Probably because we dont have wealthy owner. Read what he put!

First of all, Riley was catching a ball and your allowed to go to ground with the ball on a reception of a kick or a loose ball, Secondly he attemtped to move when he realised when they were waiting for him, which is when they tried to bundle them into touch. The player wasnt running with the ball then decided to fall over, he caught the ball and fell to ground. I bet he wasn't down for more than a second.

So:
1. Was he in possession? - Initially NO
2. Did he deliberately allow himself to be tackled? NO because he attempted to move cos he wasn't touched and luckily stayed in bounds
3. Was it necessary? - In accordance to the rules yes because he was attempting to retain possession, even though we know what he was doing
4. Did he voluntarily fall to the ground? - YES, but same as above.
5. Was it when not held by an opponent? - YES also same as above.

I will admit the spirit of the game bit was wrong in the way it was worded but no one would ever just lay there.

Strangely enough, I have done precisely that on occasions, and have sat on a board with the current chairman and CEO and others, and talk with the board members from time to time, especially the CEO. Not that you expected to hear that, of course?

But, as Eddievan observed, we do not have a rich owner. And, since you seemed unable to read the relatively simple English I used, I guess I'd better repeat the words

Was there any part of that relatively simple sentence that you still don't understand?

they have been trying to unload platt and sykes for a bit now, the reason platt cant go is because of his high wage demands simply no other team will pay it hes on big money for what he is at bradford, sounds likely that sykes will go first though

First of all, well done on coming back with a discussion not another diatribe. All bona fide arguments welcome. But you need a new watch.

So a blatant penalty to us then. On their line. Not given by Mr A.
Thought so...

And exactly the same thing done by Jeffries in the second half, who was on the ground even longer than was Riley. See how these things even themselves out?

But how did that affect the salary cap?

Well Bradford did ten years ago.

I'm sure no Bradford fan would dare to consider that the current highly suspicious Warrington team, was anything like the calibre of Bradford's team back then? How was that under the cap.

So you're saying because the Bulls may have breached the cap (and did in 2005) it's ok for Moran to find ways around it for Wire now?

Well I think what Adeybull was saying (am I right in thinking Adey is an accountant?) is that there's a difference between 'finding ways round it' and 'breaching it', hence saying you can drive a coach and horses through it legally.

It's like there's a difference between arranging your tax arrangements so that you can legally avoid tax on some of your remuneration, and evading paying your tax.

Rather against the spirit of the cap isn't it? It's a bit much to "pretend" to be under the cap when all sorts of wheezes are used to get around it. However it's the elephant in the room as far as the RFL is concerned. They spend an awful of time auditing the cap yet it's so simple to get around.

Makes you wonder why we bother.

People keep saying it's 'simple' to get around but I don't believe it. It's more likely to be very difficult to get around. Personally I'm a big supporter of an efficient cap, as I want a thriving competition among all clubs. However, Sky Sports must be paying S.Tomkins for his TV work, and that won't count against Wigan's cap ( and rightly so ) but it clearly helps to keep him at Wigan that he receives this extra income. Would Adeybull propose disallowing that?