fighting irish
-
Posts
4,343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by fighting irish
-
-
What do the new owners have to say publicly about this? Their silence is deafening.
-
1 hour ago, Dave T said:
If you don't want to discuss something, you just stop. It's simple.
That's what I have done.
-
16 hours ago, Dave T said:
Hmm.
This is very, "my opinion is right so everyone stop talking about it now..."
But yes, the rugby is here now. Almost.
16 hours ago, Click said:I think you quoted him word for word
That ''quote'' was an interesting take on our conversation.
I have to say, it was a complete mis-representation of what I was trying to convey.
I was merely pleading to stop, because my life's moments are precious to me and I'm not indifferent about wastefully squandering them on insignificant trivia.
You are both more than welcome to your opinions but you do seem a little unwilling to grant me the right to my own and leave it at that, rather you seem determined to continue, riding the merry-go-round of your own convictions.
Have at it, if you insist.
I have bigger fish to fry.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Damien said:
Well back to Vegas. The Sky presentation is completely different and much more like we see with Football.
Isn't it great?
-
Well one final comment.
Given that evenly spaced lines look more sensible, more professional and less Eton-wall-game amateurish, shall we just keep quiet about it?
I'd be prepared to bet, that (if we did keep shtum) nobody would notice and come away being absolutely convinced that RL is a damn fine game.
By the way, given Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle, us clever b....gg...rs know that getting it absolutely right is downright impossible, so all we are arguing about is the margin of error.
I think that the margin of error involved in this case is acceptable.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Just Browny said:
I think when the game is being played on a less-than-full-size pitch, coaches should be forced to pick their shorter players to preserve the consistent, uniform look.
Play with a lower size ball.
Well while we're at it, why don't we insist that the referee carry a tape measure with him and before he allows the tackled player to play the ball, he make sure he accurately measures out the 10 m on-side line?
Shouldn't take too long, especially given that getting it absolutely right, is so vitally important.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Dave T said:
I'm going off an earlier post that calculated these are 9.45m. I can't vouch for that, haven't fact checked it, but we do know they are shorter.
But even if they are yards, that isn't what the rule book says. We don't have a 20 yard line. We have a 20m line.
Well in that case, Dave I suspect they are 10 yard lines but I still think this is an inconsequential issue.
5 minutes ago, Dave T said:I think you've confused things. This isn't an NFL pitch we are playing on. It is an RL pitch. Sort of.
Oooh that hurt. Do you really believe I was confused? Or are you taking this opportunity for a cheap shot?
I know we are playing RL but aren't they using the NFL lines?
Anyway, I still think this is an insignificant/inconsequential issue.
Surely also, the NRL must have known this at the outset and decided it wasn't something worth being pernickety about?
I'm just saying I agree with them.
-
32 minutes ago, Dave T said:
I chuckle at BP campaigning for things to be done 'properly' and then abandoning that when it suits.
And no, it isn't 10 yards or 10 metres.
It absolutely is a minor point, but for some reason the Aussies have decided that 10m lines don't have to be 10m, or 20m lines don't need to be 20m. The lines aren't just aesthetics, they have a function. There was a perfectly functional solution for short pitches that has been used for years.
I'm not looking for an argument here Dave but I'm just wondering, how do you know they are not 10 yard lines? What is the distance between the lines? I'm sure the overall length (from try line to try line) was specified earlier in the thread but I haven't been able to find it since. Can you tell me what it is?
Anyway, if they are not 10 yard lines, what the heck are they yanks playing at? Why would they come up with some pseudo-standard which is neither metres nor yards? That doesn't make much sense does it?
Assuming you are right, then here's my next question, what does the NFL rule book say about the distance between lines? Do they specify it, or not?
-
4 hours ago, Dave T said:
Those lines on the pitch with the number 10 on, what does that number refer to?
3 hours ago, Big Picture said:1/10th of the distance from the near goal line to the opposite goal line, just like in every other RL match played on a properly marked field of play.
2 hours ago, Dave T said:Yes. That definitely isn't shoe-horned logic at all
Defo not a 10m line.
42 minutes ago, Big Picture said:Of course no one calls it “tenth of the pitch line”, when the field of play is the correct length there's no need. Everyone understands that 10 metres is 1/10th of 100 metres.
Aren't we making a big song and dance about this? I mean making a mountain out of a molehill?
