iffleyox
-
Posts
1,436 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by iffleyox
-
-
3 hours ago, wiggler said:
Should an amateur side come up against one of the semi-pro teams in the later rounds of the challenge cup which tackle height rules will apply?
Given it’s for amateur player safety at this point, the logical answer is presumably the amateur rules…
-
25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:
That's a very fine line you are walking Foxy.
The age of Criminal Responsibillity in the UK is 10 years old, from 10 to 17 they can be arrested for commiting a crime, young people at 18 are treated as adult by the law.
So do you ever reckon - with your get out clause - that it could be argued people could successfully argue that they did not know what they were doing and performing a criminal act before the age of 25 because their brain wasn’t fully developed?
Basically yes in theory. The law already treats U18s differently as you note, there is pressure to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 (it’s 12 in Scotland by the way). Things change. 18 used to be 21, for example.
I could definitely see a future position where understanding of science led to change in sentencing (they’d obviously still have committed a crime) - otherwise we’d be in the bizarre position where law and reality were obviously divergent based on the science. Which would be unsustainable.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, EggFace said:
Or they could just sign a form that they are consent to play a sport that may have dangeous impact....what next stopp head punching Boxing.
I think boxing is in trouble too.
latest science is the brain isn’t fully developed on average until the mid to late twenties. So in the future might it be possible that people could successfully argue that they didn’t know what they were signing before they were 25?
I’m going to get accused of being simplistic again there - my point is I don’t think ‘or they could just sign a form’ is remotely the watertight solution to this that some seem to think.
we are in dark and murky water here
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Damien said:
Well no, thats awfully simplistic.
People do dangerous things all the time, whether socially or through their work. The key is showing those risks are adequately mitigated against and proper precautions are taken and proper procedures put in place.
I’d have said realistic rather than simplistic.
Then it would be for the NRL to show, in court, that any mitigations it had made, differently to what the rest of the world was doing, were adequate…. Which it may be able to do. Or it might not.
if it did, and was somehow protected from lawsuits as a result, then the rest of the world could drop this and do whatever they were putatively doing instead.
if on the other hand, they got taken to the cleaners for not doing what everyone else was doing….
-
3 minutes ago, EggFace said:
But will the NRL follow ?
Honestly, if everyone else does it (both codes) then they’ll eventually have to. Otherwise they’ll end up sued to oblivion by anyone that ever gets dementia or various other neurological problems ever.
barrister: ‘what makes you at the NRL different?’
won’t happen next week, but I reckon in the next 5 years max this will be the law/rule in professional and amateur R/rugby.
Merry Christmas.
-
Just now, EggFace said:
I thought it doesn't apply to the pro/semi pro game ?
It’s the same in RU - the pro game will almost inevitably follow. Like boiling a frog.
it will become very, very difficult to hold the professional game apart from this for more than a couple of years.
-
1 minute ago, Midlands hobo said:
Debatable. I read a study, in the early days of union professionalism the legalisation of padding cause a massive rise in injuries. Simply put players with padding took bigger risks as they felt safer.
Exactly
-
26 minutes ago, Dovster said:
You would think that by now there would be a better head protection helmet.
The issue is the brain hitting the inside of the head. The only ‘head protection’ is going to have to be between the brain and the skull…
-
7
-
-
17 minutes ago, dboy said:
I'd even argue the opposite - Leeds occupy a MASSIVE catchment, yet only attract a tiny proportion to attend = they should be penalised for not being more effective in a captive market.
Nah, Leeds have a ceiling beyond which everyone else in the city is a Hunslet fan. If anything, they do terribly well.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, JohnM said:
I must have missed that. Can you point me to the official statement from the RFL, you know, the one that specifies what these "special measures" are?
Can’t find anything public from the RFL other than ‘it’s confidential’…
however I can find one from Salford last week saying ‘the club have been in positive dialogue with the RFL in relation to special measures being implemented, and are awaiting an outcome relating to the stadium discussions to establish if we can come out of them’
Manchester Evening News 24 November
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:
If no-one pays for it, is it worth giving away or better for clubs to monetise their games themselves?
