Cerulean

Yes, I understand, and I apologise for using your post to make a tangential point of my own. But I also believe that Rugby league is not taking sufficient heed of obvious lessons, and will come to regret its inaction.

I’m unconvinced that rugby league is working hard enough to reduce the risk of impact damage. The first impulse of the officials at a dubious tackle is to find mitigation; shuddering impacts are intensely celebrated; smashing a flat-footed ball carrier to the ground is a cause for much back slapping; line speed, where rule (law) interpretation encourages the defence to hit the attack line at high speed is a match winning approach; considered and chosen rule interpretations constantly favour larger and heavier players and more significant impact. When did the sport become talked about as an impact sport? It was always regarded as a contact sport: you rode the tackle, a grounded player required no more than a hand to complete the tackle (still in the rules, I believe), evasion was so much more significant than now. I played as a twelve and a half stone second row in the 60s and 70s: I would have been terrified to attempt the sport as it is now. I would have been looking for a different activity.

To tolerate is to accept: to accept is to condone: to condone is to encourage. The purpose of arm waving - generally accompanied by physical and audible expressions of disgust and contempt - is to redirect the officials’ attention, to suggest that the officials are missing something, to gain an unearned advantage; immediately with a six-again or a penalty; later with an altered perception by the officials. It’s rehearsed, encouraged by the coach, practised, perfected. The benefits are valuable. Those six-agains can turn a game or contribute to maintaining dominance. It may not be a total coincidence that the team that may be at the top of the arm-waving league is also the team at the top of the league table. It’s dissent, it’s offensive, it’s an attempt to highlight that the officials are not doing their job. It shows the sport in a poor light. It's not unlikely that it contributes to other levels of dissent. It probably contributes to spectator abuse of the officials. Perhaps it even reaches down to U14 level. It could be stopped completely within 15 minutes of the next round of fixtures, with an early released warning and few deserved penalties. Overstating my case, perhaps, but why isn't it stopped?

There was a time when rugby league belonged to every fan of every club, and the Challenge Cup final belonged to every rugby league fan, and over half of those attending were fans of clubs not actually competing; rugby league fans enjoying the ultimate day out for their sport. For reasons worth exploring, many, many fans of the sport no longer feel fully invested, actually feel disenfranchised. The final is now not much more than another club match. Exploring why this feeling of unity and belonging has evaporated could be interesting.

Perhaps tangential to the point that you were covering, but responding to your final paragraph and the "really important things", most of the discussion concerns a few teams around the bottom of the Super League structure - or more important to those few teams comfortably lodged at the top of the structure, about who will make up their list of opponents, which seems to be the unstated basis for most of the conversations here. What has not been significantly and seriously examined is the appearance and the playability of the sport, its profile amongst the wider population of those who may be prepared to contribute enthusiasm and commitment to the sport, a genuine attempt to create interest wider than already exists. Shuffling around the composition of the top division will have little impact on the game’s appeal: changing the perception (and ask around amongst those outside the sport, or peripheral to it, to find what that perception is) from a high-speed battering contest played by a very few teams with any sort of national awareness under a label which is not even the name of the sport, to a sport which can be enjoyed for its playability, its accessibility, for rugby league’s undoubted qualities of thrilling ball movement, running, evasion, positional awareness, and many other elements now hidden behind a near-incomprehensible battle to control what happens at the end of each tackle. If the game wants new customers, it needs to offer and promote something different: if it wants to continue to please a few comfortable teams, then rearranging their opponents can be argued over. Just possibly, a new review might address wider issues.

Many thanks.

This looks like an entertaing game on a nice afternoon for my first match for 2 years. I do not buy online, so can anyone tell me, please, if the £10 age concession is still available at the ground; or if, as seems common nowadays, there is a surcharge for paying at the ground. Thank you

Sorry for the lack of clarity: I turned the commentary off. Once, the best commentators in sport came from a journalistic background, and often honed their skills on radio. Different world now, but the sport needs commentators more than it needs ex-players commenting.

