Jump to content

It's time to change positions


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

🤣🤣🤣 I've heard everything now. 

What's funny about that?  Every time watches John Doe out there tunes in soccer, RU or any other sport he sees one set of field/court/rink markings all the time.  Do you really expect him not to be put off a sport which doesn't meet that standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

 

My point before you started arguing, was just that in the elite level of the game, I would have thought the governing body could insist on standardisation from an image perspective. (numbering, dashed lines, solid lines etc)

Actually, you claimed clubs aren't marking them correctly, rather than consistency of branding. I can't comment on your Broncos experience as you offer no proof and even offered uncertainty in your own post. 

I don't disagree with the branding point, but it ignores the modern day realities of many grounds not being maximum dimensions and the requirements of ground shares. The addition of numbers actually complicates it, as a 40m line may not be 40m from the tryline. RU get round this by calling that 10m (as in from halfway) iirc. They also have stripped back on things like numbers in this country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

What's funny about that?  Every time watches John Doe out there tunes in soccer, RU or any other sport he sees one set of field/court/rink markings all the time.  Do you really expect him not to be put off a sport which doesn't meet that standard?

No. How many people have told you that they are put off RL because some pitches have intermittent lines? 

It must be a lot based on the attention you give this. Genuinely, how many? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

No. How many people have told you that they are put off RL because some pitches have intermittent lines? 

It must be a lot based on the attention you give this. Genuinely, how many? 

No one's told me that.  I only discuss the game on forums such as this one and everyone here likes the game.

I give attention to plenty of things in the game, I want it to overcome the barriers which have always held it back.  One of those barriers is the negative stereotype apparently held by a majority of the relatively few outsiders who know that two versions of rugby exist, so the game can't afford anything which might reinforce that.

One standard for field/court/rink markings is the norm for major and minor sports alike, so following that standard seems to me a basic necessity for a sport trying to overcome such a barrier.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Discussion on pitch markings and nobodies mention Lamport stadium yet 🤔 , oops 😂

I was heading there. One of the clearest examples of people clearly not caring less. Plenty new fans going along and it not holding them back. Unless that's actually why they went bust? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

No one's told me that.  I only discuss the game on forums such as this one and everyone here likes the game.

I give attention to plenty of things in the game, I want it to overcome the barriers which have always held it back.  One of those barriers is the negative stereotype apparently held by a majority of the relatively few outsiders who know that two versions of rugby exist, so the game can't afford anything which might reinforce that.

One standard for field/court/rink markings is the norm for major and minor sports alike, so following that standard seems to me a basic necessity for a sport trying to overcome such a barrier.

So that makes two of us who have never heard this portrayed as any kind of issue to somebody watching the game. And I've taken plenty of new fans, RU fans, football fans, people from outside the North. 

If your point is that you prefer a pitch with full markings including solid lines, numbers, sponsors and other colourful branding, I'd agree with you. It's my preference, I think it looks better, but not many sports in the UK have that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So that makes two of us who have never heard this portrayed as any kind of issue to somebody watching the game. And I've taken plenty of new fans, RU fans, football fans, people from outside the North. 

If your point is that you prefer a pitch with full markings including solid lines, numbers, sponsors and other colourful branding, I'd agree with you. It's my preference, I think it looks better, but not many sports in the UK have that. 

I think everyone agrees that full markings etc would be great and looks far better. However we all know the reasons why it doesn't, and quite often cant happen, and I really couldn't care too less about it. In terms of the issues the game faces it really is at the bottom.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think everyone agrees that full markings etc would be great and looks far better. However we all know the reasons why it doesn't, and quite often cant happen, and I really couldn't care too less about it. In terms of the issues the game faces it really is at the bottom.

So other than the league and clubs being too lazy and unconcerned about their public image, what other reasons exist why it doesn't happen?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Picture said:

So other than the league and clubs being too lazy and unconcerned about their public image, what other reasons exist why it doesn't happen?

You've been told. I've even told you in this thread. 

Some pitches are too small. 

Some share grounds so can't put too much on pitches. 

Numbers and logos aren't compulsory, but our approach to that (to not have them the vast majority of times) is the same as the RU Premiership's approach and they don't get accused of being lazy and unconcerned with their image. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You've been told. I've even told you in this thread. 

Some pitches are too small. 

Some share grounds so can't put too much on pitches. 

Numbers and logos aren't compulsory, but our approach to that (to not have them the vast majority of times) is the same as the RU Premiership's approach and they don't get accused of being lazy and unconcerned with their image. 

 

What's stopping clubs with fields which are too small from getting a stadium fit for purpose?  They are pro clubs after all!

Why can't shared stadiums be correctly marked?  Why don't they make that a condition of using those stadiums?

The RU Premiership's approach isn't in conflict with the rules of their sport, the diagram of the playing field in their rule book doesn't show numbers on the lines.  The diagram in the RL International rule book clearly shows equidistant lines with numbers.  I'm not why you mentioned logos though?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

What's stopping clubs with fields which are too small from getting a stadium fit for purpose?  They are pro clubs after all!

Why can't shared stadiums be correctly marked?  Why don't they make that a condition of using those stadiums?

The RU Premiership's approach isn't in conflict with the rules of their sport, the diagram of the playing field in their rule book doesn't show numbers on the lines.  The diagram in the RL International rule book clearly shows equidistant lines with numbers.  I'm not why you mentioned logos though?

They also write Halfway across the centre of the diagram. It's a diagram, it isn't a requirement. 

The markings are correct, you just don't like them. 

The teams with small pitches don't need bigger pitches, because it is not a requirement. They meet the rules. 

