Jump to content

Bulls v Bulldogs


Batley Bob

Recommended Posts


Our last chance to see Hooley in a dogs shirt?

 

 

Touch Rugby W(h)inger and part-time Super Hero (Thursday mornings by appointment) :superman:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BATLEY BULLDOGS RLFC :bb:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RL rules state that a loan arrangement should last at minmum of 28 days. There's no mention of clubs having a right to override this arrangement. Looked it up this afternoon, just saying, before anybody pops off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phildog said:

RL rules state that a loan arrangement should last at minmum of 28 days. There's no mention of clubs having a right to override this arrangement. Looked it up this afternoon, just saying, before anybody pops off.

Eh???? 🥴

Hooley is on a 2 week loan with us. There have been many instances of 1 week/ 1 game loans in the past too.

Maybe you should put a call in to Kevin and let him know the error of his ways? I'm sure he'd be delighted to get your insight....

Or maybe, what you read isn't really a rule, but simply a guideline. The word "should" might offer you a clue on this matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only relay what is written. If you want to get r s i take it up with the RFL. Clearly nobody can read a post of mine without theoretically burying me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, phildog said:

I can only relay what is written. If you want to get r s i take it up with the RFL. Clearly nobody can read a post of mine without theoretically burying me. 

 

Hi Phil, could you put on a link to the RFL guidance or mention where I can find it. I am genuinely interested in this. I do think that this seems to be an issue within our game, that it seems that their is guidance to cover everything that happens, but it sometimes seems to the outsider that the guidance isn't followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, phildog said:

RL rules state that a loan arrangement should last at minmum of 28 days. There's no mention of clubs having a right to override this arrangement. Looked it up this afternoon, just saying, before anybody pops off.

 

2 hours ago, phildog said:

I can only relay what is written. If you want to get r s i take it up with the RFL. Clearly nobody can read a post of mine without theoretically burying me. 

 

What am I missing here?
https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/2023-operational-rules-tiers-1-3/index.html#p=92
 

Rule C:1:2:15
"Save as where otherwise directed by the RFL, any loan must be for a minimum period of 14 days save where the loan agreement states that the Player may play only for the Reserve or Academy team in which case the minimum period shall be 48 hours".

Fairly straightforward, I think, and took me less than a minute to find that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not what it said on the piece I read. I'll try and find it.

What incident are the RFL referring to regarding Dane's ban? This is the problem with watching games after when a referee has taken no action nor put it on report during the match. Who suggests that something has to be reviewed? How far will the reach be in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, phildog said:

Not what it said on the piece I read. I'll try and find it.

 

Well that's from the RFL's 2023 Operational Rules.

4 minutes ago, phildog said:

 

What incident are the RFL referring to regarding Dane's ban? This is the problem with watching games after when a referee has taken no action nor put it on report during the match. Who suggests that something has to be reviewed? How far will the reach be in the future?

The crusher tackle that saw him sent to the sin bin. Again, not that hard to find to avoid jumping to wrong conclusions.
https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 13 April 2023.pdf

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Well that's from the RFL's 2023 Operational Rules.

The crusher tackle that saw him sent to the sin bin. Again, not that hard to find to avoid jumping to wrong conclusions.
https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/docs/MRP Minutes 13 April 2023.pdf

Agree. The linesman told DM what he was being sent to the sin bin for, as he walked past him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wouldn't be in a position to see it if we haven't seen highlights including the incident and obviously aren't as technically minded as some....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have found the piece I read but having transferred it to My Files it tells me it's too big to post. It's a googled piece but how old I don't know, so obviously has been superceded. I humbly beg and humbly sue.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought Leeds handled the Hooley return after injury all wrong. 

Once fit to play should have been loaned out for a few games to get back up to speed, pitching him in on a horrible night in Hull was barmy, and will have destroyed the lads confidence. 

  • Like 3
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.