Tuesday 25 October: PNG vs Cook Islands KO 19:30 BST

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

So, I am back to my first question.  Whose interpretations are we using for this tournament?

International.

[The Masked Poster]

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Player of the Match - one option.

Man of the Match, Woman of the Match, Man or Woman of the Match - three options.

Now, which were you saying was simpler?

You think differentiating between men and women is complicated? Ok your call.

It doesn't mean disrespect to treat things like the PDRL differently, because they are different - absolutely worth respect and super competitions- but different 

There is absolutely nothing complicated or disrespectful about it, except possibly in your head. 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, The Masked Poster said:

You think differentiating between men and women is complicated? Ok your call.

It doesn't mean disrespect to treat things like the PDRL differently, because they are different - absolutely worth respect and super competitions- but different 

There is absolutely nothing complicated or disrespectful about it, except possibly in your head. 

Whatevs, snowflake

[Niels]

45 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I think you are the one trying to complicate things. Man of match or Woman of match. It literally doesn't get any simpler.

Last week he nearly said man of the match but corrected himself. There would have been no need to do this if it he had the option of using either.

Therefore I doubt it's used because it is easier. 

I've no issue either way,  but I think it's best to be upfont about such changes. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by Niels

[RL Tragic]

11 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Whatevs, snowflake

I’ve noticed as well in Wikipedia they have gone back and changed them to player of the match. Infuriating , changing history to suit , don’t know who’s doing it , example below , fairly sure it would have been MoM in 1977

25 June

Australia	13–12	Great Britain
Tries: Allan McMahon Russel Gartner John Kolc Goals: Michael Cronin(2/4)	[1]	Tries:  Steve Pitchford  Ken Gill  Goals:  George Fairbairn(3/4)

Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Attendance: 24,457 Referee: Billy Thompson  Player of the Match: John Kolc

 

[The Masked Poster]

50 minutes ago, Padge said:

If you always use player of the match you will never get it wrong.

If you use man, woman, one legged orphan of the match you will, with certainty, get it wrong at some point.

 

Ok . 

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, RL Tragic said:

I’ve noticed as well in Wikipedia they have gone back and changed them to player of the match. Infuriating , changing history to suit , don’t know who’s doing it , example below , fairly sure it would have been MoM in 1977

25 June

Australia	13–12	Great Britain
Tries: Allan McMahon Russel Gartner John Kolc Goals: Michael Cronin(2/4)	[1]	Tries:  Steve Pitchford  Ken Gill  Goals:  George Fairbairn(3/4)

Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Attendance: 24,457 Referee: Billy Thompson  Player of the Match: John Kolc

 

You can check the edits to see who is doing it and you can change them back yourself if you feel it is important enough.

[The Masked Poster]

55 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, and I am saying that common sense is using the sensible term 'player of the match' across the board.

I see your point. I also don't see what is so hard about changing the term "X of the Y" and why it is insulting to have different ones for different situations. 

Brother, I just want one big happy family but I still don't see why it's so difficult to have different things for different situations. 

[The Masked Poster]

57 minutes ago, Ullman said:

He wanted to go to Warrington but they took on him on to Crewe?

Word on the street was,  that he was sitting on this railway station with a ticket for his destination.  

Hmmmmm

Edited October 25, 2022 by The Masked Poster

[Padge]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I see your point. I also don't see what is so hard about changing the term "X of the Y" and why it is insulting to have different ones for different situations. 

Brother, I just want one big happy family but I still don't see why it's so difficult to have different things for different situations. 

If you want one big happy family then avoid confusion, be nice and avoid looking silly by calling a bloke a women of the match because you had just switched from commentating on a women's game game to a men's game.

It works both way around. Just imagine Jim Mills coming off the field and accidently being met with "congratulations Jim you have won the woman of the match award".

 

[The Masked Poster]

45 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Whatevs, snowflake

Er. Ok.

I'm a bit intrigued though, why you choose to be so confrontational and aggressive to me. I have no idea who you are and beyond RL, no interest in finding out. 

So maybe wind your neck in.... snowflake?  

Edited October 25, 2022 by The Masked Poster

[The Masked Poster]

6 minutes ago, Padge said:

If you want one big happy family then avoid confusion, be nice and avoid looking silly by calling a bloke a women of the match because you had just switched from commentating on a women's game game to a men's game.

It works both way around. Just imagine Jim Mills coming off the field and accidently being met with "congratulations Jim you have won the woman of the match award".

 

Yes of course you have a point. But until the day arrives that men and women are genuinely equal in sport, then I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that men are the dominant force in sports like rugby (both) or football. So I don't think it's too unrealistic to assume Jim Mills was a man and say he's MOTM. 

UNLESS of course you're trying to bring some sort of Dr Who style time warp into effect here, where we rewrite things? 

But from what I'm gathering on here, I don't think it's too far from possibility.

