Dave T

Where is this from?

Yes, I do think it is hard not to be cynical of these reports. I'm a firm believer in "if something sounds too good to be true...". It just feels odd that we have interest from all over the world in investing in RL. We struggled to get investment when we touted for PE, certainly at any kind of decent level, I'm not sure why we would suddenly have a load of interest. It's all the same tactic as claiming that Netflix/Prime/DAZN/BT Sports etc have been interested in our tv rights before we then re-sign with Sky Sports for half the price.

This situation is not comparable to any of the other situations that anyone cares to mention. When we are in Rd 10 and a team has a cup final the week later, rotating your squad is a perfectly valid approach and is very easy to defend. Probably the worst example last year was also by Salford who gave Wigan the game to take the LLS, giving a taster of Rowley's mentality, but despite being damaging for the game in what should have been a blockbuster finish to the season, it stays just on the right side of the rules. When a club actively brings the game into disrepute and sticks their fingers up to the sport in this country in a high profile game because the coach wants to act like a stroppy teenager, then it doesn't work. Defences like injuries and squad rotation are not relevant here. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with a 2/4 pt deduction and a suspended fine which feels proportionate, we should remember that the process hasn't finished yet, its being reported halfway through as far as I understand. What Salford did is not the same as others though. They made a political move and brought the game into disrepute at a time when the RFL were doing everything they could to help them.

Yep, agreed. I'd also be happy if they took this further and it was all part of a strategic announcement which explained that we are i creasing in the short term but we will be investing £x in player pathways across the UK that will support the long term reduction. An unsavoury short term fix is always more palatable with a proper plan behind it.

Good luck getting answers to any of that.

I made a similar point earlier in the thread, but to expect to be able to provide enough world class athletes to fill 10-14 teams within the narrow confines of the North of England is flawed, and that's why we end up where we are. I dont just go with the opinion that clubs can just make more effort and we can have full teams of English lads. Accepting that we can always do more. In the past we had player pathways from Union, bringing players in from all over the UK. We've never replaced that, we've just kept talking about the Northern heartlands. Robust pathways in London, Wales etc are a must for the future of the game - expansionist agendas are not just for a laugh.

One of the challenges around time wasting is that you struggle to get much sympathy when as a tackler youve spent all the rest of the match making the play the ball as slow as possible.

Isn't it something vague like 'without delay' or something?

I do think people just need to chill. We dont need to kneejerk just because some people don't like a ptb taking 10 seconds instead of 3.

Indeed. Its almost like its the perfect t argument as to why the clubs shouldn't be the ones deciding stuff like this.

Great stuff. But jeez, that's an ugly graphic in that post.

Well, the last person who had proper control was Wood. There was an owners coup when he ousted them.

Yup, its been a problem forever, but the evidence against it is coming thick and fast right now. I dont even necessarily think its just an 'I'm alright Jack' problem, running things so complex by committee is impossible.

Club owners come and go.

Double post

Hmm. You can't pull people for fiction and then deny what actually happened in 1995/6. London were parachuted into the new top flight for 1996. They did not earn on-field promotion, them and PSG benefited from being handpicked, everyone else was based on league rankings. Now, I dont agree with the poster you are replying to, and am more in your camp that London needs far more support than they have. But we dont need to claim they werent parachuted into SL (or given overseas players dispensation). I would argue that is the case for many areas, I notice you ask for London to receive the same patience and support that has been extended elsewhere - im not sure i see much patience and support for any clubs, we have a long history of throwing clubs under the bus. Catalans benefited from being handpicked, and protection for the first year or two, but outside of that nothing really. Let's be honest, if they were as bad as what London put on the field, theyd be left to the lower division. Catalans first few years was fine, but after that they've been left to themselves, and let's be honest, the terms of their participation are worse than other clubs. So we shouldn't really be looking for London to have similar support to others, we should be looking for expansion/special strategic clubs like this to have a hel of a lot more support than they have ever had.

Yeah, its ok, but it looks a little Samoa-y

If I was IMG I'd be getting out of here tbh.

Yes. History does rather suggest that we need a strong leadership team who will make decisions without being micromanaged by a committee of clubs.

I think the RFL are pretty clear about what you can't do and why, and I think its really simple to never be penalised for this in your whole career, and I'd say 99.9% of players never will. Interestingly, I think Horne actually slowed it down more with his mucking about!

TBH, it looks to me like they have just looked at the incidents and have rather accepted that Martin's was very little: "The panel concluded that this incident does not meet the criteria for Unnecessary Contact as per the regulations, describing the contact as “de minimis” meaning virtually nothing"

The thing to be crystal clear on here though is that the agreement to bring in IMG was the clubs. The agreement to approve reimagining RL was the clubs. The agreement to go with grading was the clubs. And if we nip back a few years, the decision to go with licensing, was the clubs. The decision to change their mind a few years later, was the clubs. And Super 8's, the clubs. And so on. And all of the above is fine, I'm perfectly happy that the clubs get their say, but doesn't it strike you as odd that they keep changing direction every 3 years or so.

Is there a video of the Martyn one, because the edited clip I saw, it looked pretty much nothing in Martyn's i.e. a shirt tug rather than a lifting of the player.

Let's be clear here though. The tackler can't pick up the player. That isn't his role. You don't get to tackle the player and then pick them up and control the ptb.

What I would say here is that there is only a split second between the tackler getting up and him pulling the ball carrier. Its not like he has lay there for 3 or 4 seconds. Watch it with the time running, its less than a second. So I think to claim there is time wasting is odd.