redjonn

yep, the passive defence as the normal approach drives me bonkers. On the one hand I can see some logic but in practice the opposition make easy yards and always get to a min of the 40/30 yard line thus following a kick Leeds coming out from own 10 too often - then they struggle to get out. We agree about the hooker situation. Not sure about the leadership situation as clearly they lack it on the field whether they have a club captain or not. You see a fair number of players talking but I guess the listening or necessary leadership respect is missing.

Not sure he had much input on losing Haraker, Sutcliffe, Briscoe, Dwyer,, in particular Hardaker whom was a big factor in Leeds improvement and drive to the final last year. Nor with the players already going this season plus uncertainty around a few others as to them being here. That impacts the whole squad I'm sure. Although as I noted in another comment he hasn't helped in building consistency with his pre-season and not putting players in their strongest positions Handley, Myler, Martin, and during games Smith all spring to mind immediately, no experienced hooker or even cover, etc etc... Not sure whom's managing the salary cap and hence the offers and leaving decisions but some decisions prior to Smith taking over. Hence need to look under the hood and change things their...

when you listened to Smith last season and the beginning of this I got the sense he didn't have much say in those that left the squad nor the recruitment of most of this squad. To add Leeds have had a number of coaches over the last few years. all with poor results against expectations that such a club should have bar a few surprises like the CC win and getting to the grand final last year. For me they have had a poor squad of players over a number of years now... I think the problem is more fundamental than just the coach that happens to be stuck with managing an overall poor squad. Plus having to cope with the leaving of such as Hardaker, Sutcliffe, Briscoe, plus the impact of current squad players going on the other squad members etc. They also have an higher opinion of some of the academy players that come through or put too much emphasis on them being part of a squad that is limited if run of injuries. I accept the coach has to bear some responsibility and I know you have advocated early in season/start of season he wasn't the right coach. I myself think he shouldn't be having players not in their strongest positions nor his tinkering in pre-season trying in his word to gain flexibility in the squad which to me leads a factor in being inconsistent. That inconsistency ultimately leads to impact on players confidence This as I say above comes from the pre-season tinkering. Paul Caddick should be looking at fundamentals within the whole Leeds set-up and whether the focus is were it needs to be.

A big improvement for sure. Naigama for sure had a really good game but I thought was helped by Warrington seeming to have someone jump/step out the line whenever it went that way - giving him a big gap which he exploited and for sure doesn't need that extra help from Wire defence, Something I,m sure Powell won't be happy with. Good to see Huddersfield getting it together.

whilst I agree with you I would imagine for a sport like Rugby the insurance would be much higher given the higher risk of injury plus the more likely more complicated injuries. So not a good comparison, although the principle you comment on is right.

If 90% of reports are either no action or a minimal fine it would suggest to me that the disciplinary panel may well be thinking the match review panel are being over zealous. At a minimum they view things differently suggesting each have a different perception of what should be on report. Anyway I can see why given the higher level of video evidence at magic the MRP had plenty to look at but do all games have similar levels of video for scrutiny. Plus what is the 4th official role in citing... Anyway to me its what often happens with in business with any type regulatory reporting function or metric reporting function... they become an industry in themselves for ever over reaching.

No problem with the answer... you gave some reasons as to why it's a different situation but to me original inter-state plus the first/earlier SoO were not greatly attractive to fans/media I still wonder how they turned it around to being the golden goose it is now...

I asked the question as to.... How did the Australians turn the interstate lack of interest and subsequent decline (aka our earlier Lancs /Yorks game) into the golden goose of SoO which is basically the same. All be it tweaking of whom is eligible to play. I don't think in my opinion you answered that...

Can't see money being a reason for Leeds given the commercial revenues they achieve.

Personally I don't agree that a promoted club that has not had the opportunity of addition funding that a SL club gets should be expected to immediately run an academy or reserves teams. Especially when in this case Leigh were not allowed by RFL to run an academy and hence not getting benefit of own developed players, which would take years to bear fruit. Leigh effectively have hand tied behind their back when it comes to managing the salary cap which ultimately impacts team performance.

I guess a factor is whom writes it for them or the publishing house support and the way they tease the story out... Not many actually pen or need to pen the words themselves.

How did the Australians turn the interstate lack of interest and subsequent decline (aka our earlier Lancs /Yorks game) into the golden goose of SoO which is basically the same. All be it tweaking of whom is eligible to play. As to those that forever bring up that Lancs is such that no clubs exist anymore if history tells me those that supported and fought in the original War of the Roses where not from those said counties. From across the country they signed their allegiance to whichever House irrespective of geographical location but for other reasons. Not saying RL Roses games are a good idea just that some arguments are just chucked out with no substantial basis and just tedious reasons to back up well we done that before whats the point of repeating failure.

you have good hearing...

looked like it came out of his hands forward... unlucky for wakefield

24 to 14 up, 10 mins to go and important two points if aspirations for play offs. Yet the poor game management leaves a lot of questions about the nous or on field leadership. I don't remember a single kick to touch/corners. Castleford deserved winners given the yardage they made with leeds poor set ends when failing to have any semblance of control. They seemed more than willing to invite in Cas... No idea about Cas as I,ve only seen them full game twice this season. Both against Leeds and for sure they have been the better team each time and look as if they have better players... which given the way Cas have done this season doesn't say much for Leeds squad.