By the way Dave, surely the most likely explanation is that they are 10 yard lines?
My opinion is that the NFL markings (so distinct, so perfect, so thick, so brilliant white) actually add a good deal to the spectacle.
Altering the markings to some insipid (vague, indistinct, grey) lines with an odd (variable) frequency would in my opinion, look amateurish and detract from the spectacle.
Can't we just go with it and relish this amazing, historic event?
-
1
-
2
-
-
Where oh where is the new consortium?
-
20 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
That aged well
it was prophetic, wasn't it?
-
1 hour ago, Worzel said:
We cannot expect the governing body to approve teams’ quality in advance. Nor have we previously asked them to police whether 16 or 17 players are named or used. I’ve already given another example where nobody expected them to do so, or complained that they hadn’t.
Some would like to say “they’re both at fault” and pass some responsibility to the RFL. I think that is nefarious. Rowley picked the team he picked, and he and his club are accountable for that choice.
Not normally no, but Salford are in ''special measures'', under increased scrutiny for the sake of the whole game and with so much at stake I think it's a failure of governance to allow the season's opening presentation to be made a laughing stock.
-
On 17/02/2025 at 04:58, Father Gascoigne said:
On the mind of the average person on the street: The first thing I'd point out here is that people watch football because, in all likelihood, they played and consequently watched it growing up, likely with influence from their fathers and friends. They then developed a penchant for a particular club. Put those two things together, and there's a strong possibility you've created an addict for life.
I personally take no interest in how much a player earns, or how detached they are from me or anyone else. Quite frankly, I've never quite understood this argument.
Leonardo di Caprio makes $20 million a movie. Principal photography usually takes no more than a month, so he's making that for very little output on his part. I've never once thought to myself, 'Wow, that's ridiculous, I'm not watching any more of his movies, or anyone else's for that matter!' I'm not alone either, because I've only seen this sentiment directed at sports, and never at other entertainment options.
The people that do make these claims, I suspect, simply want to have an excuse for why they don't want to watch something anymore. They're giving themselves reasons to justify why they no longer care. They're shifting the blame on to the sports themselves, rather than taking accountability for the fact they've changed as a person and are simply no longer entertained as they once were.
Football, and sport in general, is entertainment. If you enjoy the broader point of what's taking place on the pitch, it's very easy to remove yourself from comparisons between the players and the person on the street. It doesn't even cross the mind, because you're engrossed in watching something you liked to do performed at a high level.
This also explains why people who, upon watching a sport they have no personal experience with, tend to find it boring. They're effectively watching a foreign movie without subtitles. They see things happening, they might even understand the gist of what's going on, but they have no appreciation for the nuance and thus find it unengaging.
I've long maintained that if you don't know the players on the screen by name, their position, and what a ceiling and floor of a player in that position looks like, you can't truly enjoy a sport. None of this happens without having an innate understanding of the sport, usually gained by playing and long-term watching, which is why gaining new fans is hard business for any sport, but easiest for those which lend themselves to high participation, such as football or basketball.
And all that's before we even consider the emotional attachment people have for their clubs. Forget about entertainment; when you have an emotional attachment to something, you don't need the element of entertainment. What's happening on the pitch is now an extension of you as a person, and no matter how turgid you'll lap it up week after week.
On earnings: Earnings are a reflection of viewing demand. If demand was lower, they'd be earning less. I'm more offended by US sports that set how much revenue is split between players and owners. At least in football, almost all the money goes to people who are providing the entertainment. But even then, with American leagues, I don't care about earnings so it doesn't affect my enjoyment of them.
On football popularity: I don't believe it is growing. It probably reached saturation 15-20 years ago.
Sure, more clubs are investing in infrastructure that allows them to fit more fans into stadiums these days, but that's not necessarily a sign of growing the underlying fanbase. They're just better catering to fans that already existed. 60 years ago stadium capacities were larger due to terracing, and you'd get a bigger variance in crowds throughout the season. A club could get 20,000 one week and 60,000 the next. When stadiums went all-seater, they became smaller by default, and you locked lots of potential attendees out.
My take is that there are between 1.5 million and 2 million diehard football fans in England, and that this number has stayed consistent for several decades now. The casuals tune in when the Euros and World Cup are on but wouldn't dream of paying for football. The last big boom would've taken place when the middle classes came aboard, but I'm not even sure how much of it that is down to blue collar folk that already followed football entering the middle class.
