Dunbar
-
Posts
17,941 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
174
Posts posted by Dunbar
-
-
On 17/09/2022 at 21:36, Ragingbull said:
That gut is exactly why hes had the season hes had. So much for a captain setting an example.
I agree with this.
You can go into any gym anywhere in the country and find people who work full time in better shape than this... and they aren't getting paid to be in shape.
-
2
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Damien said:
So following on from my post yesterday I thought I'd take a look at the 10 years from 2009-2018 which had a more straightforward cup style knockout. The difference is stark.
In those 10 years we we had 5 finals that were 1v2. We also had 1 x 1v3, 1 x 2v3, 1 x 2v4, 1 x 2v5 and 1 x 3v5. We also had 4 wins from 1st, 2 from 2nd, 1 from 3rd, 1 from 4th and 2 from 5th. Therefore there was only a 50% chance of a 1v2 final with first or second only having a 60% chance of winning the Grand Final, with third 10% and fourth and fifth 30% combined. It is important to note that in 4 out of 10 years there was not even a 5th or 6th placed team so it is very likely these percentages would be even higher for lower places if we had.
In the 12 years from 1998-2008 & 2019, with the top 5 McIntyre system and the similar top 6 system, we had 9 finals between 1 v 2, 2 finals between 1 v 3 and 1 final between 2 v 3. Out of those we had 7 wins from 1st, 4 from 2nd and 1 from 3rd. In these 12 years we had a 75% chance of a 1v2 final. First or second also had a 92% chance of winning the Grand Final. Third an 8% chance and fourth or fifth none.
It's clear which system rewarded league placing more and which makes it easier for teams that finish lower down the league to win the Grand Final. The more a system becomes a cup knockout the less the advantage given to league placing. There certainly isnt a huge disadvantage in finishing 3-6 in the straightforward cup knockout type system we have now and the facts of what has happened under both styles of system bare this out.
I agree with this.
Remember, in the top 5 system, if you finished in 5th place you had to beat all 4 teams that finished above you to win the competition and three of the games were at the home ground of the team finishing above you.
Winning two knockout games to get to the Grand Final from 5th or 6th while winning one knock out game to get to the Grand Final from 1st or 2nd just isn't enough of a difference if we are going to put value on finishing higher up the league and making the regular season games as meaningful as possible.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Nothing, but he's close to being out of control hence him flying past
Being close to being out of control is not the same as being out of control. This is a bit too much Minority Reportish future crime for me.
-
2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:
Welsby does have some form for the flying "big hit" that is sometimes on the line between aggressive and reckless. Certainly to the extent that duty of care to the opponents is not near the forefront of decision making.
This from Magic Weekend:
What's wrong with that? This is Rugby League isn't it.
-
3 minutes ago, Loiner said:
Didn't work out like that for James Bentley.
I think there is a fair difference between trying to tackle someone with your shoulder and the ball carrier dipping so you make contact higher than you were intending and one where you are swinging your arm into the tackle.
-
11 minutes ago, Damien said:
Yes that's why I said it's no excuse, Currie still got punished albeit it no ban. Falling can be taken into account as mitigation, and so may get someone a lesser punishment, but someone falling in itself doesn't just get someone off scot free.
All incidents are different and I don't know what the Currie one was. However it does sound fundamentally different to what Welsby did.
I am just clarifying that the ball carrier dipping is taken into consideration by the disciplinary panel.
-
3 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:
What are the rules for being “eligible” for a 0 match grade A sanction?
I don't know if it hard and fast but a Grade A can either be 0 or 1 match penalty. To be judged by the panel I guess. But we know from the Rhyse Martin case that 'previous' is likely to increase the charge.
-
11 minutes ago, Damien said:
Falling or crouching hasn't been an excuse all season.
These are the notes from the Ben Currie hit on David Fusitu’a early in the season.
High Tackle
Careless – ball carrier dips
Grade A
Sanctions:
0 Match Penalty Notice
So the ball carrier dipping is a consideration in the disciplinary process.