Difficult to say as they are very inconsistent due to the many errors some players make plus the lack of playing nous by others. Not many to answer your question but their are a few. First thing would be if the coach put the players into their strongest positions, e.g Handley on the wing, Martin back/secod row... Myler back to full back, Olperts in the changing room, etc etc etc... Stop playing a passive defence as Castleford made loads of yards very easily as do most teams against Leeds... The coach seems to like a passive defence, I assuming he backs the line/last 20 defence or await opposition to make decision with the ball but its rare that Leeds nowadays force the opposition to kick from Deep - Unlike when they were successful. Rather they are in lots of games starting in last 10 with a full opposition in front of them Yep I see the players today make really silly errors, knock-on from a scrum around own 10yards... not playing simple next 6 after getting a try, off-loading in silly positions normally because struggle to get out of last 10/20. They seem to lose concentration I guess with some of the unforced knock-ons. They need to play to a structure more especially after getting in front in order to control the game and not give impetus to opposition to get back into game and regain momentum... At times it seems unprofessional with regard to the nous of playing as a professional smart. I put a lot of that down to the coaches approach to the game. We may not be at NRL level in SL but teams are good enough to make you pay from those errors or penalties.

Maybe, just maybe his serious injuries impacted his development and experience. Good luck to the fellow and I hope he avoids serious injuries.

Maybe but as I say they would not of overturned unless it was clear no punch. They would be aware of perceptions and overturning officials unless they had strong evidence the player on charge did not punch. We disagree. BTW... whilst they used the word inconclusive they didn't say inconclusive video evidence. Correct me if I am wrong It may be inconclusive because the video evidence went against what the TJ said. Thus inconclusive maybe because TJ wasn't subsequently certain at the review panel or didn't give a definitive answer.

I am assuming that they had sufficient video evidence for every second of the incident, including various angles, that showed every moment of the charged players actions. Making it very clear the player in question did not show any punch action in every second of the video's they had to watch. They would have taken this decision knowing every impact upon disciplinary panel and officials - it would not have been taken lightly. Despite any wording to hang an argument on they would have diligently looked for any punch so as not to reverse decisions plus if they had every moment of the incident on the videos they watched. I am sure they would have been looking for every element of action that could suggest a punch or possible punch, including any moments of the incident not on video for which they could say the video didn't cover every moment. The fact they reversed the decision to me at least means absolutely their was no punch or action that could be said to be a punch on every moment of the video's and of which every moment of the incident was covered on the video. In my mind they would have been doing everything they could to support the ref and TJ. and the fact they reversed the panels decisions I personally would be confident they had absolutely no grounds for sticking with what the TJ thought he saw.

Nope... on the pitch you go by ref's decision and if based on TJ. Assuming ref asked if TJ was certain, otherwise if not certain its put on report as per when other incidents ref isn't sure about a disciplinary incident. As often happens. and Nope - In case of judiciary if no evidence you go by officials/TJ report. Only if clear evidence that charged person didn't do what was thought is he cleared. Seems reasonable to me.

I guess all clubs including Superleague should have been promoting it... as a celebration of championship RL... although I realise it may get in the way of promoting Magic... gosh did they do a promotional ticketing of both events of two for one...

aaah, I get the... chuckle

I guess as a city they see no value... unlike say for instance a tour or road cycle event that has been sold well by the administrators of said event showing a commercial value. I just use cycle as an example, the point being it needs selling. Assuming the sport themselves have invested and built it so it has a commercial value to a place.

I think their is a difference to decisions during the game and decision subsequently by disciplinary panel. They will always and continue to go by what he can see or what a TJ tells him, hence the sending off, which is a punishment in itself. The disciplinary panel are deciding additional punishment over and above the sending off. Many times they rule that yellow or red card is sufficient. In this case they added additional match bans. It seems reasonable to me that an appeal is allowed. I am sure the RFL and appeal panel are fully aware of impact of overruling a disciplinary panel. I would assume they went through any video evidence with a fine tooth comb (so to speak) and I assume ensuring no missing or gaps in the video's reviewing. That is any possible missed moments of the player in question hence I would assume they were able to follow all the movements of said player and able to be confident through being able to see all his actions of movements without any missed moments and concluded he had not punched or looked as if he punched anyone. That is the RFL/appeal panel would not have taken this decision lightly without being certain no punch was thrown by said player as they could clearly watch his every movement and action clearly. Most incidents on a Sky game will have video evidence to back up as the disciplinary are looking to see if additional action should be taken and how severe that action. Where their is no video at all, or it isn't clear whether the player in question has or hasn't done an action they will adjudge purely on what the officials think I am sure and however unfair to an innocent player. Where it is clear no offence only then I would surmise would an appeal be successfully. That is the appeal panel would only overturn if they where certain no offence by said player occured.

What was of interest to me with the RFL statement iwas that they said the following: "It showed beyond doubt that Jonny Lomax was injured and bleeding heavily before the incident involving James McDonnell." Why put that into the statement unless the fact Lomax was seen to be injured and bleeding then that was a contributing factor to thinking a punch was thrown... if not material to any decision by officials why make a point of it...