Barley Mow
-
Posts
2,181 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Barley Mow
-
-
9 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:
The Kneets racking up those sweet sweet IMG points...
They weren't bothered about my user experience when they stopped accepting cash for food and drink midseason this year Gav!
I stopped buying things in the stadium after that and got my pie and pint before/afterwards elsewhere - I'll keep my £7.80 thanks, that'll teach them when they add up their finance data for the grading!
-
7 minutes ago, Big Picture said:
My first question was, What are the requirements for success? And my answer is that for the league to succeed it must attract and more importantly retain a new audience in places where there's little or no awareness that a different form of rugby exists. So if the name rugby league is an obstacle to that, a name change is required.
The next question is what else is required to achieve that? And the answer to that is many things, which include the right branding and the right onfield product. For example, it must be possible for that new audience to learn the rules and how the game is played from watching it.
Therefore they must be able to follow the play, and if watching on TV they have to be shown all of the play without any of it being missed for ad breaks as happens with Nine's coverage of the NRL at times. It must be sufficiently TV-friendly for the broadcast partners to be able to make money showing the matches, so it must have enough ad minutes available for them to sell, without their audience missing any of the play.
In short it has to be something able to go where RL has never been able to go. And the chronic problems in northern hemisphere RL tell me that the game will be confined to Australiasia before long without that.
From what you say, it seems you would adopt your own rules whether the rugby league governing bodies were in agreement or not.
I think we should probably not take this off-topic any more than we have already, but it seems to me that you are essentially proposing a new code as well as a new competition (albeit - initially at least - closely related to rugby league).
Back on topic, I'm glad that my tickets for Headingley have arrived.
-
1 minute ago, Big Picture said:
Obviously changes to improve the balance between offense and defense and produce more varied play like the game had 30-40 years ago would be needed.
Those changes would also make the transition easier for players coming from RU and gridiron, which is where all the players with transferable skills and game sense who are also marketable enough to make headlines and help sell tickets are playing now.
We're moving off topic here, but in that case is your plan to convince the IRL (NRL, RFL, etc) to change the rules the game is played by or are you intending to form a new code of football/rugby (albeit closely aligned to rugby league)?
I had assumed your 'big picture' rugby league competition would be playing rugby league (as already currently played), but it would be a huge undertaking to convince the governing bodies to change the rules to suit the tastes of North Americans in addition to finding the funding for the whole setup.
Added to that, I fear you could put off large parts of your European market with such a change.
-
2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
Outside of World Cup, World Cup prep or qualification, when did Wales men last play a senior international?
That depends if you count their summer international v France last year (19th June) as World Cup prep or not.
If you do, then I'm not sure when it was - pre-2018
-
2 minutes ago, Gomersall said:
These are date changes aren't they?
I'm sure these were scheduled for tomorrow and the coming Saturday.
-
5 minutes ago, eal said:
Why can't Wales get anything together? Do they even play international fixtures anymore?
I really can't understand it.
France don't have any internationals going on, but had programmed an international weekend into the Elite 1 calendar for the weekend just gone. France and Wales women played each other, but the men's teams didn't.
If travel and accommodation for France v Wales was too expensive (it evidently wasn't for the women), then there is Scotland which is just a coach journey away who also have no internationals this year.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, dkw said:
Good that the RFL have put out a statement regarding all this in L1 isnt it......oh wait, still complete and utter radio silence.
They are due to make an announcement tomorrow aren't they?
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Big Picture said:
My personal collection has about a thousand matches altogether so FYI I've watched hundreds over the years.
In the modern game the combination of the 10 metre rule and the weird obsession with having the game flow as fast as possible means that defenses can't move up to close a play down, they'd never get back onside in time for the next play then.
The result is that teams are basically given 7-8 easy metres per play, just from having one player take the ball forward. That's not likely to impress many newbies who take the Las Vegas matches in, they're more likely to lose interest in a hurry.
That's an interesting take.
