Dave T

Well two of the things in his post were obvious. Book a different stadium for Jam v Knights, and put a link for ticket sales on the website.

So why is that a good example of what would happen in your scenario? Wales have only ever been strong due to RU players, which has dried up. I used to love watching them in the 90s when the had some brilliant talent. But they are nothing like that now. Look at what happened in the Knights vs Jamaica game last night for the reality of what would happen on the field. I should add, I don't disagree that these teams should have more exposure to top nations, particularly France, but that should be through riding England's coat-tails with SH teams. I. E. England should be hosting tours by some of the strong SH teams and they should be playing against Wales and France for example.

Why would that be a better example?

That didn't happen for a long time though, it had settled into a rather nice play, once teams realised it wasn't necessarily about scoring on them, but starting a turnover set on the front foot, with a zero tackle and a fast PTB.

I disagree, very many fans move on after a defeat and don't mention the ref. I don't think I've ever blamed a ref for a Wire defeat. Small noisy groups make a lot of noise about referee bias. Saint Toppy is quite an extreme example of being a very sore loser, so I am interested in what has shifted his mindset to be much more philosophical about referee decisions.

Yes, this is my point. People think just playing games) improvement. Why? The Challenge too is that Italy joined a fully functioning tournament - you can't just start a new tournament with such a difference in standards. Getting these teams more regular, credible games, ideally in major tournaments is a sensible option.

Like I say, I admire this attitude of these things balance out. It is one I share. But it is only one you believe in when Saints win, as your posting history proves.

How many years of playing Wales annually do you think it would be before we saw tangible improvement? What is your realistic goal here? Because in all likely we will see huge scores with no interest from fans, sponsors or broadcasters. I'm interested in why you think it would be different from that?

An England game on the BBC tends to get between 1 and 2 million whoever they play. The problem is that the BBC don't pay a fortune and nobody else wants it so we don't make much from that. We make little sponsorship from even the biggest events never mind Wales v England. The big variant is the crowd income, and whilst we have done well in the odd one off world cup game etc. we'd likely see 2 or 3k versus Wales away or maybe 5k in Salford. None of that is to say we shouldn't play the odd game against weaker nations, but your claims that we can build tournaments around the likes of Wales to replace tournaments with the Aussies is way off and backed with not a single ounce of evidence. By far the most sensible approach is to keep growing WC's with proper qualifying tournaments to give more nations games. Mid-season International breaks for more local games against the likes of Wales/Ireland/France etc would be great. They should be part of the solution, but they are most definitely not the solution.

The bit in bold is imho the best model. I think the way that the RFL and NRL can support the development here is to support through providing funding and resources in a JV kind of way. I'm not a fan of nations depending on a bit of goodwill and being at the mercy of the bigger nations. I properly resourced and funded IRL/ERL/PacificRL is crucial - but they need to be supported. I don't think we can use this approach of using the NRL and RFL/SLE leagues to develop the game worldwide, topped up with the Aussies and England playing against weak teams. We need to be a bit more patient than that, and be giving some of the lower ranked nations regular competitive games in well structured tournaments. It is telling that we give auto qualification quite far down the rankings to our WC - this is because they can't really be bothered organising the full qualification tournaments. I think ultimately we need to be more patient and mature than sending England and the Aussies to play games against low nations - that can be a part of development, but it would be a very small part.

Let's look at the last 8 or 9 years - we haven't had a reliance on the Aussies (Kangaroos) at all - so I'm not sure why you keep saying that. We have played them only in organised major tournaments, outside of that we have played the Kiwis mainly, plus they have sent GB to play Tests against Tonga and PNG. The RFL staged the biggest World Cup ever in 2013. Just 8 years later they are/were on track to deliver an even bigger tournament, with record investment. The RFL have been key drivers in the RLWC and the 4Nations - and these tournaments have been key in getting some of the wider teams playing games against the bigger nations. I would love you to be right, but I see no evidence of England battering Jamaica and Wales in Wales as being a good thing.

I'm genuinely not sure that England can develop these nations. I agree there is more to do, but in reality France and Wales are the real opportunities as they probably always have been, and they have support and are embedded into the RFL's pyramid. I don't see just organising games as developing the nations, but naturally a game in France is welcome - I would have preferred a 2 series home and away test, but we are where we are. There is no evidence that England just playing France and Wales will improve them, the hard work needs to be below that level, and the RFL doesn't have the funding and resources to develop French RL (and in fact shouldn't be responsible for it). The RFL can be a useful ally to these nations, but cannot be responsible for them. I think we are broadly agreeing, but maybe how we would do it slightly differing.