So, what are you saying?
-
2 minutes ago, Worzel said:
If a burglar phones the police and says “I’m going to burgle 56 Old Street tonight”, then if the police don’t stop him from doing it then yes we can ask why they didn’t but it doesn’t in any way make the burglar less of a criminal, or the crime less of a crime.
This situation is wholly Salford’s responsibility. It isn’t a shared responsibility.
Hmmmm.
I'm not trying to minimise Salford's part in this, merely expressing my chagrin at the RFL's impotence or incompetence, or indifference to the impact of Salford's actions (more likely all three).
Who's steering this ship?
''Sir, sir, ...... Captain, there's an iceberg!''
''Well what do you expect me to do about it, I'm only on £50 grand a year.''
-
5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:
No, I understand your point.
Even after (or as part of) their monumental leap they'd have to obtain full IRL membership and qualify for the 2030, 2034 (or whenever World Cup), otherwise IRL would just be cr**ping on their other members from a great height.
That's the same situation as now, they have to qualify to take part in a world cup - that shouldn't change. The idea of your monumental leap surely would be to make that more likely.
An invitation/challenge to take part in a competition without going through normal qualification would simply be unfair to the likes of Wales, Greece, Jamaica and/or France who they would be there instead of.
Ok this is my last attempt.
I'm not talking about displacing anyone, I'm talking about making a wild-card entry, a grand gesture to the President of the United States.
All the rest, is ''details''.
-
14 hours ago, M j M said:
No.
This isn't a "both sides are to blame" issue whatsoever.
Ok, I don't know the details, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us, if you are better informed?
I eagerly await the investigation report.
But even if Salford were the main culprits, (we'll see) the RFL are culpable.
As I see it, the RFL didn't anticipate this and should have.
Then, when they had advance notice and could have intervened, they didn't. They should have been on the phone in a flash. It was our opening game on free to air television for god's sake.
To me, that's tantamount to them being told by the stadium manager, at the last World Cup opening ceremony that he was going to switch off the stadium's sound system during the ceremony and they just decided, well it will ruin the whole thing, but he's responsible, so it's nothing to do with us.
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:
They are already invited, as long as they can obtain full membership and then qualify.
Everything you say is correct, but I'm not talking about nudging the existing (small time) organisation along inch by inch.
I can't help coming to the conclusion that your missing my point (by a mile).
I'm talking about inspiring a monumental, completely unprecedented leap forward in the games development in the USA.
Not some mealy-mouthed, half-hearted, nice kind words, designed to nurture change on an evolutionary time scale.
-
15 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:
That would be pretty galling for whoever's place they took at the world cup - likely France based on the current qualification arrangement.
Well of course it would, but I'm not suggesting someone is displaced to accommodate them.
We'd need to expand the tournament to welcome them in.
Perhaps in 2030? I just believe in striking while the iron's hot.
A bold gesture, made to the President might just stimulate something unprecedented, something ground-breaking.
Your not inviting Toronto Wolfpack into Super League, but the entire United States, into the World Cup in four years time. That's plenty of time to gear up.
-
7 hours ago, Luke HKR said:
Arguably football isn't just entertainment, it's more of a business. Where the sport is not the main aspect of club's. Look at Manchester United, the money they get is very little to do with the sport. But everything to do with the name of the club. The sport is more about money (top level).
The emotional attachment whilst I agree,, applies to every club in every sport. The reason football is far more popular is because of the fantastic marketing and self promotion which rugby league has never been good at. Meaning people who have no interest in going, will follow a team just to fit in and spend on merchandising. And that trickles down through the leagues.
I believe football is growing, but not in this country in attendance. Everybody knows something about football even if they're not into the game. By advertising the pl overseas as well as they have done. It's opened a new market that they are all in. That's why dubai just hosted the Spanish cup final, football is very good at self promotion. People's knowledge of the game means the sports growing. Money pours in, in other ways (tv,merchandising, sponsership). So attendances might not grow, but in every other aspect the sport does grow. And attendances are more to do with the fan from China, who goes to one game. But will go on the ground tour,club museum, club shop spending money locals won't and putting it all onto social media advertising the club and sport to other people. That's why bigger grounds are being built, to accommodate these people. I agree saturation will become a point, but then they'll just tune in so the sport still keeps a money level.
