The Players Are Revolting

[gingerjon]

 

[phiggins]

A players union is needed badly. If players want a say, they need to create a union to have themselves represented during any talks about rules. Unfortunately, previous attempts to create this have failed for one reason or another.

[RigbyLuger]

Just now, phiggins said:

A players union is needed badly. If players want a say, they need to create a union to have themselves represented during any talks about rules. Unfortunately, previous attempts to create this have failed for one reason or another.

Because not enough players have bought in to them, and if that changes because of rules trying to make them safer, I'm confused.

[Dunbar]

Would it be the first time in history that people have taken strike action for worse working conditions

[Guest]

OR they could stop shoulder barging opposition players in the head?

Edited February 20, 2024 by Tre Cool

[Simon Hall]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Would it be the first time in history that people have taken strike action for worse working conditions

"What Do We Want?"

"Early Onset Dementia!"

"When Do We Want It?"

"What do we want?"

 

[GeordieSaint]

Just posted on the other thread about the players wanting a voice…

[ATLANTISMAN]

The clubs players coaches are all united in this sadly its all about insurance and the RFL being skint.

This isn't going to go away until resolved the clubs coaches and players were happy the way things were.

 

 

[GeordieSaint]

Walmsley’s comments:

 

[JohnM]

clubs, players  etc.may have been content, but that is not the point, in my view. They are not in a position to make a judgement as to the consequences of the status quo. Those who are in a position, and that DOES include insurance companies, are much better places. None of this will kill the game. 

Form a union, by all means. It can do a lot of good. Go on strike, though, and that WILL kill the game.

Edited February 20, 2024 by JohnM

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

Wonder what the players concerns are? 

Is it about having to tackle low? (I e arguing the new rules protect the carrier but more dangerous for a defending head?)

[EggFace]

6 minutes ago, JohnM said:

clubs, players  etc.may have been content, but that is not the point, in my view. They are not in a position to make a judgement as to the consequences of the status quo. Those who are in a position, and that DOES include insurance companies, are much better places. None of this will kill the game. 

Form a union, by all means. It can do a lot of good. Go on strike, though, and that WILL kill the game.

What will kill the game is players getting a yellow card for smashing opposing players head neck into the ground which can lead to injury and worse to being paralyzed and then dishing out a red for the Liam Watts tackle( Westerman was the first contact) and which should of being a yellow hence Wigan  running a mok hence the booing from fans and the outrage from the Tigers coaching staff, fans Tv Pundits.

Cool heads and a sensible approach from all sides need to happen.

 

[Damien]

I absolutely support the players in becoming more organised and fighting for better rights. With things like the salary cap I'm amazed they have put up with what they have for so many years. I doubt they'll get much traction with the rules changes though and much of it is to do with more strictly enforcing what should have always been taken much more seriously anyway.

[Click]

3 minutes ago, EggFace said:

What will kill the game is players getting a yellow card for smashing opposing players head neck into the ground which can lead to injury and worse to being paralyzed and then dishing out a red for the Liam Watts tackle( Westerman was the first contact) and which should of being a yellow hence Wigan  running a mok hence the booing from fans and the outrage from the Tigers coaching staff, fans Tv Pundits.

Cool heads and a sensible approach from all sides need to happen.

 

You say that like there wasn't a whole thread at the time with people debating whether it should be a red or yellow for either of those incidients.

Just because YOU think one incident should be a red and one should be a yellow doesn't make it so.

Castleford fans should have spent the game booing their players for not being able to hold onto a ball.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I absolutely support the players in becoming more organised and fighting for better rights. With things like the salary cap I'm amazed they have put up with what they have for so many years. I doubt they'll get much traction with the rules changes though and much of it is to do with more strictly enforcing what should have always been taken much more seriously anyway.

spot on. Let's be honest, if Fozzard and Goulding had a voice when they played, they'd have been asking for it to be like the Wild West.

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Wonder what the players concerns are? 

Is it about having to tackle low? (I e arguing the new rules protect the carrier but more dangerous for a defending head?)

Much more basic than that.  They just want to carry on playing as they have previously. 

And to a degree, I get that.  But they have to see the claims from the former players, and the impact that some of their conditions have on their lifestyles, and see why change is necessary. 

[GeordieSaint]

14 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Wonder what the players concerns are? 

Is it about having to tackle low?

Walmsley isn’t keen on the differences in rules in the NRL and over here. I agree. Changes need to be applicable globally. 

 

[LeytherRob]

"It's an area of annoyance felt by coaches too. Sources have claimed that in a recent meeting with Super League coaches, they were reassured that the anticipated increase in cards issued during games would not result in a hike in either the quantity or severity of suspensions imposed. But after seeing the charges issued after round one, many believe their initial fears have been realised."

Can understand the frustration if this part is true. Only last year the directive on disciplinary was that we as a sport want to see our best players on the pitch so they reduced bans in favour of increased fines, now they've gone the complete opposite direction. Some of the inconsistencies between the bans that have and haven't been given are mind boggling to be honest. 

[phiggins]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

spot on. Let's be honest, if Fozzard and Goulding had a voice when they played, they'd have been asking for it to be like the Wild West.

But if they had had that voice previously, and wanted the Wild West, despite being given evidence of damage that could cause, would they have as much of a leg to stand on with their current litigation? 
 

 

[Dave T]

Just now, phiggins said:

But if they had had that voice previously, and wanted the Wild West, despite being given evidence of damage that could cause, would they have as much of a leg to stand on with their current litigation? 
 

 

I expect any legal case would be based around whether processes were followed rather than whether Fozzard supported it back in the day. 

[LeytherRob]

14 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Walmsley isn’t keen on the differences in rules in the NRL and over here. I agree. Changes need to be applicable globally. 

 

No idea how that would be such a controversial standpoint. It's ridiculous that we have 3 sets of rules(international, SL, NRL) at the top level and even more variances below at lower levels. It long overdue that the 3 main governing bodies come together and agree a universal rule set to be reviewed only as a whole.

[whatmichaelsays]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

I absolutely support the players in becoming more organised and fighting for better rights. With things like the salary cap I'm amazed they have put up with what they have for so many years. I doubt they'll get much traction with the rules changes though and much of it is to do with more strictly enforcing what should have always been taken much more seriously anyway.

This pretty much sums up my take on it. There are lots of good reasons why the players should have a stronger union and a voice in the game, but I'm not sure that this is one of them. 

Fight for better remuneration and reform of the salary cap, fight for reduced workload and improved player welfare initiatives and fight for a say in how their images are sold and marketed, but what they're asking for here doesn't seem particularly clear or coherent. If it's about a more transparent and open MRP process where they feel they can have influence, I think there's merit. If it's a about objecting to the new rules in general, then it feels like a "save them from themselves" type thing. 

[phiggins]

Just now, Dave T said:

I expect any legal case would be based around whether processes were followed rather than whether Fozzard supported it back in the day. 

Yes, but bringing the situation forward to present day. The studies have been done, rule changes put forward and so on. If consultation with a players union sees that tweaked, maybe to get what players see as a better balance, or if a players union vote against rule changes, will that offer any extra protections for the RFL against lawsuits in the future, knowing due process was followed?

Being neither a lawyer or an insurer, I genuinely don't know.

[gingerjon]

24 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Walmsley isn’t keen on the differences in rules in the NRL and over here. I agree. Changes need to be applicable globally. 

 

He really wants the two point drop goal in Super League 

[Gooleboy]

Isn't it an automatic ban for striking!