Dave T
-
Posts
43,489 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
249
Posts posted by Dave T
-
-
16 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:
So are we neglecting that history a bit if we play an Ashes series as England instead of GB? Or does it not matter that much anymore, because most of it is quite a long time ago. Even Phil Ford and Jonathan Davies is 30 plus years ago.
I think it's quite sad, but I don't think it matters, and that's probably an outcome of us always doing things half hearted.
We've played ashes before as England but with Welsh players and so on. We've had GB controversy with Ireland.
I think people overstate the case for both GB Lions or England depending on their preference. I don't think it particularly matters tbh.
Even in those days people remember so fondly in the late 80s and early 90s the GB team was generally made of blokes from Yorkshire and "Lancashire" with the odd exception like Phil Ford, JD, Hugh Waddell, Jon Devereux, Alan Tait etc.
I miss the RU converts a lot, particularly The Welsh players, but they were not prominent in the history of GB RL even when we were signing loads of them.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Hopie said:
I always enjoy this discussion, and those similar to it for those standard phrases that need translating:
Nobody is interested in this = I am not interested in thisThis has failed before = I am not interested in this
This is a terrible idea = I am not interested in this
etc
Not really.
I've been to Lancs v Yorks before, I'd happily go again, but I think it's a terrible idea because it'd fail again just like it has previously.
Literally nothibg has changed to male this a success this time.
-
This sounds great. Have we ever done anything like this before?
-
3
-
-
53 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
Yes, fair enough - initial contact was fair is what I should have said. The 'subsequently' I mentioned is the part that was deemed unfair. But, as you said before, it was all one tackle so I did misrepresent that.
I can see why people have landed on this being an accident, as per my first viewing I was a bit split, but my general viewpoint is that duty of care is with the tackler and when something looks odd, AND it injures a player, I think it's a tough defence.
But, as I say, I can understand alternate viewpoints on this one. I think it's like the Leigh ones recently.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, dkw said:
To be fair it was combined with much lower running costs to enable clubs to be sustainable, there's a huge amount if oncosts for sports clubs now that didn't exist a few decades ago, or weren't as costly at best.
Aye, I'm simply making the point that if more money comes in from the top tv deals, more is paid to the lower divisions.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Dunbar said:
Interestingly, in the minutes of the meeting, the 'unacceptable' position of the knee is only mentioned by the representative of the Match Review Panel (the prosecution in effect).
The tribunal simply state in their ruling that AN’s initial contact was not unfair, and in the hip/thigh area, he then continued onwards into WI and in going then to the ground he came down on top of WI thereby making the heavy and objectionable contact with the back of WI’s ankle that caused the very serious injury.
So, they are not saying his leg was in an unacceptable (or unnatural) position, simply that he recklessly came down on Isa's ankle.
In some ways this makes the whole discussion easier as they say he could of and should of avoided landing on Isa's ankle causing the damage.
But in other ways it complicates matters as the ruling is that the tackle was fair but he subsequently landed on Isa and caused pressure. I mean how many tackles in Rugby League does that describe!
I don't want to get too technical we have different views of the tackle, which is fair enough, but I would add that you misrepresent what has been said here in your last para. They don't say the tackle was fair, they say initial contact was not unfair.
-
1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:
The owner of Hull FC has stated the sport is unsustainable,bar a couple of clubs with wealthy benefactors.
It seems Hull FC are still repaying the Covid loan.
They do not own their stadium and match days means the external takings go to either/both soccer club/Council.
The attendances are decreasing yet despite the off - field situation they are granted an A grading.
Struggling to find how the sport improves if the 'big ' clubs are in decline.
He seems a bit more upbeat than you tbh.
-
2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:
I agree.
So, PNG in Port Moresby, Fiji in Perth?
Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne for the ashes tests?
Personally I would also play a home game against France before touring, similar to what the RU Lions now do. I think it's a great way of publicising the forthcoming tour.
I think that'd be great.
-
11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
There was nothing in the charge or the decision of the panel that stated that his leg was in an unnatural position.
That is my description. For the type of tackle he was completing, there isn't really a reason your knee should be anywhere near the player.