The view from another code (in a galaxy far away etc) was always that giving content away devalued all the content - so they’d rather no one showed it or it was bundled with the level one coverage with no actual obligation to show it.
Which always seemed a bit self defeating to me, but it’s what they did…
-
1 hour ago, SUPERSTUD said:
TBH I don’t have a problem with a long term loan. Let’s say Huddersfield player at least a year off knocking on first team door. Requires development in Championship for arguments sake. No problem at least there is some form of longevity in it. It’s the constant dropping in and out of DR players that does me.
Exactly - loans are different, young player gets sent to wherever for a few months or a season and you can integrate them. It’s the parachuting in at the last minute and demanding they have game time that’s damaging
-
16 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
Indeed.
I suppose on the upside if the article is accurate they're not giving up on RL - they'll need another tenant for the stadium and with Pirates staying in Penzance there's opportunity for the RL side to carve a small niche.
But it doesn't sound like the group will be pumping significant investment funds into the RL club, football is the focus for growth now and the RL club will have to wash it's own face, albeit with potentially a good stadium to work out of.
Time will tell if Cornwall RL is embedded enough now to survive. I hope so.
All the while, in an RU focused area, sitting on the wreckage of Pirates’ dreams. It’s not exactly an auspicious launch platform even though it’s not their fault.
hmm
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:
Not exactly the most inspiring quotes from Perez in terms of rugby league:
"I don't think too many people would say 'let's buy a football club to support a rugby league club', I think that's a strange play to make," he said.
"I'm a football fanatic, a lot of people on the group are football fanatics and we're here to take this club up, that's what we're here for.
"If it wasn't for the rugby league club we wouldn't know about this operating environment so that is a factor, but we're talking football."
Just read that myself - feels like a ‘we’ve ended up in Cornwall and it’s shown us a massive opportunity we didn’t know about, let’s do football’
-
7
-
-
8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
The bitterness at this time in a morning H? Really?
The RFL need cash now, they are facing a pretty hefty shortfall following a poorly attended cup final, a Catalans grand final and an underwhelming Tonga tour.
…
-
17 minutes ago, Hopie said:
It doesn't look good, we employ a consultant to look over our business, and they buy part of the business. Surely IMG's role is to put us in contact with partners to make money from, and pass on their experience, not take profitable parts from us to make their own money.
When this deal runs out, the game will be in no better position to sell the gambling rights than it is now, because the experience of selling rights over the next few years is done by IMG. I'm sure it’s looked at as something is better than nothing. But it’s not a long term business strategy.
….
-
38 minutes ago, Midlands hobo said:
The travel tavern would run out of crockery at dinner. Best take your own
Plates were too small anyway
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Midlands hobo said:
Aren't you a fan of North Norfolk digital?
Not sine they dropped ‘Up With the Partridge’ - turned into a bit of an end of the pier show…
-
22 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:
What is this nonsense? Keighley did not “invent” the sporting razzamataz, if anyone did it was American sport. Keighley were as much stealing things as Bradford, not that anyone was actually stealing anything, just using ideas.
Hope and Glory (great read by the way, if you find yourself in need of a self Christmas present) in any case IIRC suggests that thanks should really go to the true RL innovators….
Kent Invicta.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, DEANO said:
If true and Salford have spent the rent money Wakefield sue like some football clubs are threatening to sue Everton
I don’t agree with teams going to law (my RU side was relegated from the Championship a couple of months before LW went pop).
it does no one any good to be second guessing who goes down or up.
However, what should happen is that clubs that materially #### the league up for their fellow teams - not for a moment suggesting Salford have done that but in principle - should have the book and the kitchen sink thrown at them.
The governing body (any sport) should be the arbiter of fair play IMO, not the courts.
-
12 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:
You are missing the point its ENGLAND play a match there even once in every 3/4 years v lesser nations and it will sell out at decent prices.
