Wholly Trinity

Are you sure the cited examples were similar? If they weren't, it would be frivolous. Do you have a list of clubs found to have made frivolous appeals? I'm pretty sure Trinity haven't.

The £500 per year is not so relevant here as RL subscribers, by definition, are sky sports subscribers, which puts them above average.

In Asia, it wouldn't make sense. I buy S here but XL over there. Edit: There is also the advantage of buying kids size clothing for adult relatives over there (no VAT)

Anyway, it's 1st v 5th and if Wigan hadn't lost one of their most potent attacking threats to injury (with 4 forwards on the bench) and then had a player sent off, it may well have been 1st v 2nd. These teacup storms are really overrated. IF Leeds win from 5th (again) they will have beaten 7th, 4th, 2nd and 1st in consecutive weeks of knock-out football - some achievement. COYS

The point being dead rubbers were also common if not more so in fptp. The premiership was certainly low key, possibly the 4th competition after the challenge cup, league and regal trophy. Not really greatly celebrated and no real prestige. The first 10 rounds were not irrelevant as they made Leeds' challenge all the more difficult. In fact their knock-out competition started a week earlier against Cas (double spit). One of the reasons for the reinstatement of Championship play-offs was to get players more used to high-pressure one-off games and hopefully more competitive with Australia. The idea that playing everyone home and away is fair and balanced is also overstated. In RL it really depends when you play which team, with injuries, suspensions and form fluctuating throughout the season. Playing Leeds at the start of the season under Agar was not the same as at the end under Smith. One of Toulouse's wins was against Saints. Cas played a Saints academy team. FPTP is no fairer than any other system. The current system provides a guaranteed last game climax to the season. That's how sport should be.

Nostalgia's not what it used to be... Perhaps the problem is the age of posters on here. The majority? hark back to the good old days of fptp from '73 to '97. I like the play-offs for similar nostalgic reasons. My team have been crowned champions twice but never been league leaders whereas Cas won the hub cap but have never been champions They also forget that a team could have won the league with 5 games to go, or only 2 teams in contention with even more rounds left. Damp squib and dead rubbers galore. Sporting competitions are by definition contrived and artificial. Everyone knows what needs to be done at the start of the season. Catalans being beaten at home was a shock. Wigan losing at home for the first time this year even more so. Don't underestimate the achievement of Leeds (spits) and how they turned their season around with a new coach. With fptp their season would have been over after 10 rounds. Sport needs fairytale endings. These need to be unlikely but not impossible. I guess resistance is to be expected when I espouse 12 team playoffs from 2x10 divisions...

Does anyone remember Dean Sampson's delayed dive from a "punch" - a bit too hilarious and theatrical to be classed as cheating perhaps

Indeed, it worked out remarkably well in the end, but not what was planned or hoped for.

Was surprised by this news, but you never really know what's going on behind the scenes. I will be less surprised if they've already got a replacement lined up ready to announce in the next week.

What would have been the point in throwing good money after bad when there was never any intention to stay at BV? (Prior to 2019).

If only that were true... Away fans on the Western terrace won't actually benefit from this development, other than having something nicer to have a poor view of. Also, the east stand won't be finished until next summer at the earliest. We're used to being torn apart. We'd miss it really.

Ah right, so you're saying a player should be able to ptb randomly and not be penalised as no offence took place... other than the specific one of voluntary tackle. If the referee calls play on and a player chooses not to, he is penalised. Ptb has a special meaning and definition within the laws, including when and how it should be carried out.

Why would putting every defender who is not standing square or retreated 10m NOT be an advantage? The acting half could have a clear run to the line with no-one allowed to touch him without conceding a penalty.

How do they get safety certificates? And if they do, they are, by definition, deemed safe i.e. not a death trap. Walls do occasionally collapse in various places, usually in high winds. Planes crash occasionally due to mechanical failure. Should no-one fly?

Wooden stands were demolished following the Taylor report (see west stand at BV). Concrete and steel tend not to burn so well. All stadia need a current safety certificate according to legislation at the time, so by definition not death traps. Wasn't the wall at WR an external wall that collapsed on non matchday? I forget. The floodlight fire at WR during a game was more of an issue, but I assume they had a current certificate, so more of an accident than a death trap. Or a failure of the safety certificate system.

Hmmm interesting would simply releasing the ball forward constitute a knock on? If you deliberately place the ball in front of you, would it be deliberate knock on or seen as an attempt to ptb and so a voluntary tackle? Edit: If the ball is grounded short of the try line and released, is that normally given as ptb again? Or knock-on? The opposition could pick it up and play on.

After thinking about it, a knock-on at ptb is usually given as such. An incorrect ptb would be a penalty, so losing possession at ptb perhaps needs to be stipulated as a lesser offence resulting in a scrum.

Another issue is that, with reduced finances and seemingly more long-term injuries and suspensions, it is difficult for clubs to maintain a big enough squad. With the salary cap it's a difficult trade-off between quality and quantity.

But it's either a knock on or incorrect ptb, so why the need for a separate law? It's semantics really as the law says a player can't release the ball after a tackle other than that prescribed by ptb.

It seems some clubs are less enthusiastic about reserves. They've tried to introduce it for a few years and some clubs didn't want to participate. The current set up is sort of halfway and doesn't really fit any purpose because they only play every other week. Top end academy can play every week. Over-age academy are the ones that tend to get loaned out as not ready for 1st team but need to play each week. Players returning from injury need to drop lucky that there's a game when they need it. Similarly, out of form 1st teamers often don't have a game.

How are they different? A lost ball backwards would be play on. A lost ball forwards would be a knock on. At the ptb it would be incorrect ptb. How is "lost ball" an offence?

A voluntary tackle and deliberate knock on are both penalties. If voluntary tackles were allowed, would opposition players within 10m be offside?

Putting the ball on the floor?

It would be at least a knock-on if played properly?

Voluntary tackle