I've been casually watching some matches to try and find 3rd man tackles to compare, and firstky, it's quite difficult as many don't attempt the type of tackle he made, but there was one by Daryl Clarke after 4m30 in the game the other day, and his technique was very different. His legs go nowhere near the ball carrier. That's what I mean by unnatural, if you are throwing your shoulder at the ball carrier your knees should be clear really. It wasn't orthodox.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
Yes, I have read it several times. And they considered the position of Namo's knee to be unacceptable while executing the tackle and therefore recklessly causing the injury to Isa.
My point, which I have made several times, is whether we will see any referrals and bans for any other player having his knee in the position that Namo had but doesn’t either 1) result in the contact with the ankle of the tackled player or 2) contacts the tackled players ankle but does not cause injury.
If neither of these cases come about and a player’s knee makes contact the ankle of a player that he tackles and there is no penalty, charge or ban, then Namo has been banned for the injury.
My question to you is – if a tackler contacts a players ankle with his knee moving forward while executing an otherwise legal tackle, is that going to be called a foul?
There is no reason to think they won't ban others. They are banning players left right and centre when there is no injury.
Your last para. The answer is no. Accidents will happen - however if when making a tackle you have your leg in an unnatural position that makes it dangerous then you will be pulled for it.
That's all that's happened here, there is nothing more profound or controversial than that. It's a dangerous tackle because of where the tackler put his knee. You think it was accidental, I can understand that view, others, including the MRP believe it was reckless and dangerous.
-
2 hours ago, Dunbar said:
I guess.
But I feel for players (forwards in particular, but I am bias) that play one of the fastest and hardest physical sports in the world for 80 minutes with players charging into each other and enduring tackles that have the force of a car crash... and then get banned for having their knee in an unacceptable position when making an otherwise legitimate tackle.
I'm not sure we can break the tackle down I to two parts, the legal part and the illegal part.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
Reading through the minutes, the ‘prosecution’ said that the tackle was akin to a 'drop tackle' although it wasn't a drop tackle and that Namo made legal initial contact but then did not moderate his contact thereafter in order to prevent the injury and that his knee was in an unacceptable position.
He has been banned for applying the pressure with his knee to Isa’s ankle and essentially not stopping himself from applying pressure to the ankle with his knee which was in an ‘unacceptable position’ while he was making what was otherwise a legitimate tackle.
But once again, I go back to the first principle – what law of the game has Namo broken with this tackle?
In essence, he has been banned for injuring Isa, not for breaking the laws of the game. That is a really strange position for our game to be in.
I'm not sure why you keep asking that question. It is answered quite clearly in the charge. I understand you not agreeing with it and feeling it was an accident, but the charge is very clear.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
Not at all, just that I am in my 5th decade of watching Rugby League and I didn't know that a knee being in an unacceptable position was a foul.
aye, to be fair though, we see all sorts of bans/penalties for things that wouldn't have been in previous years/decades.
-
Just now, Dunbar said:
Will we see other players penalised and banned for their knee's being in an unacceptable position I wonder.
I don't see why we wouldn't, unless you think there is some victimisation going on?
-
So this appears to be the main issue here:
"Although SN’s initial point of contact was with WI’s thigh, his knee was in an unacceptable position as he was coming into contact and applying pressure to WI’s leg. In that way he was not in control of his actions. This was a reckless tackle and SN had failed to show an appropriate duty of care to his opponent in acting as he did."
-
5 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:
this is i why i questioned it on the other page, i wouldn't have though that last bit applied, that for me is someone say, putting the point of their elbow or knee on someones body part to or pressing down on a muscle (see a bicep or calf slicer in bjj) to actively harm someone.
Next time we get a knee on knee clash is the person who comes off better in line for a suspension?
I think the wording is vague enough to be able to be used, but I agree it isn't the best.
I don't think we need to worry too much about your last line. As has been called out here, this is an unusual ban, it isn't a common offence that we see bans for. Plus there is enough in the wording that caters for accidental clashes.
I do think there was enough in this one that looked odd tbh, I don;t agree that it is a tackle we see regularly.
