I'd like to thank the last three posters for bringing some clarification to this whole sorry " Blame the cap" affair ! , i may be a pensioner but i can still see when the refs are allowing teams to mess about at the play of the ball / off side, and all the rest of the border line cheating that they are letting go. you cant blame the salary cap for certain clubs who appear to be perfecting the art of "bending the rules" to suit their less talented players.

Saints have played of the back of quick the balls for years now. If they havent been able to adapt to another way of playing its not other peoples fault. Maybe you should look at the fact that you cant "create" as the problem rather than just trying to play of scoots?
Wether this is down to the players or coach is for you to decide?

So is that admitting that the RFL have allowed the PTB to be slowed down considerably to bore us all to death and level up the comp?

it should be the other teams job to find a way to compete, to find a way within the rules to slow the ptb down and counter their qualities

just the same as it should be up to other clubs to find a way to compete with successful sides rather than wait for the SC to destroy them

In theory, I agree.

However, I also agree with the RFLs theory that we need to do something to get back in line with Down Under. Slowing it up and allowing our halves to have to develop the brains and skill to break a side down IS the way forward. On top, it [ishould[/i see players looking for other ways to gain an advantage, like the good old fashioned offload.

fine, do that at academy level!

the elite league shouldnt be handicapping sides so the poor can catch up, apart from it being against everything sport stands for,

it also prevents the natural evolution of the game

I never thought I would actually agree with you Ski, but you are correct.
Its not just that the refs are allowing slower play the balls. Teams are learning how to get more people into the tackle and dominate that area of play. There is no skill in running from dummy half.
The game needs to bring back the skills to unlock defences, props that can off load, halves that can create, backs with pace that are elusive.
It is not the games fault that Saints havent evolved at the moment and dont really poses any of the above.
But also remember that at th moment, you are still top of the league by the way and there is only one way to go from there!

so let me get this right , what your saying is that if one team as perfected quick entertaining flowing rugby which as been very successful over many seasons, WE stop it ! By allowing s.p.b. allowing another team to invent a new brand of play that they can exploit and perfect for a time ! That is until if we follow your logic we stifle that play ! until we reach the stage where teams are waking the ball up the park using 25 stone lard ar*es ! like the good old days when one team could have possession of the ball for 15 minuets at a time .

Its not that, we need to adapt to the new interpretation of the rules, for example Crabtree doesn't make millions of metres, but does make a lot of offloads and has been very effective this year. Huddersfield arn't alot better than last year, they have just adapted to the rules better than anyone else, we need to catch up.

what new rules ?? just because the refs are interpreting the rules differently this year dosnt make them right. that's the old point of this ongoing discussion, I cant understand why fans are defending this so called new strategy adopted by the refs allowing lieing on and blatent off side at the ruck. by all means develop off loads, and planned moves ect. but not at the expense of our most dynamic play the fast P.O.T.B.

we arn't defending it, but thats the way it is so we can whinge or adapt.

or protest !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or is that to hard?

By CC I take it you mean Salary Cap. . . . .if so, then dumbing down successfully completed

its not too hard, but if the purpose of the new interpretation is to make us more effective at international level, than i'm for it.