[RL Tragic]

49 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You can check the edits to see who is doing it and you can change them back yourself if you feel it is important enough.

You lost me at check the edits . I’m just about capable of sending an email. I must say though it is important whatever is decided from this point on ok but to go back in history to change matches is just wrong .

[Padge]

37 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Yes of course you have a point. But until the day arrives that men and women are genuinely equal in sport, then I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that men are the dominant force in sports like rugby (both) or football. So I don't think it's too unrealistic to assume Jim Mills was a man and say he's MOTM. 

UNLESS of course you're trying to bring some sort of Dr Who style time warp into effect here, where we rewrite things? 

But from what I'm gathering on here, I don't think it's too far from possibility.

Football  codes are 3 in the UK, soccer is one one of the 3.

Men and women are equal in society, sport is an extension of society. 

Rugby League has always has always been at the forefront of accepting and including diversity, do you propose we start labelling people as  " the black player", the "white player", "the lesbian player", the....

 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Padge

[SalfordSlim]

FWIW, the player of the match thing annoys me as well. I'm fully behind trying to even up when it comes to equality etc but it almost feels sometimes that we overdo it to neutralise everything. Men are men and women are women, I don't want a society where we're all the same, we're genetically different and it feels like people are being forced down a route to make us all the same. Let's embrace our differences but also encourage those who feel they don't want to conform to "the norm". Maybe I'm wording it badly as I'm knackered and I've just got back home from a 2 1/2 hour coach journey.

Btw, if I had my time again I'd identify as a tree just to annoy people who wanted to label me as a "person of the match".

[The Masked Poster]

6 minutes ago, Padge said:

Football  codes are 3 in the UK, soccer is one one of the 3.

Men and women are equal in society, sport is an extension of society. 

Rugby League has always has always been at the forefront of accepting and including diversity, do you propose we start labelling people as  " the black player", the "white player", "the lesbian player", the....

 

Ok I can see you are approaching this from a ridiculous angle. Because today, almost nobody cares if someone is gay, black, lesbian or anything else. And especially so in Rugby League.

Why would we suddenly start saying "the black player"? 

Please, are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that the sport that introduced such genuine (genuine) superstars as Clive Sullivan, Ellery Hanley and Martin Offiah would have to stoop to this? RL needs to prove that it now doesn't treat anyone on merit and not race or religion?  Pathetic and insulting to suggest otherwise.  

 

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

Er. Ok.

I'm a bit intrigued though, why you choose to be so confrontational and aggressive to me. I have no idea who you are and beyond RL, no interest in finding out. 

So maybe wind your neck in.... snowflake?  

I have no idea who you are...

He's our Section Head  of the SJW Brigade of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution .

it doesn't do to cross he/him/his. Look what happened to JK Rowling and Lawrence Fox.

[George Watt]

3 hours ago, Padge said:

International.

At the PTB I have no idea what rule is being used. Seems to be a hybrid model incorporating SL,NRL and the International rules in which touching the ball with the foot is optional.

[Black Country Wire]

Step in the right direction last night re the random music in that it only seemed to be used for the longer stoppages. Still needs binning altogether. 

Also please bring back the yellow cards for sin bins.

Other than that enjoyed the game and the contribution of the PNG fans even though I was watching as a neutral.

[Gomersall]

7 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

No, when carrying the ball, control for a ''proper grounding'' is required.

I think the “ball under control” thing is a myth and I’ve never seen that applied for decades. No separation meant it was a try IMO.

[Gomersall]

6 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

Word on the street was,  that he was sitting on this railway station with a ticket for his destination.  

Hmmmmm

Nah, he’d have got off at Widnes if that was the case.

[Gomersall]

 

[Chrispmartha]

Player of the match is just a better description anyway isn’t it? That’s what the award is for.

[Archie Gordon]

4 hours ago, George Watt said:

At the PTB I have no idea what rule is being used. Seems to be a hybrid model incorporating SL,NRL and the International rules in which touching the ball with the foot is optional.

Lots of things seem optional. Using the ball as a lever to get up at PTB seems fine too. 

[Dunbar]

7 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

I see your point. I also don't see what is so hard about changing the term "X of the Y" and why it is insulting to have different ones for different situations. 

Brother, I just want one big happy family but I still don't see why it's so difficult to have different things for different situations. 

I just think it is less clunky and makes things easier all round.

Man of the match is a term that has been around for as long as time.  Woman of the match sounds strange but that is just because it is new.  Both are intrinsically fine though.

The wheelchair version of the sport makes it more complicated though. With mixed teams, if you name the man of the match is that the best male player and you have to name the best female player in that match as well.

I know I am being a bit silly but the whole situation is silly.  Naming the best player in each and every match as the 'player of the match' is just an easy thing to do and shouldn't be in any way controversial.