Weren't those high tackles penalised? But you are right, other fans and club officials should take the lead on pragmatism from the wonderful St Helens club.

The approach to yellow and red offences and the disciplinary impact is all a bit jumbled imho. We saw two bans from the Grand Final - both offences missed, but that surely suggests they are bad enough for at least a yellow card, maybe red. If they are minor incidents worthy of a yellow then surely they are not worthy of a ban. And if offences that get yellows are worthy of bans, why didn't Makinson get banned? It's all a bit inconsistent imo and I don't think there is much excuse for games with a VR missing foul play that is worthy of a ban. I think we should be bolder with the on-field disciplinary around foul play - is still find it absolutely bizarre that the charade that is the on-report system is still a thing, when I'm fact it really isn't anything.

Yes, that should also be part of France's plan to improve.

Without going cross code, but Italy Union are an example of a team supported, they are still nowhere near a match for England though. Hopefully France will see some benefits of what Catalans and Toulouse are doing, but it will be a long game. I also don't see why the Sh teams can't be a part of the future - they always have been and now there are more better teams that is an opportunity rather than a negative. Sure there are challenges to face with the NRL, but that will be sorted.

Of course - but there is no requirement for it to be conclusive or 100% certain - terminology like that has got us into a bit of a mess with the current VR system, where we see bad decisions given because a VR can't 100% say that he should overturn the ref, despite all probability showing the ref as wrong (in general not this specific call). I think we often set the bar too high for penalty tries. But ultimately, my view is that Yaha had hold of the ball, was 4m from the line and heading for the corner. The thing that stopped him was an illegal tackle. I don't think we need to overthink it.

See my earlier post - there is no requirement for it to be conclusive.

I was very happy with that try being given, I was sat about 30m surrounded by Aussies - but it was not that clear cut - Slater was right there in contention for the ball. But imho it was exactly the right decision - if foul play even stops the opportunity of a try, the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker. It certainly did in 2008, it didn't last week. Also, people need to stop using words like 'definitely' or '100%' or 'guaranteed' when it comes to awarding a penalty try - that isn't a requirement. The international laws says: The Referee may award a penalty try if, in their opinion, or that of the video referee, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team For me this is why I disagree with @dkw's rationale that it is right it was disallowed because people differ in their opinions - but that isn't a reason to disallow, as there is no requirement for beyond reasonable doubt or anything. It simply has to be in the ref's opinion, pretty much like any other decision tbh. The reason it wasn't given is because the VR didn't think Yaha would score (we need to live with that, that's life) - there is no official right or wrong here, it is all opinion - but Makinson made one tackle - an illegal one, those trying to make out this was 2 tackles are way off. It is one of the very few areas where I think RU does better than us. They don't spend ages trying to work out why it isn't a try - they are pretty comfortable giving it. Just as we were in that 2008 final.

The problem is it is rather limited in what it can do in the NH. France are miles off. If England RU only had Italy to play every year they wouldn't be filling Twickenham like they do. The majority of quality international RL teams are SH teams, they are part of the solution, even if it is difficult.

Yep. The frustrating thing is that often the fans and media who repeat a lot of the negativity about the sport outside of Australia don't really look at some of the facts. The viewing figures for things like the World Cups are very healthy and when they make effort, the crowds can be solid. In the WCC - when Leeds played in Melbourne, it attracted their 4th largest crowd of the season, and when Wigan played in Sydney it was their 2nd largest crowd that year. We have a challenge with the WCC around disparity in quality, but as we saw a few years back when we extended the tournament slightly, we got some great games and the SL teams actually started to perform better.

Sorry, was a light-hearted comment...

Don't underestimate us please Robin.....

Apologies I've missed the 7pm kick off?

Whilst I'm not as down on this deal as many others here, I think you are portraying a rather romanticised view of this. These games are likely to finish just before 10pm on a Monday night with the majority of the season in term-time. In reality, your target audience on a Monday night is older blokes who may get out and have a Monday pint. We can't present 'family carnival style events' on Monday nights like this. There is a reason carnivals aren't on Monday nights.