The converse might explain why I've never been able to get into gridiron - I suppose from my British perspective I prefer a sport where (although the players are trying to gain/restrict yardage), the play moves to different parts of the field quicker, leading (to my mind) to opportunities to score points for both teams.
How does this concept of North American newbies losing interest and not being impressed, factor into your plan for a trans-continental elite competition? As a stand alone statement your comments seem to suggest that many people who are into gridiron are unlikely to take to rugby league.
If that comment was coming from someone living in a smallish, unfashionable, economically disadvantaged town in northern England, I would conclude they were anti-expansion.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:
That's not very inclusive! Even the other code is ahead of the game.
Could attract a new audience.
Keighley are a step ahead of you - by wearing red and green it means their opposition can't wear either of those colours. That rules out the red v green issue for colour blind fans!
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
Here are the rules.
9.3. Head Trainer (Yellow Top PMS 803 2X FLUORO)
The Head Trainer may enter the playing field in the following situations:
• When a try has been scored.
• While awaiting a Video Referee decision in relation to a try.
• During a time out called by the Referee for an injury.
• To inform a Player he is being interchanged (maximum time on the field of play in this situation should not exceed three tackles); and
• assist the Physiotherapist with an injured player, carry water or deliver individual messages in the above situations.
The Head Trainer must:
• Leave the field as quickly as possible (i.e. running) and not remain on the field of play for longer than three tackles;
• Leave the field immediately as soon as their assigned task, which are listed above, has been completed and return to the bench area.
• Not enter the playing field carrying any electronic device switched on or otherwise and must do so in a manner that does not interfere with play.
• Not speak to the Match Officials; and
• Only communicate with other Players whilst carrying out the interchange (and the new Player cannot enter the field of play until the interchanged Player reaches the touchline);
The Fourth Official must report any Head Trainer who breaches this rule to the Referee immediately. In the case of a breach, the Referee will stop the Match and send the Trainer to the stand. The Club will be allowed to use a member of staff named amongst the bench staff for interchanges provided they wear the specified clothing for a Head Trainer. The Head Coach cannot act as a trainer.
9.4. Physiotherapist(s) (Orange Top - PMS 804 2X FLUORO)
The Physiotherapist:
• Is allowed unlimited access to the playing field to assess or treat injured Players.
• Must go directly to the Player concerned and in instances of severe injury may indicate to the Referee that the game should be stopped. Is not allowed to pass on messages at any time.
• Must enter and leave the field as quickly as possible (i.e., running).
• Is not allowed to be involved in the on-field interchange process save that when they go on to treat a player that they can bring that player off i.e. escort him to the touchline - they can have no further involvement in the interchange process; and
• May track play on the touch-line closest to the benches and where there are two physios one may track on the far side of the pitch. Physios who are tracking play must remember that touch judges, ball crew and camera operatives all have right of way, and it is the physio(s) responsibility to ensure that there is not a collision.
9.5. Water Carrier (Blue Top - PMS 801 2X FLUORO)
Two Water Carriers are permitted to enter the field of play in the following circumstances:
• After a try has been scored.
• After the Referee has stopped play for an injury; and
• After the Referee has referred a decision to the Video Referee.
The Water Carriers must:
• Carry an approved water carrying device or unit and must leave the field before play has recommenced.
• Enter and leave the field as quickly as possible (i.e., running).
• Not enter the playing field carrying any electronic device (switched on or otherwise); and
• Enter and leave the field of play in a manner that does not interfere with play. The Head Coach cannot act as a Water Carrier.
9.6. Doctor(s) (Red Top)
The role of the doctor is as follows:
• The Doctor must arrive at the ground at least one hour prior to kick off.
• The Doctor can enter the field of play when they are medically required to do so using their clinical judgement.
• The Doctor must be in the bench area during the Match.
• In the event the Doctor is required in the Dressing Room area or tunnel area to assist with an injury or concussion assessment the Match can continue provided the changing room areas are adjacent to the pitch and there is an agreed communication system in place to recall the Doctor to pitch side.
Then the rules don't need changing, they just need enforcing.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Griff said:
How can you change the rules by discussing it on this forum?