Edited by Dave T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

What's stopping clubs with fields which are too small from getting a stadium fit for purpose?  They are pro clubs after all!

Why can't shared stadiums be correctly marked?  Why don't they make that a condition of using those stadiums?

The RU Premiership's approach isn't in conflict with the rules of their sport, the diagram of the playing field in their rule book doesn't show numbers on the lines.  The diagram in the RL International rule book clearly shows equidistant lines with numbers.  I'm not why you mentioned logos though?

You've got an eye on the big picture as usual.

  • Haha 1

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

They also write Halfway across the centre of the diagram. It's a diagram, it isn't a requirement. 

The markings are correct, you just don't like them. 

The teams with small pitches don't need bigger pitches, because it is not a requirement. They meet the rules. 

The RL rulebook clearly states, "The PLAN and markings thereon and the Notes relating thereto are part of these Laws".  Therefore a field of play which doesn't conform to that plan is not in accordance with the rules, that much is plain.  I have PDF copies of the rules from 2004, 2010 and 2016 and the Plan is the same in all three and it has equidistant solid, numbered lines.  I'd upload a picture of it but it's bigger than the tiny total size allowed here.

Even third world PNG follows the Plan, what's wrong with English RL that it's unable to do so?
 

1 minute ago, Just Browny said:

You've got an eye on the big picture as usual.

And all parts of the picture too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

The RL rulebook clearly states, "The PLAN and markings thereon and the Notes relating thereto are part of these Laws".  Therefore a field of play which doesn't conform to that plan is not in accordance with the rules, that much is plain.  I have PDF copies of the rules from 2004, 2010 and 2016 and the Plan is the same in all three and it has equidistant solid, numbered lines.  I'd upload a picture of it but it's bigger than the tiny total size allowed here.

Even third world PNG follows the Plan, what's wrong with English RL that it's unable to do so?
 

And all parts of the picture too.

Which RL rulebook do you refer to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

You've been told. I've even told you in this thread. 

Some pitches are too small. 

Some share grounds so can't put too much on pitches. 

Numbers and logos aren't compulsory, but our approach to that (to not have them the vast majority of times) is the same as the RU Premiership's approach and they don't get accused of being lazy and unconcerned with their image. 

 

I don't know why you keep mentioning union. This is the 5th post in the thread where you mention it. I CGAF about union: Big Picture is talking about Rugby League pitches. Who cares what union does??? They face a completely different set of challenges from Rugby League.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I was heading there. One of the clearest examples of people clearly not caring less. Plenty new fans going along and it not holding them back. Unless that's actually why they went bust? 

I was watching a video with Gary Hethrington and Mark Campbell being interviewed and they were discussing pitch markings. In which Mark Campbell stated how he's all for them, especially stating the 10m / 20m, etc lines. 

We have an exciting law in the 40/20 and now 20/40 - why not make it bold and exciting? Make a point of it. Same with the try line. 

  • Like 2

2008 RFL Wakefield & District Young Volunteer of the Year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big Picture said:

What's stopping clubs with fields which are too small from getting a stadium fit for purpose?  They are pro clubs after all!

Why can't shared stadiums be correctly marked?  Why don't they make that a condition of using those stadiums?

The RU Premiership's approach isn't in conflict with the rules of their sport, the diagram of the playing field in their rule book doesn't show numbers on the lines.  The diagram in the RL International rule book clearly shows equidistant lines with numbers.  I'm not why you mentioned logos though?

So what is your opinion on Lamport ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

So what is your opinion on Lamport ?

Lamport wasn't built for pro sports, it was built for community sports.  The reason it has all those different lines because so many community sports groups all share it.  The Wolfpack playing there is an anomaly, Lamport is very small and basic compared to other pro sports venues here.  The field there is really a bit too short for RL, BMO Field would be much better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Big Picture said:

Lamport wasn't built for pro sports, it was built for community sports.  The reason it has all those different lines because so many community sports groups all share it.  The Wolfpack playing there is an anomaly, Lamport is very small and basic compared to other pro sports venues here.  The field there is really a bit too short for RL, BMO Field would be much better.

 

So they shouldn't have been allowed to play there , simple as 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Chris Taylor said:

I was watching a video with Gary Hethrington and Mark Campbell being interviewed and they were discussing pitch markings. In which Mark Campbell stated how he's all for them, especially stating the 10m / 20m, etc lines. 

We have an exciting law in the 40/20 and now 20/40 - why not make it bold and exciting? Make a point of it. Same with the try line. 

I can't imagine anyone is against the idea. I remember there being proper, clear pitch markings at Wilderspool (which was nowhere near a regulation size pitch) in the early Super League days and I don't understand why we don't still have that. But not having that now has genuinely never stopped me from getting a proper night's sleep, and it has never made anyone decide not to watch RL.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

I don't know why you keep mentioning union. This is the 5th post in the thread where you mention it. I CGAF about union: Big Picture is talking about Rugby League pitches. Who cares what union does??? They face a completely different set of challenges from Rugby League.

 

The reason is that Big Picture often states only RL does this and no other sport does and it is a sign of our issues. 

That's why I mention other sports doing the same things that we get criticised for. 

As you'll see by Big Picture tagging me out of the blue, this is a discussion we've had before :kolobok_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Taylor said:

I was watching a video with Gary Hethrington and Mark Campbell being interviewed and they were discussing pitch markings. In which Mark Campbell stated how he's all for them, especially stating the 10m / 20m, etc lines. 

We have an exciting law in the 40/20 and now 20/40 - why not make it bold and exciting? Make a point of it. Same with the try line. 

How do you mean? What do you want doing with the try line? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...