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.

I think you're confusing the terms "breaking the rule" and "bending the rule" with "complying fully with the rule".

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.

The rule does allow for dispensation to be given, some dont.

The fact that the possibility of dispensation being granted is in the rule is there to differentiate it from rules which are absolute. The fact it mentions dispensation can be given doesnt mean that should dispensation be given the rule isnt broken it simply means that should the rule be broken the RFL arent breaking further rules by granting dispensation for it.

You can apply for dispensation from any rule, there is no rule you cant ask for dispensation from. You can ask to have 17 players on the pitch at once if you want. It is the RFL which are bound by the OR as to which rules they can grant dispensation from and which they cant not the clubs. It is the RFL which is affected by the clause allowing dispensation not HKA.

The rule is broken by definition of it not being followed, The RFL can grant dispensation from it, but it still hasnt been followed and has still been broken.

Regardless, it is still a pretty pathetic act, and is still a pretty pathetic justification for squeezing in another over-seas player at the expense of another young british player.

"......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.

the permission of board is the permission to grant dispensation as stated by the RFL.

No the prohibition from re-registration is absolute, there is however an option for the RFL to apply dispensation from it i.e for them to allow it to be broken.

The prohibition applies to all overseas players, there isnt a proviso which says if a player does this or that it doesnt apply. It is absolute. The RFL however have discretion to apply dispensation to the rule.

And we come back to the central question, if not for this rule being broken what have HKA applied and the RFL looked to grant dispensation for?