I think the rule's fine. I don't understand why it offends folk so much and nobody's really explained that. Is it just the opposition which offends you or your own team too? If nobody was allowed on field with messages, they'd be passed from the sideline. No doubt plenty of folk on here have passed "advice" from the terraces and stands in the same manner and never thought that they were in some way cheating.
But ..... I've nothing more to add to the debate. I'm just repeating what I've said before.
If I have any "improvements" to suggest about IMG, I'll pass them to the RFL and IMG.
What exactly are the rules?
Are the trainers allowed on the field as much as they want?
You said previously that they tell players when they are to come off for an interchange - that shouldn't take half a minute on each occasion. The water carriers are passing messages, so what is the trainer doing the majority of the time they are on the field and how is it accounted for in the rules?
I can understand the need to pass tactical messages on, or let players know they need to play a different position due to an interchange, but what offends me (offend probably isn't the word I would use) is the impression that our elite players need coaching through a match as though it's an u11's game - I don't have a team and object to all of them doing it.
Coaching should not be done during the match - you coach before hand, select your team and send them out there - I want to see the tactical acumen of the halfback who is selected, not an ex-player standing behind shouting instructions.
-
20 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
Perpignan (not huge but a city) and Toulouse Are probably the 2nd and 3rd biggest cities?
The French don't differentiate between town and city do they?
-
2 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:
Toulouse and Cats really scuppered it from memory
Having it in France the time before seemed to reduce the number of drop outs from memory?
Also a home advantage works well
There were less French drop-outs the previous time (2021). But that was an end of season match so the clubs won't have objected.
-
37 minutes ago, Dunbar said:
I may have missed an announcement or an update but why is there talk now of Samoa not playing England at the end of next year?
The suggestion is that the financial implications of this year's Tonga tour will put a stop to it.
@Tommygilf has a source who said that 50,000 tickets needed selling this year to cover costs and not doing so would risk a Samoan tour next year.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Hopie said:
Think France should be playing someone closer to their level, perhaps one of the Pacific Bowl teams, the 3rd best European Team, or both.
Not sure England can get a decent opposition for a one off match arranged by Super League, we need a genuine window and the NRL to buy in and release players (our players and the opposition). Next year we could go in to camp in Australia and play a warm up match, then 2 tests e.g PNG in Port Moresby and Tonga in Auckland. The year after we could invite a couple of teams to play over here, for one off test matches, one in the north and the other in the south.
You mean mid-season?
There is no way NRL will have a mid-season international break just because we want internationals.
We need a mid-season match against the best available opposition. The only available opposition will be based in the northern hemisphere and the best option is therefore France.
We need to play France mid-season and commit to it long term.
If we won't play France we can't complain when Australia won't play us. It is the best mid-season option for both countries.
We need to keep pressing for SH opposition after the season, for us to play the better countries. If we can get one of Australia, New Zealand, Samoa or Tonga every home series, with tours there some years and world cups, that covers two world cup cycles - then repeat. Each of those countries would only have to tour here once every 8 years - not too onerous for them.
But France every year mid-season.
France do need to play countries of a similar standard too. I was disappointed that they didn't try to organise something with Lebanon, or (if the transport/accommodation was too expensive) Wales for this Autumn.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:
With all due respect dBoy Shaun Wane saying it's about 4 metres doesn't count as exact though does it lol ?
As mentioned , when the ground was built and up to metrification , RL was played on a pitch that was 100 yards long . This is the size of the Cas ground as I understand it , which is 91.88 metres long .
I think that if you said to Shaun Wane that it's actually 5 metres not 4 then he wouldn't argue with that
Yes, when Wheldon Road was laid out they made it big enough for a 100 yd field - 91.44m.
It may be shorter than 91.44m today though because we now have a requirement for runoff areas around the outside to protect players. That requirement won't have existed when WR was first used.
The change to 100m fields plus the requirement for runoff areas could mean 88m is about right.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:
I assume when they say the seats are sold out they mean the general sale seats and that the middle section of the north stand that is set aside for hospitality isn't included.
