DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

18 bloody pages, and finally someone shows that plank from Leeds exactly how the rule might be broken, but in fact never will be.

Move along now, nothing to see here.............

It is a dispensation, the rfl have told us so.

They have also told the clause within the rule to allow dispensation is there to differentiate the rule from other rules within the OR which dont allow for dispensation.

The decision being sought is a dispensation

“Hull KR have sought dispensation to be able to re-register Dobson later in the season, it has been indicated to them that it will be granted, subject to the usual regulations being met at the time.

“A number of operational rules allow for dispensation to be granted whilst others are absolute and non-discretionary. With the rules, where dispensation may be applied, each case is judged on its own merits."

Quite right young man.

Like I said Waffle,Waffle,Waffle.

Or its an agreement, or an approval to proceed, or any other way of saying the Rovers get the benefit of something in the rules. I have no love for Rovers (and will be delighted if this goes pear shaped) but they're not breaking any rules on this. Yet.

Nope.....but it would seem that they are testing to see just how far they can bend them

if you put in a dispensation clause then the rule is obviously flexible.

The only way HKR could be accused of breaking the rules is if they do something without the permission of the RFL. So, if they were to select Dobson to play without him being re-registered, that would be against the rules. If they seek and gain permission to re-register him (as C1:4:7 allows) then they will have followed the rules exactly as they are written. If C1:4:7 had made no mention of permission, then this would definitely be a bit fishy. As it is, the rules do actually allow them to do what they have done.

Its a dispensation. They say "Hull KR have sought dispensation" Im not sure how much clearer they could be that they are granting a dispensation from HKA's future breach of the rules.

The rule has a provision for such dispensation built into it, so seeking that dispensation is not breaking the rule and neither will be having that dispensation granted. Because the rule allows for it.

Can't believe I'm defending Rovers BTW. I think I need a lie down.

"......cannot then be placed back on that Club's Register in that same Season save with the permission of the Board."

The wording of the rule itself. No mention of dispensation. Crystal clear.

Odd that when pressed by our local journos the RFL themselves stated that no rules have been broken.
Perhaps you should phone them yourself Smokey and using your attritional skills convince them that following a rule to the letter does not mean that one is not breaking said rule.

The rule is being followed because the prohibition from re-registration is not absolute but at the discretion of the RFL board. If the RFL grant the permission to re-register that is [ipart of the rule[/i then the rule is not being broken.

And that's it from me, as you are now doing your usual trick of arguing that black is white in order to avoid admitting that you were mistaken, and I frankly have more worthwhile things to do with my time than indulge you.