-
17 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:
I did consider other internationals, but then I thought that sits outside the definition of an Ashes Tour. I think the theme needs to remain Australian.
Tours against various nations can perhaps be fore the GB brand, which I still feel can regain some relevence. In fact, it should still be very much the objective of NH RL to have a team like GB&I including players of an elite standard from Ireland, Scotland and Wales as well as England. If not now, certainly a future objective.
I'm OK with it because Ashes tours have always had games against other nations (PNG and NZ). I think if we were going to persist with GB Lions then it is them who should be partaking in this tour.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, glossop saint said:
For me then the only 'warm up' game has to be against PNG.
I think at least one additional game in Oz to further acclimatise would be helpful.
-
27 minutes ago, Dave W said:
I hope it does flow down throughout the game rather than just the top teams benefitting.
When we had better TV deals, the lower leagues got more money iirc.
-
1 minute ago, JohnM said:
That's the second post from you containing an implied insult. You are now on ignore.
Are you arguing with yourself John?
-
2
-
-
I'd like to see a schedule with these games in advance of the Ashes.
In terms of who, I think the key point is to make the fixtures as commercially viable as possible. I'm not a fan of made up teams being pulled together so ideally teams with some meaning, we do have a few international teams there so ideally the odd Test match in advance would be good.
In terms of losing warm up games, it's not a big issue imo. In 1988 we lost 3 games in Oz and in 1992 we lost against Parramatta. Interesting to note that we started both of those tours in PNG, so maybe that is an option, it feels like PNG have earned a game, particularly after beating GB last time they played.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, GeordieSaint said:
I laugh. But there is some truth in that post. Others have discussed the lack of pace, lack of points, dull rugby et al for much of this season and last year as well under Wellens. Whilst we will continue to win more than we lose, I think we will get anywhere near OT this year.
I do get it, I was very critical of Steve Price at Wire despite us finishing 3rd, beating Saints at Wembley and making other finals.
I've consistently banged the drum for entertaining RL. This is meant to be entertaining and exciting, I couldn't care less for coaches giving an identikot interview about playing the percentages and so on.
It's why for his faults I will always celebrate the likes of Dufty at Wire.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:
Yeah, and they will be talked about as they are for all the wrong reasons, this is a sport Dave where since it began the measure of how good or bad a club is is based on their on field success or otherwise. I think there are those who are putting that secondary these days, especially when clubs are being applauded - it may be only by their own fans - to sanction gaining IMG points and stop bothering about on field activities.
I will even aim that at my own club, if points on the league ladder mattered as per relegation still being in place, would they have waited to sit out these long term injuries to 'key' players I would suggest not, they would have wanted points on the ladder and gone out to source other player's.
Hull are a weird example. People are making out they are bad now because they have no risk of relegation. Yet they've been bad for years when relegation was in place. They really aren't doing too much differently in 2024 than they have for the last few years.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, phiggins said:
There is a balance between the principal of strong clubs and teams, and that balance needs to be found by clubs when they decide how to spend the money they have. But my view is that you need to be a strong club to be consistently competitive on the field. For example, Saints might not be favourites to win SL this year, but they will be competitive because of their strong off field systems that supports the first team. If they were to have a freak year of injuries, finish bottom but stay up, you'd fancy them to be competitive again the following year.
Hull haven't been very good on the field for a few years, which to me suggests that the off field stuff isn't as strong as you would hope for a grade A club. If they finish bottom but survive, you wouldn't back them to be much better next year without some significant off field improvements.
I do think though clubs are allowed to make rubbish rugby decisions, that's part of the fun. My team have under-performed over the last couple of years, and Leeds aren't where they maybe should be. But these are the clubs that are strong off the field - playing in good grounds, doing well financially, getting sponsors, big crowds.
The fact that Hull have been hovering around 8th for the last decade is for them to be peed off with, but they are still delivering 5 figure crowds, including one of the biggest games of every year.
I think it's OK that a strong club is getting it wrong on the field, that's the interesting sport bit.
-
2
-
Disciplinary at it again.
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
It is an illegal tackle, it just wasn't picked up live.