I wonder how well the corporate stuff is selling. Could we see a pretty good attendance but with the middle of the stand facing the tv cameras largely empty?
Before they took the stadium plan down from the website the terraces seemed to be selling quite well. Hopefully it will be a good crowd. Ideally we will have people who chose to miss Huddersfield in favour of Leeds who can't get tickets and regret their decision.
-
Double post
-
1 hour ago, Griff said:
Other sports stop the game when subs are made or when players are injured.
We could always go back to doing that, of course, but at the moment the rules are what they are.
V02 and I have said what the rules are.
Everyone else seems to be saying we should change the rules.
I am happy for injured players to be treated while play continues (where possible) - That's the orange shirted physio. When the red shirted doctor comes on, play stops.
I am happy with the way interchanges are made, I don't think we need to change that.
The only reason I have seen given so far for the (yellow shirted) trainer being on the field is to tell a player they are coming off. If someone needs to do that, then fine. But that would mean they are on the field only up to 8 times a match, each time less than 30 seconds. At present the trainers are often on the field much more than that - What is it they are doing?
If the large amount of time they often spend on-field is to coach the players (which from watching games, is what it seems to be) then I don't think that should be allowed. If that means changing the rules, then yes, I would like to see a rule change.
If the trainer's role is just to let players know about interchanges, why don't the water carriers do that? The trainer doesn't need any on field role - the coaching should be done before the game. This is something we could take from other sports, the trainer stays off the field - in a 'technical area' if necessary.
-
1
-
-
Looking at the off-field staff by category, we have:
Red shirt - Doctor
Orange shirt - Physio
Blue shirt - Water carrier
Yellow shirt - Trainer
The doctor and physio obviously need to be able to come onto the field when necessary.
I can accept that on a hot day or as the players have been on the field for some time they will need re-hydrating and the water carrier is therefore necessary (at the referee's discretion).
Can anyone explain to me why a trainer needs to be on the field at all?
Do any other sports allow a coach (rather than medical staff) to be on the field during play?
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
I can understand the ARLC taking a lead in organising international events amongst our SH countries, but I still find it odd that there is such a thing as a NRL-run international tournament.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
I genuinely can't now remember. What is the outline set-up for 2024 and 2025 based on the IRL statement from a bit back?
2024 - Pacific Championships again. Nothing specific for England but an expectation that Samoa will tour here - Shaun Wane has actually said twice now that they are coming (although I don't think he was supposed to have gone that far).
2025 - England tour Australia.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:
Yes, sure. Sorry, I was thinking the question meant a return to the Aus, NZ, Eng/GB and one other 4N from a few years back.
They'll probably do what you describe next year, if Samoa don't come here instead. That's what the Pacific thing was initially intended to to be, right?
We just stole/borrowed Tonga this year, so they only had 3 teams.
I'm sure the opening post was referring to bringing back the old style 4 nations (which most of us would love).
I was just being pessimistic.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:
Yes, that and The Ashes.
I'm sure the 4N will be played again one day, but when that will be and whether it will be a regular thing, I have no idea.
As @JM2010 alludes to, we could well see a 4 nations competition in the next few years.
Unfortunately it wouldn't involve GB or England, but would be played in the SH by Australia, NZ, Samoa and Tonga.
-
1
-
The IMG Gradings Thread - Post all your IMG Gradings related questions or comments here
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted · Edited by Barley Mow
The vendor obviously considers it easier (hence them limiting the options) and I may well be in a minority, but as a purchaser it isn't what I want.
I'm sure York Knights/the stadium management company aren't particularly worried about my preference - I'm not a York supporter and went to maybe one in three of their home matches this year. I'm happy to not buy anything and if I objected too much there are plenty of other other clubs I could go to that aren't too much further away. I'm sure they've factored potential lost custom into the equation and figured the efficiency savings make it worthwhile.
The other three grounds I went to this year (all Championship) did give both options, as did York earlier in the season before changing policy.
The phrase 'improved stadium user experience' just made me chuckle when them reducing the 'user's' choices came to mind.