Tommygilf

I totally see that, I just don't think it will have that effect.

Personally, as I laid out above, I think they are changes that are about "looking like doing something" than actually doing something.

If I, or any other person who had stepped onto a rugby pitch, had listened to the experts we would have walked straight back off. That is the core issue here.

There's a certain rage against the machine here. Coaches figured out years (decades?) ago that fancy penalty moves and set plays don't win competitions, rock solid defences do. A lot of the things that set teams up to win tournaments are the boring things - eating well, training efficiently, organised defence etc. It's a consequence of professionalism in sport, the things that make you more likely to win, or less likely to lose, are invested in more. The characteristics of the game of the past was often dictated by a distinct lack of professionalism. "Tackling" was appaling. The size of players too was often incomparable to now. "Training" and "nutrition" were often a joke. That genie is out of the bottle now, even amateur lads are at the higher levels hitting the gym 4 plus times a week as well as on field training. Its going nowhere in the top flight. So what then? Reduce the number of players on the pitch? It would certainly impact the ability to defend an RL pitch. But the same people harking back to a "golden age" would likely complain it wasn't "proper rugby", despite it being the only way to return to an open running style game.

This feels like looking to do something rather than doing something worthwhile. Playing RL (any contact sport) is dangerous and will increase your risk of developing certain conditions. There is no way of getting away from that - these measures aren't far enough to do anything other than make it look like the RFL are doing something. The logical conclusion of this is to not take the risk in the first place, anything else is merely shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic for such a perspective. RU has had these rules (or similar) for some years, they are still facing legal threats and concerns over long term impacts of head injuries. To me, either accept it is dangerous and play, or don't accept that level of danger can't be removed and don't.

As ATLANTISMAN says the majority of the branding around the ground seems to have always been Sale connected rather than Salford (helps that the former have the sponsors to do it and pay the full rent I guess). The digital stuff is able to be used by both clubs for their own games. Given Salford aren't due to play there for a few months anyway (certainly not on TV) its also not surprising.

Where do you even start with that?

Probably what the other 63 designs do... That said, Fev are a traditional club, one of the few clubs to still retain a town crest as a main part of their badge. "Rovers" doesn't lend itself to an animal badge. Perhaps the thinking is a more traditional look. The Instagram caption is "Another slight simplification of a more complex mark"

I think Wakey and Toulouse are the clear standouts to finish in the top 2, probably in that order. After them though its pretty open for a lot of the comp. The likes of Sheffield, York, Bradford, Fev, would like to think they are playoff contenders. However even Batley, Fax and Widnes etc could find themselves in with a run at the playoffs following a decent run of form.

Yeah its good enough for Ream Madrid and Inter Milan but lets not be too hasty...

Its broader and brings in more data.

Been following this guy on instagram, he has comments on their for each. Several he thinks the current designs are fine but needed to do an alternative to complete the set so to speak. Some better than others definitely.

Quite, sin bins were brought into football in the amateur and lower divisions before they look to be introduced higher up. This is because the top tiers are important to bring money into the sport, so tests should be made lower down.

The judicial laws change though don't they? And they aren't consistent across the board for every aspect, even in the same country. From what I understand he is suggesting that a whole range of subjects could change and consent to play sports will be just one facet of that.

Its literally how we do things now H?