Marty Funkhouser

You do realise the virus hasn't harmed over 99.5% of all human beings? Professional football has restarted in Europe. A few weeks and sport in the UK starts to follow. It would appear a twisted section of society are going to be distraught when the virus has receded and things can go back to normal, even without any vaccine, especially the "experts" who foretold of 40 million deaths or 2 million even at a very, very best case of whole world lockdown for months. Miles and miles out yet again. They would be better off forming their own doom and gloom/panic and fear societies and leave the rest of us to get on with living our very short lives. The vast majority of people acknowledge their personal responsibility and act accordingly, very few act to deliberately injure or harm others, and those that do, would do so virus or no virus. Thankfully there are still many who realise that the everyday risk of injury, harm or death is the other side of the bargain of being lucky enough to be a living organism. Covid 19 is no more a risk to the vast, vast majority than many other things. People even die playing , and training for, Rugby League. Yet thousands of people still train and play knowing this. Having mentioned Keighley you likely know that fact. Should every person wishing to play even a game of touch rugby in the local park first ask an "expert" if it is ok? As soon as the regulations allow, we should play, no question.

Bonnie Prince Charlie , Idris Elba, Tom Hanks, Rand Paul, Placido Domingo, Lee Mack, Hudson- Odoi, Marouane Fellaini , the dozens of other football players, etc etc etc etc etc and of course , the Prime Minister, to name just a few , and not including the many, many thousands of "ordinary" blokes report no lasting effects and are all back at it. Never understand peoples motivation to needlessly scare or worry others.

Indeed and of course they also have the upper hand when it comes to renewal. Whilst I never really expected any other bids, it would appear we will be (happily) accepting just whatever is on the table. Loan to pay back and advance on Sky payments mean tightening of the belts for a good while yet.

Davidson , no British biases and not bothered about pleasing anyone so appears to be no agendas.

"Ensuring any support staff within the training environment are operating to the minimum standards of practice that ensure any professional body endorsement and professional indemnity insurances they require are still valid." Can anybody shed any light on what is "required" for support staff in professional RL?

That is just for the training environment MOK and solely for "Step 1" but includes all the expected precautions that are well within reach. Can train as "groups of individuals" whilst maintaining the social distancing. It does say that step 2, when reached, will allow for "teams sports tackling" so we eventually should be fine going forward as long as all the other conditions are met. I would imagine it will be Step 4 or later that will deal with competitive games.

This is obviously going to be a local amateur level standard. Not too sure that TV are going to be interested in it. It sounds like a great grassroots initiative and deserves some support if it is as described but it is not likely to be anything other than that unless it lasts for 20 or 30 years. Let it run and see where it goes.

I am not necessarily saying 5m is the answer but as you rightly point out the game has evolved since '93 and not all of it, in fact not much of it, has enhanced the viewing experience. It is worth having an exploration or study or discussion within the game. Some in the NRL have suggested 7 or 8m but that poses difficulties all of its own. We can tinker about with the system and structure and administration as much as we want but unless people actually want to watch what is on the field it is all pointless. The loss of the use of the shoulder, whilst probably understandable in the modern world, has taken away one of RL's big selling points. Just look at all the big hit videos on YouTube and the number of views. Then compare them with the views of a "wrestle" or a block play. We have lost one of the reasons the casual viewer might watch. You are right it is personal preference but there are a full generation of people who just know RL as the 10m game it is now. They know nothing of a vast myriad of tactics now lost amongst the one size fits all approach. It often seems we have just issued a standardised playbook for the competition and that only the jerseys are different. The game is not exactly taking off, in fact it is contracting in all ways. Of course there are many reasons for this but it is certain that we have lost many of the more casual viewers. The 10m makes it a very hard sport to play and not especially attractive to watch , especially in the way it is now coached. We have an excellent bunch of athletes but they are playing the wrong type of game. We have some fairly average Rugby League players playing SL (and NRL) because they can achieve the required stats and measurements and not because they are great at RL. We lose some potentially great players at an early stage because of how the game is. If we could get the modern athletes playing an attractive style and more of them then we could be on to something. I remember back in the day the Sport for All motto. Professional RL is no longer that, it has become a niche sport that is getting nicher by the year and 10m is one of the drivers of that.

I was talking about RU as an overall sport. Even the most one-eyed RL fan would agree that RU is the much bigger, richer game despite having been professional for only 25 years. They have never felt the need to move away from the zero metre defensive line and it is a fundamental part of that code of Rugby and yet they have still managed to make the game vastly more attractive than it used to be with some fantastic attacking play very akin to RL. What I am suggesting is that the 10m rule is completely arbitrary and not fundamental to the sport of RL. Indeed it has existed for less than 30 years. We have previously had zero for many (the most) years, 3, 5 and now 10. Yet many people treat 10 metres as though it is a vital, fundamental, component of the game, that this is how it should be played and part of how it will attract a wider audience. It is not. There is no similar sport with such a rule and those similar or perceived "rival" sports in the market (RU, NFL, CFL, AFL etc) attract vastly more paying spectators. If 10 metres is our USP it is not working I am struggling to see any positive it has brought or any exciting innovation in play that has happened because of it.

