Dave T

From the RFL website: Castleford were found guilty of unacceptable behaviour, of breaching the RFL

Paul, with all due respect there is no reason to lock the thread. Not every thread can be about the nice things in RL. This is very relevant, and will probably get much more press than anything else happening in league for the next few weeks, so we should be able to debate it.

So doesn't this go back to the point about whether you have read the reason why they have been done? They haven't been done because the fans shouted something vile, they have been done because of their shoddy response to it. The tribunal was chaired by his Honour Judge Rodney Grant, who criticised the club for failing to take steps to stop the homophobic chanting, for failing to identify the perpetrators, for failing to challenge the chanting and for their failure to undertake a meaningful inquiry afterwards So they were criticised for failing to take steps to stop it (did they make an announcement there and then? did the stewards act on this?). They have been criticised for failing to identify the perpetrators (it is very common for fans to be highlighted now by either CCTV, public appeals, strong stewarding etc.)/ They have been criticised for failing to challenge the chanting (linked to point 1) They have been criticised for not undertaking a meaningful inquiry. They haven't simply been done because their fans chanted some stuff, it was their inadequacy to deal with the issue. Had they proven they had dealt with this strongly, I suspect no more than a suspended sentence, although that is only my opinion. You are focusing on the fact that they couldn't prevent this happening, yet most of the criticism from the Judge is aimed at Cas' responseonce it did happen.

Are you suggesting that there is only one level of abuse and offensiveness? If I was at a RL match and called James Graham a 'Ginger Scouser' (obviously from my seat where he can't see me!), and then turn and call a handicapped girl at the front a 'f*cking *******' that they are the same thing because they are both abuse? It is absolute nonsense. EDIT: just in case some found my terminology offensive.

I don't personally know what action Cas took at the time, the comments on here seemed to suggest that it was other fans who actually shut them up as opposed to anything the club did, although I cannot confirm that. Surely an announcement (ideally before it happened - I know my club certainly make announcements in place before and during the match) and then perhaps a visible presence of stewards in that area. Nobody would necessarily have to be ejected, as you say, this could be difficult, however making an announcement there and then that this is not acceptable, and putting a line of stewards in front of this small section of crowds would demonstrate that the club were taking this seriously. For anybody that was there, did anything like this happen?

I think we always knew that this was going to be an issue at the back end of the season, and it was one of the down-sides of franchising for me, but then there were always going to be pros and cons. When we moved to Summer we pretty much killed off proper tours, I miss them, but I wouldn't move back to winter just for them. You need to weigh up all the pros and cons rather than look misty-eyed at individual features.

Wigan do seem to have some very good ideas, not sure how succesful each one is, but personally I would receommend your club sets up a meeting with the other local clubs in the area who have grown their crowds this year (Wigan, Wire and Saints have all done so). I like the fact that on Wigan's website they give details of most of their promotion, whereas much of the work that Warrington do seems to be kept quiet in this area. Sometimes the crowd is just higher for no apparent reason! Wigan have a lot of group packages which I think are a great idea, they have all sorts of discounted packages for certain numbers. They have packages where the kids can go pitchside during the warmup, or can hold the hands of the players as they enter the field. Some very impressive packages. They have also done something whereby the person who purchases the most tickets for a certain game gets a free season ticket for next year. Something like that may encourage people to drag their families along, and perhaps you could reward anybody who buys over 10 tickets at once.

Yep, personally I don't see any reason why they would be any harsher on Cas than any other team. It's worth pointing out that

Of course pre-emptive action can be taken. Announcements can be made warning fans of the consequences of foul and abusive language, homophobic or racist chanting.

Warrington used to get a little stick for making various announcements before and during the game about the HJ being a community stadium etc. This was usually followed by the away following singing 'W*nky W*nky'. Whilst this didn't necessarily stop all foul chanting, it did absolutely send out the message that the club does not accept it. Compare this to Saints, who had a fair few comments about Sky turning the volume down on their fans foul chants, and you heard nothing from their club. That said, foul language is different to homophobic or racist chanting, and whilst foul language can be offensive, I don't believe 'W*nkers' are an often oppressed or victimised group of people.

