redjonn
-
Posts
5,759 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by redjonn
-
-
3 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:
One I would like to see is more contested high kicks. When they were started, there were a lot more contested kicks. Now there's a lot fewer as players blatantly obstruct the chasers.
RU changed their approach, so if you're running back and not going for the ball you can't "escort" the chasers. Its just obstructing the chasers, we all know it, it just means we see less of exciting contested high kicks. I know some on this forum would never agree as RU have done it.
Contested possession adds a bit more jeopardy and unpredictability to the game. Or are we happy with seeing more "arm wrestle, five drives and a kick"?
the arm wrestle also includes aspects of Sumo wrestling, that is putting an opponent on his back thus helping to slow the PTB... or is it just the team I watch more, Leeds.
I'm not one for just seeing a game of five drives and a high kick... as for me it often means run out of idea's how to attack and so a high kick creates opportunities of luck...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, lucky 7 said:
Anything that requires hard work is a no go for Rugby League in this country.
Developing juniors is hard work so lets go for the easy option of more imports from down under, so we don't have to work hard.
thought the sl clubs in the main work hard to maintain or increase their attendances, keep the stadiums maintained, develop pathways within their local area's, have academies putting in that hard work to develop players be as successful as possible within their means.... etc etc etc etc etc... the etc also covering the hard work of employee's of the clubs...
with regard to imports specifically.... yep it could be a decision to use the salaries on home grown/pathways, although wherever the player comes from they need paying whether an import or not... the again it could be to make the team better to attract fans...or at least to get the balance right...
-
2 hours ago, rhinos78 said:
Good game for the neutral i would image
Poor defence from leeds took a bit of the gloss off the win initially, but on reflection, Leigh are a quality side, who throw a lot at teams, really impressed with them.
So got to be happy with the 2 points, especially with James McDonnells 0/10 performanceLeigh seemed to be making big inroads on that side, especially first half. They made quite a few opportunities but had handling error at key line break moments, which on another day they would have got more try's...
was wondering what Leeds issue was on that side, thought it may have been Hall being a bit ponderous but I guess you see McDonnell as the main culprit... whatever it was it certainly needs fixing.
-
55 minutes ago, Worzel said:
London has always had the potential to solve our player shortage, the huge population concentration combined with rugby union played in plently of schools makes it a very efficient platform to put community structures development of talent on top of. You can reach more people with the same pathways headcount. We started to see the fruits of that in the era when we had really good Sport England funding.
I've always been surprised that - when that funding was lost - one of the better-resourced Super League clubs (Wigan, Warrington, Saints, Leeds) didn't step into the gap, employ a team down there, or even develop a formal talent pathway partnership with the Broncos to do so.
If we genuinely had leadership with a strategic mindset in our sport, this would happen, and ideally be run by the RFL perhaps on some sort of draft model. Call it a 15 year plan, allocate a budget for it, and be persistent.
just with regard to your paragraph on loss of funding and the bigger clubs stepping into gap in London.
I remember at the time that the loss of the funding impacted Leeds and having to lose a number of the staff that focused on the community clubs and pathways. In fact Gary H did a fund raising from sponsors/hospitality groups to match the short fall. I was one of very many that provided extra funding over a number of years to keep those staff employed. Subsequently a larger sponsor picked up the whole funding after the 3 years.
I only mention this as I can see your point regards supporting the pathways in London but lest we forget it had a big impact on all clubs having to lose community/pathway staff. So I'm not so sure the funds were available to divert.
I guess what Gary H did could have been replicated by the RFL.
-
20 hours ago, Agbrigg said:
I somewhat disagree, a much maligned player for obvious reasons, but his presence was the catalyst hudds needed.
The team look far better and they have all stepped up now he has arrived, with the exception of burgess
he is a good experienced player not spectacular, strengths and weakness like all players and as you say much maligned. He was certainly not the reason why Leeds at times were poor but he was a scapegoat, which most teams fans need when their team is not doing well as distinct from identifying often the multitude of issues as to a teams poor performances... much easier to lay all the blame on one..
-
2 hours ago, Oxford said:
If half backs control the shape and direction of the game, which has been stated again, and again and again it would be hard to pick anyone else, no matter what your feelings about other hard working players and positions. Wins depend on the tries scored so they would be represented more as forward don't tend to score or provide lots of tries for others. The scores the Aussies use during matches seem much more appropriate to RL and contributions made.
yep, then again coaches and players & commentators tell us how crucial defence is to being a successful team/winning silverware plus how important the spine is.....
