fuming about that.

    That was the take on the radio from Wilkin. In another world we would also get the benefit of the doubt from the Bibby no try. In fact I might call it as a draw and get my tippex out to correct the table in the papers. 

  7. 1 minute ago, Dave T said:

    There was definitely merit in thinking it should have gone to the VR - if you then watch it and agree with the ref's decision that there was no foul play, then why on earth would you get angry about it? 

    I mean at least according to Lam's eye's he thought he saw a kick at the head - but then he also claims he saw an outstanding performance from his team.

    That isn;t aimed at you by the way.

    I don’t know you’re getting so worked up. Lam is a losing coach, and reacts oddly whenever we lose. 

  8. 1 minute ago, Cheshire Setter said:

    At full speed on the video replay Charnley runs towards Marshall who is slipping to the ground. No deliberate moving of the foot toward the player just a simple accident.

    You said there was no controversy, and I was pointing out that the radio thought there was. It’s all the same to me, if we can’t score more than 2 tries we won’t win games like this. 

  9. At this stage, the only thing that matters is getting the World Cup on this year (or genuinely postponed with a genuine plan which everyone is happy with). 

    The people least affected by the cancellation are the NRL, but there are a host of other people directly affected. The players, of course, and the women’s comp and the wheelchair comp, the RLWC, the IRL, ERL and APRL, who all rely on income from this. Every developing member nation will be harmed, every initiative across the game will be harmed. Our reputation as a sport with broadcasters and with sponsors and with host towns and communities will be destroyed. Nobody will touch us as a sport when we come selling the next European championships or World Cup. The French Government are being asked to underwrite a potentially large investment in an event which the NRL can veto on no notice for no good reason. And these are all initiatives which have been made possible by the efforts of thousands of people spending millions of hours for little, if any, reward. Many of whom will have been crushed by the NRL’s betrayal. 

    VLandys and co will be pretty much completely insulated against this, and worse, wilfully oblivious. If we get the Indigenous team and the Maoris we can move forward and salvage enough to make this a celebration of our game. If we have to live with an asterisk, so be it. That is a small price to pay for the benefits of having any competition.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
  10. 14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

    There is already a precedent for this in the IRL too with Tonga playing as the Tonga Invitational XIII in the last Oceania cup/GB Tour. 

    As much as I like the idea of Indigenous and Maori teams, I do think the opportunity has to be there for the Aussies and Kiwis that aren't qualified for that who want to come but can't too. Perhaps if they go with invitational 13s then the kits could reflect the Maori/Indigenous aspects. Thinking top half Green and Gold vs with bottom half Indigenous design for example.

    The NZ Maori team from the 2000 World Cup is an even better precedent. 

  11. 31 minutes ago, Dave T said:

    Spot on. Players aren't always the best people to give views on complex things like this - Hill is purely talking about on-field stuff, he has no idea about logistics. 

    But it isn't a great look for him, McGillvary and Maloney to be publicly supporting postponement. Id rather we had a joined up message here, but I suppose we can't gag people. 

    Perhaps Hill has done his own cost benefit analysis? 

    • Haha 1
  12. 10 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

    Thanks for that Rocket. Can't help but feel the ARLC decision has been made in isolation; if it wasn't, they'd understand (and hopefully) appreciate a big competition in England at the same time of year as the FIFA World Cup is an absolute non-starter. That renegotiating access to football stadia with the clubs, Premier League and Football League is a massive task and will cost a fortune. That the UK Government are no doubt placing great pressure on the organisational committee to go ahead with the event as the UK opens up. But as importantly, much needed funds to the IRL to continue to develop the sport globally is paramount.

    I am not sure pressure is the right word. The Government are doing all they can to make sure a competition can go ahead, and are prepared to pay more for that to happen. 

    • Like 1
  13. 9 minutes ago, theswanmcr said:

    I for one can’t stand the emotional rollercoaster that is this thread! A high as Tonga player says he’s playing, back down as ‘not good’ what someone is hearing, Pacific meeting but no comments is a good/bad thing.

    The only certainty is that Gould will continue to be an unspeakable swear word!

    It’s the hope that kills you eh 😉

    A week on and we still have some hope. It could have been all over by now. 

    • Like 2
  14. Beattie’s quote is interesting up to a point (and only up to a point). I have seen or heard nothing at all to suggest that the World Cup can be postponed without major trauma being caused to the game. If he believes this is “common sense” then either he is an idiot, he is lying or he should be able to frame a proposal for how that postponement could be achieved. It is one thing to pull his own team out, but it is something else entirely to demand that the whole show be shifted. 

    It is progress to get at least a quote from him. I guarantee that, had the players and Pacific caved by now, we would not have heard a peep. Troy Grant has played a legendary hand on this so far. 

    • Like 3
  15. I think (on balance) we will have a World Cup, and that it may well include an Indigenous team. And if it does go ahead, I think it will be a fantastic success. The UK Government’s response has been superb - not just holding the line but directly supportive. It can’t do any harm that we are already emerging from our exit wave, and that even gloomsters on SAGE are being optimistic in public. 

    By now, Vlandys and Gould expected the whole thing to have folded, but they have under estimated their ability to dictate to the world. You cannot over state the significance of Tonga’s staying on board. With PNG solid, that may well be enough for all of the Pacific Nations to hold the line. The ARL and NRL have also effectively treated the Pacific Nations with complete contempt, as well as the NH and the rest of the world, and that looks to have failed. It is one thing announcing that they’re not going, and everyone caving in, but to prevent this taking place may well require them to effectively force players not to go who could play for other countries. If there is one thing that could unite the Pacific nations it would be being dictated to in that way. 

    This has not panned out as they expected, and there is a lot still to play for. Choosing Gould as the ambassador to make their case is something of a godsend to us, as he is so obviously a fool. 

    • Like 14
  16. 1 minute ago, wiganermike said:

    That had certainly crossed my mind, they would be less concerned with a possible England triumph I think but should one of Tonga, Samoa or Fiji win the World Cup then they will face the prospect of the tap of PI players switching to the Kangaroos turning off.

    It’s not that they won’t play for the Roos, as they don’t want the Roos ever to play again.

    It’s the clear implication that SoO is no longer the pinnacle. 

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...