Rugby League is my sport in more ways than you can count, but I was disappointed with the game, as a contest, and as an exhibition. Samoa looked underprepared and disorganised and made unsatisfactory opponents. England slowed the play-the-ball down by prolonging the tackle and by pushing and pulling the tackled player back, permitted and encouraged in Super League: Samoa slowed the play-the-ball down by piling tacklers on, not allowed in Super League, and penalised. There seemed an awful lot of pushing, pulling, twisting, wrestling, shirt and arm holding, pleading for a penalty, which, I suspect, may have surprised a casual observer trying out the game. England’s (as with Super League) moving forward off the mark when playing the ball adds to the untidiness and confusion. This would take 10 minutes of the first round next season to cure, and I don’t understand why it’s not been cured yet. The commentary was awful, though it may have improved after the first 15 minutes: I wouldn’t know because I’d turned it off. Some of the ball handling after the defence had been disrupted was a delight. England’s defence organisation was excellent, and while it may not be the the most obvious attraction of the sport, it’s worth focusing on. Williams was outstanding, and more should be made of this star player.

You seem to be getting upset. To select a few teams to bump along the bottom of Super League for a few years, you can take a year to assess them against a list of ill-defined and mostly arbitrary and spurious measurements, or you can use on-field performance, or you can select the most positive member of this forum to make the choice. Don’t be surprised if one of those three methods is going to cause frustration and disappointment similar to your own.

Whingey fans get an unfair press. Whingey fans have absolutely no influence on the sport: they have no effect on the decisions made, no one who makes the decisions listens to them, they are not responsibility for what happens to the sport, except for still turning up to support the game and paying for their entry and subscriptions. Whingey fans do not block possible changes. The only people who take any notice of what whingey fans say are those on this forum who wish to deflect responsibility. If there really are problems in the sport, look harder and find the real culprits. Yours sincerely, a whingey fan

Excellent descriptions of some of the primary reasons the game isn't as attractive as it should be, suggesting that no matter what adjustments are made to the league structure and the marketing and promotion, progress is likely to be limited. The visual product is simply not as saleable as it could be.

From W B Yeats, whose world view is worth exploring: "The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity."

Do you not consider that you have overdone the language in your criticism of others who have a different point of view? Or perhaps you believe that such intensity is required to correct those who do not have the same laser clarity of vision as yourself.

But Rugby League has not had 130 years of failings and poor management. This sport has been Britain’s 3rd most popular spectator sport. It could fill Wembley on a day which was a major landmark in the nation’s sporting calendar. Many other sports were jealous of its profile. It has been admired for its origins, history, genesis; for its innovation; for its combinations of bravery, ball-handling, evasive skills, movement, and much else. Amongst all of this, few people cared too much about the structure of the leagues and divisions. The game was highly regarded for the way it was played, for the spectacle it provided. Many of us have worked in organisations driven by the modern trend of imposed targets. We soon come to understand that effort is directed at collecting points and achieving ticks, rather than making worthwhile improvements. If the primary focus of the sport now is to decide who bumps along the bottom of Super League, then the sport has gone down a cul-de-sac. There are bigger issues to tackle, and a powerpoint and spreadsheet exercise from an essentially indifferent organisation is not going to be enough. The sport is being lost in an ever increasing morass of other calls on our enthusiasms and our leisure spending. It needs to put its efforts into promoting its visible strengths. Yes, there’s a lot to do: no, there isn’t a magic bullet, but IMG’s focus is an unfortunate diversion. And be certain that a time will come when the IMG involvement will be seen as a management failing.

I know it's not the question you asked, so please forgive me for an impassioned rant here: The pinnacle of the sport in the Northern Hemisphere is now no more than repeated fixtures of Wigan v Warrington, St Helens v Leeds, Hull v Hull KR: it’s not enough, it’s not enough to capture the imagination, to hold the enthusiasm, to provide a backdrop for increased participation, to maintain or grow the sport. And the present major generational review of the sport is nothing more than a spreadsheet and powerpoint exercise to select who bumps along the bottom of Super League, providing the few top teams with acceptable games. It’s not enough. The alternative? A serious review of where the game is, what it can be, how existing enthusiasm can be maintained and then extended, how remaining resources can be retained, how the visual impact of the sport can stand out against the exponentially growing swamp of alternative calls on sporting and leisure spending, how youngsters can participate and progress through the levels of a wonderful sport filled with running, evasion, catching, kicking,exhilaration, teamwork, fitness, tactics, a proud history, a cultural grounding. A major review which, because there is no one else, can only be instigated by those few clubs who have the income, power, profile, and influence, to bring the game unselfishly together. A really serious major review. It won’t happen.