As a typical ball watching fan I don't always see the intricacies of the game plus organising aspects of defence thus will tend to vote for the players using the ball most, e,g, the halfbacks, etc.... I imagine the panel are not like me the typical ball watching fan and in my case missing most of the complexity of whats happening out there.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, ELBOWSEYE said:
It was a magic weekend with 3 matches each day so you will compare what happens in games, I certainly don't back saints but even I could see how ridiculous the decision was, but following opinions on here doesn't surprise me how certain fans come to view incidents.
Maybe but my immediate reaction was the right decision and was shouting at the commentators they were wrong.
Good to see differing opinions...
Hope you enjoyed Magic... no matter what ref/VR decisions.
-
47 minutes ago, Coastal_Geordie said:
They did send out emails to all Newcastle United members offering tickets 20% off. I was sat in Platinum Club and there were a few Geordie accents and the odd NUFC kit. Definitely majority Yorkshire/Lancashire accents though.
One strange thing where I think Super League missed a trick was the merchandise. The Super League kit was relatively expensive, but they had NRL hats for fairly good value. I bought a Roosters woolly hat for £8. Surely as a neutral though - you want to try sell me a Super League hat? i can’t imagine going to a Premier League match and they are flogging La Liga merchandise. Seemed odd. My son wanted a Leigh shirt but they didn’t seem to be selling them, only Oxen kits including England (who let’s face it weren’t playing) and loads of NRL shirts. Seemed poorly thought through from the merch side.
I would have thought given that it hard to get tickets for the soccer their musts be loads of locals keen to attend the stadium... great for taking the kids even if not soccer. Maybe an additional marketing message.
-
6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:
John Davidson reporting Hull KR vs Leeds for Vegas 26.
At the Leeds & Hull KR game both CEO spoke about Vegas and how keen both clubs were, but just awaiting confirmation from RFL following talks with NRL. They both gave very very strong hints they expected this to happen with very cheesy grins...
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:
An accident it may have been but ask Saints player Murphy if that mitigation works.
accidents happen for sure, but some are more likely to happen than others, especial if going in with a reckless disregard and hitting a player about a 3 feet beyond from where the ball was coming down. Of course he didn't mean to hit the player with his leading knee,,, anyway that was a different match...
-
5 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:
Who, eseh or Knight?
both
-
Huddersfield unlucky with that VR decision, when they showed another angle it looked like the Hull player pulled ball... although the VR only looked at one view and didn't ask for any other, which if he saw the other he may not have overruled ref..
nowt can do now
-
2 hours ago, WN83 said:
Daft part was that Edgell did go to jump but unlike Murphy, he timed his jump correctly and his jump was stopped about 6 inch off the floor by being hit in the head, with a flying knee, from a guy who had timed his jump badly and had gone past the ball. I thought it should've just been a penalty, as it was an accident but Wilkins taken on it was embarrassing.
yep, the other aspect if people watch is that Murphy had to reach quite a bit back to reach the ball... so to me I don't think he was aiming for the ball or at least was not aware where the ball was more focused on a reckless leap to where the opposing player was...
-
8 minutes ago, Ullman said:
Couple of moments of quality from Leeds to start the game but for the next hour that was a dreadful spectacle. Skills levels were beyond poor from both sides.
Thought the skill levels from Leeds were OK and quite good in parts. They lost composure when they had the opportunities, rushing the play or lacking the patience to build at times. They are constantly saying they need to be patient and build yet never change.
-
53 minutes ago, northamptoncougar said:
There’s a collision with the head in 90% of every single tackle in RL. How do you stop that?
As for the other bloke claiming he missed it “by a country mile’” he actually touched the ball.
It’s just one of those things that happen, it’s a penalty, that’s it.
Well it is at least a penalty as it was dangerous with no concern for other player given the leap leading with knee and his studs high... if he hadn't hit the head who know where the studs landed...
Problem for me is some of the commentators didn't think it should have been a penalty...
I think they have been listening to the fuss in the nrl and wanting to mimic it here but for me chosen the wrong incident to push as nowt to see and games making wrong decisions.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Dave T said:
Look at SL table history, we've had loads of absolutely garbage teams at the bottom. This isn't a new phenomenon.
yep that's true, the consolation being they would be relegated and another club have a chance of fielding a better team the next season... I guess one could argue the same club, in this case Huddersfield, could have the chance to build a better team with IMG. At least with P/R they couldn't sit back and not worry too much.