-
9 minutes ago, Damien said:
I understand what you are saying but Atkin could have easily ended by with a broken nose, jaw or cheekbone. Is it only because he didn't that people view it more lightly? With the dangers of concussion in the spotlight it is not just became of the obvious injuries that mean the game needs to take firm action on foul play.
Accidental or not it is still foul play and should be punished accordingly in my opinion. Plenty of players accidentally get tackles wrong. I have no doubt that Bateman didn't mean to do what he did either but he should still get banned.
And I understand that. I am not naive, I know what I enjoy will never return but I just enjoyed the hit because it was a flash back to the time when big hits were the most physical part of the game and not wrestling or managing levers.
-
4 minutes ago, Loiner said:
Deary me, Welsby maybe I thought it was a great tackle to be fair at the time, but knowles I think you need to go have a lie down in a padded cell. It was disgusting could have dislocated his shoulder.
Maybe. I would be happy to be proved wrong and perhaps the review panel will come up with a significant charge.
I felt that holding a wrist and putting the shoulder in an unnatural position is not too much more than we see on the ground with players using levers to control the body of their opponent. This was just more visible as it was upright.
As I say, may be wrong. I am open to be persuaded with sensible logical points (maybe more persuasive than the padded cell comment in fact).
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, DavidM said:
Well I’m strange and bizarre . To me I love tackles like that , I watch rugby for great play and big shots like that . It’s hard and it’s brutal , good . Microanalysing every tackle is just totally contrary to the nature of the game in my opinion , and you take out tackles like that you change the whole nature of the game and for the worse . That’s my view , the game has become over sanitised as it is and when you watch it and see the rubbish that goes on it isn’t always for the better spectacle . That’s just my view as well . Blatant foul play yes , but somethings just happen as part of the game at that level
I agree with this.
This isn't a stiff arm or a punch. This is someone looking to put in a legitimate big hit with his shoulder. It is not an attempt at dirty play, it is something that has been at the heart of the game for as long as it has existed.
Yes, he may get punished if the contact was above the shoulder. By the letter of the law that would be correct but it doesn't feel right to me.
I have spent my life watching Rugby League players put big shots on each other and getting up and going again (as we saw here in fact). If we are going to use ultra slow motion and screen shots to find out a way to ban them then it may be in the laws but it's not for me.
-
2
-
-
On 19/09/2022 at 12:25, Tommygilf said:
If my aunt had ###### she'd be my uncle. But she hasn't so she isn't. *for anyone who gets the reference.
If you hit someone in the face you hit them in the face. It can be accidental.
Of course it can be accidental.
It may still arrive on the doorstep of the disciplinary as careless but of course you can hit someone in the face and it be accidental
-
2 minutes ago, Dave T said:
Well no. We use evidence (including freeze frame) in disciplinary to try and stop foul play.
If its contact with the head, it's illegal. I'm not sure why that would be anyone's favourite part of the game.
I know. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Dave T said:
I mean, it's clear cut. If it's high, he has a case to answer, if it's not, it's all good.
I'm not sure why some people are so against pulling foul play.
Probably because I have watched Rugby League for almost 40 years and tackles like Welsby's have probably been my favourite part of the game. I love big hits which were clearly not intended to be deliberate high shots.
And now we are freeze framing them to find a way to punish the tackler.
-
We will see what the panel come up with.
My view is that the Welsby one was a cracking tackle and the Knowles one was a sin bin but nothing more.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Dave T said:
I agree. And unnecessary.
As opposed to necessary foul play?
-
12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
How much harder can you make it? Realistically?
Without making Leeds and Salford play with a man down or similar, it has been as difficult as possible for them to reach Old Trafford. Indeed Only one of them has.
This year, teams finishing 5th and 6th have to win 3 sudden death games to lift the trophy and the team finishing 1st has to win 2 sudden death games.
Under the top 5 system, the team finishing 5th had to win 4 sudden death games and the team finishing 1st had to win 2 games to win the trophy and had a second chance if they lost their first play off game.
