Aah, the old Morgan Knowles/John Bateman clause. When invoked this clause allows certain players from certain teams to escape punishment thus allowing them to play in the big games. In Bateman’s case obviously England R.L were the beneficiaries of collusion between them and the R.F.L. Don’t get your hopes up at Headingley though, because like I said, it only applies to certain teams. The words “frivolous” and “extra games” spring to mind when less deserving clubs try invoking this clause to free a player up for the biggest of games.

Exactly, weve already enough subjectivity without another layer on intent and longer VR interventions to try and gauge what the player was thinking by the look of intent on his face and his body language.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... s-28660188 Interesting read, particularly on the lack of player consultation and the implications for the international game

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... s-28660188 Interesting read, particularly on the lack of player consultation and the implications for the international game

Given the fact that he's always injured when the test matches come around, it seems a bit rich. But I understand his point.

Mik had a HIA from a semi dodgy three man tackle against Salford but again, would be interested in the evidence of how many concussions are with defenders.

The RFL would just say that you cannot easily legislate for head injury in tackling abs that it’s more about technique I guess.

I'll end on that they already look at mitigating factors already - several references by refs explaining their decisions this week - so no real difference to what I agree can be a ridiculously drawn out vr process. But fair enough if you prefer what they're running with now. I can see it wrecking a lot of games though.

This is a key point though isn’t it? Sending players off for controversial, process-driven infringement can often ruin games as contests. What are we trying to achieve with this?

Maybe send the player off and force the club to use a sub or something I don’t know: but unless someone has done something terrible and obvious let’s keep 13 v 13 please.

I don't prefer it, far from, I just don't think that's a workable solution.

If we get red cards regularly like the Watts one I think the game is in big trouble. Dupree was dipping into contact, it wasn’t intentional foul play. Players will start dipping, crouching, head down etc and look to get penalties and red cards given which will turn the game into a farce. We are already seeing players yelping at the ref for anything vaguely high and others running in , arms in the the air.

Talk of players going on strike.. what a mess. The game is destroying itself

2 games for that Tom Amone tackle is a joke and can anyone explain how Kaide Ellis gets away with nothing from the tackle on Hooley where Watts is looking at 4 games?! its ridiculous.

I cant see anything wrong with the Amone tackle, games gone if thats a ban.

The inconsistency is a real problem, its like they just pick a punishment out of a hat and dont relate it to any other decision.

Amone will probably end up getting a 3 match ban on appeal next week.

Interesting podcast with Rob Hicks on the new rules and the MRP
Spotify bit.ly/4bKk0Qa,

Interesting article on Yorkshire Live about rumours that the NRL are looking to buy SL. That might put an end to the influx of new and unrealistic rules and at least assure consistency in the way the game is played. Wouldn't relish a return to winter rugby (as reported) though.