That is some of the point. If we want players to take up the game why make it harder and harder to play? What are we trying to prove? There is no reward for this (quite obviously). The most successful sport of all is also about the easiest ball/team sport to play. Rugby Union of course has no requirement to retreat at all, it does not suffer for this and puts on some excellent attacking rugby nowadays. And the current "style" of rugby and injury toll on players is everything to do with the 10m rule. The conclusion of the academic study "Meir R., Colla P., Milligan C. Impact of the 10-meter rule change on professional rugby league" states clearly "The 10-m rule does have an impact on key match play activities on a professional rugby league team. Notwithstanding the game to game variations in coaching “tactics” and their impact on play, and therefore the physical requirements of participation, it appears that this rule change has placed increased demands on the aerobic capacity of players and has implications for the way the game is played." With regards injuries the latest study https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7149521_Injury_in_rugby_league concludes "injuries have increased with evolution in player physical development, speed and rule changes. Block play after block play is just tedious to watch AND play. In addition the current situation is showing exactly how risk averse the majority of the human race is, why are parents going to encourage their children to play a sport that is suffering more and more injuries each year? Why we hang our hat onto the 10m rule , which has been in existence less than 30 years, is baffling. On the 10m rule I wish this guy https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-evolution-of-the-tackle-may-spell-end-for-10metre-rule-20140418-zqw8y.html and Greg McCallum (The 10 metre rule is counterproductive for what the game is about) had been right,they might be at some point down the line. With regards the style of play I hope this guy (and the NRL) is right. https://sportress.wordpress.com/2019/04/19/death-of-the-block-play/ but with the lack of real "thinkers" in the game (UK at least) nowadays I am not so hopeful.

Correct Scotchy, we ARE currently selecting players from a young age on size and "athleticism" rather than skills or talent, based on how the game is currently played and coached. However it doesn't HAVE to be that way and almost certainly will not always be that way. In fact it is bemusing why teams do it because it does NOT bring success. At least not since perhaps the Bradford model. The multi grand final winners Leeds were far from the biggest of the SL teams and nor are the current champions Saints who number the 79 kg Fages , 81 kg Coote , 81 kg Grace and 85 kg Roby among their ranks. They are far smaller overall than say Catalans but are a far superior squad results and otherwise. This also happens in other sports, Man City eg one of the smallest teams in Europe. I would further say that if RL is to survive and prosper we need to need to lose some of this "bigger, faster, heavier" mantra. It excludes/discourages hundreds of kids/people from playing the game and ensures some very, very good players are lost at an early stage. The Burrows, Millwards, Gregorys, Elwells should not be an absolute exception, they should be part and parcel of a multi-faceted sport. In any event RU will always have, and need, the bigger men and so we are caught in between two stools in an ever shrinking pool. Unfortunately the 10 m rule promoted perhaps a natural but avoidable evolution to the current way of playing with the stupefyingly boring wrestle et al and the desire for 6 ft, 100 kg players across the board. However it will NOT result in an ever expanding professional RL talent pool as we are now well on the way to seeing.

Reading between the lines it sounds like he favours more of an SL takeover of the RFL rather than the RFL subsuming SL. Whilst the writer and Mr Hudgell seem to paint this as concerns about the whole game, it is merely self interest manifesting itself in what Mr Hudgell hopes is a more palatable form.

Not quite how it works...in 200 years time we will not be all 30ft tall , running the 100m in 1 second or lifting 1000 kg in the clean and jerk. The average height of man remained pretty static from the Stone Age until the 1800's and then due to a combination of vastly improved survival chances and much improved nutrition and the widespread distribution of same, the average height increased. There was a small decrease across the wars and now human height is levelling off as survival and decent nutrition become the norm. As for the athletic standpoint this is clearly not a "fact". There are many athletic records that have not been broken for 20 or 30 years or more despite every advantage in conditions, equipment, time and opportunity the current athlete has. There is little doubt that a professional RL player from the 60's, 70's or 80's if training exactly as the modern pro does, rather than 3 times a week max in addition to working 5 or 6 days a week , playing only 20 or 30 games instead of 40 or 50 and playing in summer months on firm, lush, carpets rather than right through winter on mud-heaps, and with all the modern day equipment and facilities, would be just as fit and strong as any modern player. In fact some probably were anyway.

Simply because Stanley will be on a salary way in excess of Wheeler and they could only fit Wheeler's SCV in. It has been a monumental balls up from day 1. Lack of foresight, planning and anticipation on many peoples parts. Noble hinted at the approach in the Wolfpack documentary. They are currently touting further players around clubs. More to come.

Post truth era in action... He was never on the salary cap as you ranted on about for many posts. His cap value had nothing to do with anything...he wasn't registered at all because they had no room left due to their own mis-management. Toronto led the world to believe that Stanley had not been registered due to "visa issues". This was an outright lie. It was down to their poor management of the cap. They should have just come clean. if you are going to argue the point Scotchy you are just as bad in all ways. Some good journalism coming up about this and more.