Maybe, but when you look at the list of 3's he would still have to be near the top.

Personally I just hope that by season they were referring to the 8 week period and that he may be back for the playoffs.

Yep, especially when the 'standard' is Clubb, Smith and a second-rower. The Ireland thing is the one thing I have agreed with Mr Posh about in this thread, although it is up to the governing bodies to put a stop to this farcical situation now.

Apologies, missed Gleeson, thought it was strange he was left off the list.

Fair enough it's your opinion, but I just find it strange that you couldn't find any actual number threes knocking around in the game that are better than him and doing it week in week out. The one that is up there is Gleeson and you don't even mention him. We saw how good Lee Smith was at 3 in that 40m destruction at the DW.

Is this serious? So when asked for a list of players who you would put at 3 ahead of Bridge, you go with: Pryce J Tomkins Clubb Smith Watkins Briscoe Most of those players don't even play right centre, yet you would have them in ahead of a player who has made that position his own and has had a couple of decent games for England in that position already.

Yep, wouldn't think twice about puting Gleeson back in there. Like with Pryce, we shouldn't just be resigning players to the scrap heap just because they have lost their spot once. We simply don't have enough quality players to be able to do that.

He is England's current Number 3, and anything that weakens our options in the backs is a blow IMO.

I'm with you mate. Personally I think he should be dropped and work on some of his development areas in the 20's. Penny got dropped for a lot less than Riley is doing on a week-by-week basis. Personally I was hoping that with Myler back, King would have taken Riley's spot, but now with Bridge out that looks unlikely.

I assume that was a typo? It will be Hicks, King, Atkins and Riley as the first choice three-quarters now, which we have had for many games anyway. Bad news for Bridge and Wire, he has been excellent at 3 for us.

Whilst there is a lot of interchange (mainly IMHO due to the pace of the game and the size of pitches simply not making it practical for halves to have to keep swapping sides when you are moving the ball from one side of the pitch to another), I do believe the 7 is first receiver for quite a few clubs. Certainly at Warrington Myler will control the short passing game close to the ruck, and Briers will generally come in at 2nd receiver on the wide plays. At Wigan, you often see Tomkins (or O'Loughlin) as the 2nd receiver out wide. During the England game when Tomkins was playing 7, it was much more obvious that he was taking the ball first up and he was more involved in controlling the play than he sometimes is at Wigan.

What the hell is this thread on about?

As with most of these position-specific questions, much of it can depend on the personnel available and the coach in charge. I know I often bring Briers up on these threads, but he is probably one of the few remaining quality 'traditional' stand-offs playing in SL. In basic terms, often they will be 2nd receiver on attacking plays and will link with the wider players (usually centres, fullbacks and 2nd rowers). They will often have plenty of assists as they will be responsible for putting players through the gaps (watch Briers' pass to Atkins on Sunday for a perfect example of why I like watching Briers). Defensively I disagree with Matt slightly in that often we see halves (6 or 7) defending in either the wing or centre position, often due to their lack of size and to protect them for their offensive play. As you mentioned in your opening post though Cofi, often teams will use their 13 or 1 as a playmaker and he will do things which often get thought of as a 6's job. Mathers has been linking into the Wire line a lot recently and using the cut-out pass to the winger. For me, this is a bonus play and simply increases your options. Wigan on the other hand use O'Loughlin as their ball handling 2nd receiver (his number of assists this year is very impressive), and the reason I think he is 13 rather than 6 is due to the lack of pace. When it comes to the running plays etc. then Tomkins will step in. I know this is a rambling post, but I think it highlights the difficulties in stereotyping the modern RL player, and is a reason why it can be difficult to compare like for like. Pryce, Briers and Tomkins for example are three quite different stand offs.

I have no issues with using RLFC. I do not want any confusion about the fact that my team are a Rugby League club. The fact is that Union has convinced people that 'Rugby' is Union, and by referring to our clubs simply as Rugby, it can make their game seem bigger in certain areas. We are Rugby League and think it is right to use the title (just as I think Union should be using Rugby Union as it's title).