I understood that's what you meant but I was/am questioning whether it's true. Not to be difficult, but just because I don't see why it necessarily follows.
Also, given England currently have exactly no fixtures next year, I can't help smiling at a plan that suggests Norwich is getting a game once every three!
-
42 minutes ago, dboy said:
Go on then ######, name and shame any Wakey fan you can who has said -
- we can buy better players than you,
- we will romp the league,
- you're all inferior to us.
I'm not even convinced we will win the comp, but I am confident that we will develop the business to the point that we are comfortably in the next 12 for SL, on IMG scoring.
I certainly don't see us going unbeaten.
It's a slow afternoon here, and as a - relative, leaning towards Trin - neutral (by which I mean I know where to look), I've just had an idle trawl of here, Facebook, Instagram, and the comments below a few newspaper articles. Let's say evidence is thin on the ground.
Obviously I can't cover chats in pubs but I'll happily stand by the statement that it's mostly accusations of people saying things that haven't really been said.
If anything, the general tone varies from disbelief to (maybe understandable) wariness about the apparent change in fortunes. Harry Enfield waving fistfuls of banknotes in people's faces is remarkably absent tbh.
Frankly, I was a bit surprised, because every team has nutters with wifi in the fanbase and I would - not because it's Trin but because it's a sports club in the age of social media - genuinely have expected rather more of it than there is.
-
5
-
-
5 minutes ago, ATLANTISMAN said:
The game needs to give 100% to the traditional clubs + London Broncos (I also have a good feeling long term about Cornwall) outside of that use the ENGLAND brand to take around the country playing tests
* London
* Norwich
* Brighton
* Plymouth
* Bristol
* Birmingham
+ Leeds/Manchester job done we now have 8 test playing nations no excuses
what is the persistent fascination with Norwich on here? Is it just because it's in the east and would look good as a pin on a map? Even with the road improvements it's relatively isolated, difficult and time consuming to get to, and has a pretty well followed football club. Neither RU nor cricket have properly tried to crack Norfolk - so is that a gap in the market for us, or is it because comparatively other pins in the map would be better priorities?
I really like Norwich, by the way.
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:
Wakefield have an Academy but have a dual reg agreement with Wigan this season, perhaps this is Mr Powell thinking he may require assistance this year, I thought that the new owner was a multi millionaire, why can't he spend up to the cap level for his club?
I thought that was a function of the timing of the takeover. You can only spend up to the cap if there are the players to buy. The acid test for me would be what happens for the 2025 season, 2024 is going to have to be inherited players, signed players and borrowed players simply because you wouldn't normally be trying to put a squad together in November? And trying to do that while buying from a regime that really hasn't been splashing cash.
I know the new owner helped out on signings last season, but it's a daft man who'd put his hand in his pocket to build a whole squad before actually taking legal control.
Let's see what happens down the road. I don't like it, but I can excuse it in the current circumstances, on the assumption it's for back-up to the spine/squad players and not the spine. If Trin have to do it when it's been his train set for a season, then questions need asking, but for now it is what it is.
-
1
-
1895
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
That’s the point, RFU aren’t ‘toffs’ (horrible word by the way - what’s the lower class equivalent? ####?)
Eton, Harrow etc were and are association football schools. They play a bit of rugby but the main focus is the 11 a side code. The real elite were hunting, shooting, fishing and a bit of football while they controlled it, after which they lost interest.
rugby - the clue’s in the name of the school - was always deeply middle class, and taken most seriously by the aspirational lower middle and middle middle.
the whole thing - before during and since 1895 - amounts to the narcissism of small differences. RFU guarded its position because it was worried about sliding back down the social scale. The ‘toffs’ didn’t really give a monkeys, which is why, when it came down to it, they didn’t fight harder to keep association football in their pocket.
the enemy of RL, is not the top of the social tree, it’s historically been the middle, and anyone on a lower rung who wanted to climb socially