The other thing you mention that needs looking at is international games.
Football has the euros and WC (which the last final was watched by 3.6 billion people).
Rugby union and cricket has such a international calander (arguably to much in cricket terms as the league case). But that puts them in the national conscious on news and people's have an interest. Whilst not liking the sport they want to see England to win.
Until rl gets an international calander we will always be an after thought.
Luke, I've not quoted you to argue with you but I want to add something which I believe is critically important, which is within our purview, our sphere of influence if we only accept it.
Even football's millions age and die.
So without replacing those dieing off, it would wither on the vine. The fact is it's easy to draw in new fans.
All you need is a ball and four jumpers.
Our best hope, given our current limitations, is to get a ball into kids hands as early as possible and all we need is a patch of grass and four cones or some lines drawn on a beach somewhere and a willing adult to encourage them to play.
That's it.
It's then that a lifelong love of the game, is born and ingrained.
Why aren't we doing it? They are doing it in Africa, and Greece and Eastern Europe etc.
Come on BARLA, it's your job.
-
10 hours ago, Barley Mow said:
Jamaica have the Americas place at the qualifiers (world series) this year.
USA don't meet the requirements for IRL full membership so aren't eligible. Hopefully they'll progress to full membership asap.
I know mate, but if enough people saw the (challenge) invitation on tv, it might accelerate their growth and draw (some real) money into the game over there.
I was thinking like the closing speech at the Olympic games where they invite the worlds nations to gather in (such and such a place) in four years time.
If the public like what they see, and the sports investors see it as a way onto the ground floor, of a great new game in the NFL off-season, who knows.
-
1
-
-
I think its shameful when in effect, both the club and the RFL have colluded to allow this to happen.
Now they seem to be pointing the finger of blame at each other, content with the fact it's happened just as long as they can weasel out of any responsibility for it.
That's just shabby and the game deserves so much better.
-
2
-
1
-
-
If he does show up, I think P.V. should round it off with a broadcast, open invitation to the United States of America, calling on their best and fairest, to field a team, in the next RL World Cup.
Throw down the challenge to the macho money men over there, of which there are many, with more than ample funds to pick up the gauntlet.
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:
No, but there should be, and no idea why this stuff isn't on SL+.
Yes that's the obvious place for it, isn't it?
-
1
-
-
I'm pleased to say I was at the Wigan v Leigh game and what a marvelous evenings entertainment it was!
I just got home from a long weekend away and watched (on BBC iplayer) the London v Goole second round cup game, which I really enjoyed.
An unexpected pleasure (for me) was that at half time, they filled the waiting time with highlights of the other second round games featuring amateur clubs from all over the country. I was blown away by the speed of movement and the quality of the ball handling.
Its such a pity that we can't get more of the amateur games televised and broadcast to potential new fans but in particular, to new would-be players, I mean just to show them that yes they can get involved and play this incredibly enjoyable and entertaining sport without qualifying to play for a Super League club.
Most people in Wales, (for example) and I'm sure, in England too, don't even know that Rugby League exists as an amateur sport in England!
The second round highlights did a great job of publicising the fact that it is played and of showing just what a great game it is.
I'm very optimistic about the new season by why oh why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot, at the worst possible time?
It is an incredible own goal, to open the seasons free to air coverage with a complete embarrassment of a horrendous mis-match, which could have been avoided, if anybody really cared enough to actually anticipate this outcome and how much damage it would do to our seasons launch, then take steps to ensure a more competitive team took to the field.
It took me straight back to the opening ceremony of the World Cup when, with the eyes of the world on the game, we conjured up a complete balls - up.
Couldn't the powers that be (RFL and Salford combined), have predicted this?
I'm really struggling not to conclude that they each must have seen it coming but were content to allow it to happen, just as long as they didn't get the blame.
The game deserves so much better from its leaders.
-
1
-
Vegas And The Round Up: Success or Not?
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I read recently that the MLR are struggling to make money.
As a consequence they are considering changing the rules to improve the products appeal. Ha ha ha.
Well bugg..r me!
After our showing in Vegas, I think Vlandys should approach them and encourage them to consider switching to RL rules and combining with the USARL, with the carrot of entry into our 2030 World cup.