That for me is proportionally harder and certainly much more of a reward for topping the league.
-
5
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:
The difference is Leicester WON , so you're happy to see the ' plebs ' get a day out as long as they don't actually win ? , Sounds about right
3 hours ago, GUBRATS said:So you're happy to see the ' plebs ' get a day out as long as they don't actually win ? , Sounds about right
You are really not coming across great in this thread. You have taken positive comments and tried to turn them into some bizarre and completely unconnected negative.
-
1 minute ago, Dave T said:
I do think there is something in what you say with regards to the overall seeding, and there was something nice about the Top 5 that did seem to proportionately reward clubs for their finishing position. However, top 5 did have some flaws in that it could be a touch complicated to understand and articulate, and that it could throw up repeat fixtures (the last year of this had 2 x Wigan v Salford games over 3 weeks).
I quite liked the fact the top 2 got a 2nd chance (IIRC) if they lost the first game.
But I don't think Leeds' route was easy. They had to travel to France to play Catalans and then had to travel to an unbeaten at home Wigan. They were two great wins for them.
But I do think there is someting in what you say, I'm just not sure what the best solution is.
As I say above. That was a typo, I am saying I don't believe Leeds route was easy this year. But I also believe that the route for 5th and 6th should be more disproportionately harder than it currently is.
-
7 minutes ago, bobbruce said:
I think it’s harsh to say Leeds route was easy. The top 5 system though gave a clear advantage to each team as you went up the league. Which is the system I’d go with if it was up to me.
That was a typo (I was in a rush). I meant I am not saying Leeds route was easy. It is corrected now.
-
3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:
But, if you're first, you're at home, had a week to get injured players back, playing a team further down the ladder than you who have already played a knock out round the week before.
Not to mention from 5th and 6th there are no home matches.
To compare this years Grand Finalists in the playoffs:
Leeds have played Catalans Away, then Wigan Away. Saints have played Salford at home. Salford were also without Croft, injured in their previous gruelling playoff game. And Leeds have lost Gannon and Sezer just in the playoff matches - nearly losing Oledski too.
Ask 100 people and 100 people would tell you the second route is significantly easier and preferable.
I am not saying that the Leeds route to the Grand Final was easy.
I am saying that, in my opinion, a play off system should make it harder.
If we are to have a play of system then it needs to disproportionately favour the higher placed teams. More so than it does now.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Exactly, its not like getting to the Grand Final, let alone winning it, from 5th is easy. It is specifically intended to be hard in fact.
My view is that it should be harder to win than it is from 5th or 6th.
To win from first you have to win 2 sudden death games and from 5th you have to win 3 sudden death games. That is not enough of a difference for me.
-
3
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Mojo said:
I thought he was back from injury but I just read now that they weren't gonna risk it because of injuries. I do agree with a bit of what Harry said. It'll be tough for Farnworth to get into form straight away. But I think after every game he'll slowly get back in to it. Against Samoa it'll be hard to expect him to do what he did before he got injured. England's gonna need some good backs to contain the Samoan Panthers backline that's for sure 2 to 6 are all Penrith Panthers players. And that's from the most dominant NRL Team the last two years
While I would like to see England start the tournament well against Samoa (and no doubt it will be useful for the profile of the cup in this country), it is not really how you start but how you finish that counts.
If we beat Samoa we are highly likely to top the group then then face (probably) PNG and Tonga in the quarters and semi's.
If we lose to Samoa in the opener then we will (likely) face Tonga in the quarters and Samoa again in the semi's.
In the latter scenario, the second game against Samoa is far more important than the first and I would expect the England staff to be looking at this as a 6 game tournament for England and building momentum,
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Damien said:
As a business model that makes zero sense.
And I think you are being very generous there.
The Game Caller
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted · Edited by Dunbar
Definitely. Being part time (if he is) doesn't cut it.
Just as an example (not showing off!) I trained about 20 hours a week for my Iron Man triathlon while working a full time job that also included a 140 mile round trip commute.
There are amateur sports people up and down the country able to get into better shape than this.