Not saying P/R is the best approach just that their is a down side without P/R which seems to be playing out over the last couple of seasons...
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
Kendall seems to be getting all the stick, when in reality it was the VR that made the calls
thought it was amusing when the ref had to go all the way to the other end of the pitch to watch the big screen before his decision...
and to add... even then he got the decision wrong.... according to some fans.... chuckle
-
1 hour ago, dkw said:
There was far too much histrionics at the play the ball last night, arms waving everywhere, Miller was taking the pee with that nonsense, just leave it all to the ref for God's sake.
Yep I think you are right... but to add their was a lot of frustration on the pitch coming through. On top of the arms waving their was a lot of players being pushed or tying to push or cause a stumble over when the ball was further along, saw it quite a lot on the side I was standing - obviously to create gaps in the defensive line. Maybe its normal but I haven't noticed it so much much before.
-
21 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:
Agree with it being no worse than the others and neither was Sue's, which was probably the harshest decision of the lot. But Handley went in high, if he'd bend his back, no penalty, no yellow card and another player would have avoided a heavy blow to his brain.
not sure I agree, Handley was not using his arm high and if he bent his back his head would have hit the opposition player given the height difference.
I think the problem was more Handley pulling up his tackle as he wasn't really wrapping his arms anymore and more collided with the other player and that players head hit his chest area as Handley was more or less standing.... if he had bent his back their would have been the danger of hitting heads.
Maybe Handley could have not been attempting any tackle at all... for me it was down to the impact of a much taller player and a little one colliding as he pulled out of the tackle... Did he have time to avoid the impact all together I didn't think so but officials thought otherwise.
Anyway the ref made his judgement and that's that
-
8 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:
It isn’t or it shouldn’t have been.
Red cards should be for deliberate or reckless play
I thought Ash actually pulled out of the tackle so i don't what else he could have done...
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Ullman said:
Leeds in complete control with a man advantage, when the pictures come back they're a complete shambles.
For those who were at the game, what on Earth happened to change the game during the blackout?
Would not say a shambles .... a couple of mistakes gave field position plus KR pinned Leeds back and hence kicking from deep and KR starting set from a good position...
Plus I think the interchange with Litton or is it Litten (or whatever his name is) coming off KR seemed to open up and went wide... Litton had a reasonable game but his replacement seemed to add extra energy and guile...
-
5 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:
I think if Gannon was going to Wigan or St Helens, that criticism is somewhat merited. But I think that most fans appreciate that if a player has a chance at proving himself in the NRL, they're going to be very tempted.
I think so, yes. Just guessing that the club wanted to demonstrate they had done all they could to keep him including a good monetary offer. As often recently the criticism has been that the club have not done enough particularly around GH not being prepared to pay more.
Not saying it's right just trying to decipher some of words in the PR and where they may be aimed.
Given the injury profile of Gannon, namely regular and sufficiently poor concussion to keep him from playing for an extremely long period, I entirely understand his desire to go now to test himself in NRL. As he has been susceptible to concussion more than most players and hence who knows how long his playing career will be, Hopefully well into his thirties but the concussion aspects if it was me I would think best go sooner than later to fulfill an ambition.
-
8 minutes ago, Damien said:
That was my take too but I was interested in what others thought so didn't want to comment. Blease doesn't come across well to me.
It seemed OK to me, I would suggest one aspect was aimed at the fans as of criticism previously when up and coming players left. Of course if nit picking I can read it another way but even then unless looking for reasons to criticise the club I didn't think it was catty to quote an earlier comment.
Of course they could have done another bland press release as per normal.
-
Listening to a NRL review programme the other day they were saying that Dom Young form has been poor so far this year, specifically his ability with the high ball... I personally have no idea but the 4 panelists all agreed and that maybe he would be dropped to improve the defensiveness of the team...
I mention this as looking over the squad suggestions here they all have Dom Young in... maybe wait to see if he improves but I guess we have alternatives.
Salford financial issues(again…)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I have no idea of the rules.
Never-the-less it would seem to me foolish not to be able to deselect a club irrespective of league standing or IMG grading points. Of course it would need to be because the said club was making a mockery or majorary damaging the brand of the competition. If Salford are not that said club then the administration rules would be a joke in my opinion.