The Super League clubs have had the power, money, control, influence, and profile, pretty much exclusively for the last two decades, and it is those organisations which have decided not just the direction of the sport, but issues such as the one that instigated this thread. To blame the leadership of the RFL, or an indefinable geographical entity, who do not have the power, money, control, influence, and profile, is a disingenuous deflection. It really is time we made clear who is making these decisions; who is running the sport. But, no, I’m not within a country mile of understanding your point, and don’t suppose I ever could understand someone who seeks humour in genetic deficiencies and homosexual rape, and who indulges in such crass generalisations. So build whatever edifice you wish: I shall not participate in its examination.

The West Yorkshire Super League clubs (and this is a Super League issue: no one else is involved) are Leeds, Hudderdsfield and Castleford. Your attribution of such extreme power to this triumvirate seems a little unbalanced, but perhaps you know things that most of us don’t know. Perhaps Leeds, Huddersfield and Castleford really do wish to conform to some perceived stereotypical behaviour in order to make the whole of Super league look inept. Anyway, keep up your good work. You will undoubtedly find those on here who enjoy your generalisations.

Sorry if it appeared otherwise: I didn't think you were trying to be contentious. I agree that it's a question worth asking. Some of the younger viewers will have little idea about what happened. There are those on here, though, who would suspect ulterior motives.

Whether or not you suspect covert intent or ulterior motive, it’s an interesting question about an interesting episode in Rugby League’s history. A short narrative description of the course of the events involved would be worth a read. Particularly from someone prepared to write more than the smart one phrase or one sentence responses which can sometimes seem to predominate on these forums.

Thank you for the response. The competitivity and profile of a second division should be enhanced by the annual opportunity of 1 of the 10 being promoted, but this alone would be nowhere near enough. It's an issue that needs examination: but starting with a belief that teams 11 to 20 in the Northern Hemisphere are of some value to the sport, might help.

Sorry: I was being flippant, and I apologise. There are some sensibly thought out responses here, and mine doesn’t deserve to be amongst them. I like your possible sugestion of a 10 team Super League as a way forward: 5 games each round, closely matched, hard fought, with a 1 team promotion and relegation to a competitive and high profile second division: it could raise the look of the sport, and encourage ambition.

"... and how do we fix it?" A 9 team Super League, it seems. And if a further gap opens up, move to a 6 or 7 team Super League. Any other ideas? Suggesting bringing the lesser teams up to the standard of the top ones is not an answer to the question. Perhaps if we call the lesser teams "passengers" loud enough and often enough, that will do it.

And I genuinely know pensioners for whom £40 for a couple is pretty close to their food spending for a week, and certainly exceeds their discretionary income. These are folk who worked continuously for 50 years, paid taxes, were significant net contributors to society, and lived a particularly frugal life for a good part of it. They save every penny - literally, every penny - for a one week a year holiday, if they were fortunate. If you have no personal memory of growing up, taking your place in the work force, and the frugality of life in the 50s and 60s in the deprived sections of society, me trying to persuade you will not work. In fact I agree that there is no reason for OAP concessions. If buying a £20 pizza, or £20 entry to a sporting contest, or a gap year doing nothing, or a car when you are 18, or financing an extensive bucket list, or a daily artistically produced coffee, cannot be afforded, so be it. Most folk have plenty of things they can’t afford.

Geesh! There are long term fans, decades of watching, playing, supporting coaching, teaching, and preaching the game, who are worried that RL is not where it could be, should be, and deserves to be, and that the adjustments we are seeing may not be enough. Your tedious and predictable comment may get you support from like-minded others, which you can incorporate into a certificate to be printed and framed and hung on the wall, but please remember that governance without wide scrutiny is highly likely to go astray.