I presume you mean with the benefits of advanced tactics and training techniques, because if you just dropped an early 00s SL team in against a modern SL team, they would be slaughtered. Today's SL isn't as exciting to watch, but the teams are far more effective in terms of doing what is required to win the game. When I watch the early 00s games, the defenders don't tend to control the tackle, and let go straight away as the tackle is called, so the PTB was really quick, regularly giving the attacking team a retreating/broken line to run at. Today's players are generally stronger, faster and fitter too. It is a genuine concern that we have got to a stage where the most effective way to win RL games is pretty boring for the most part.

Rads spoke about the differences in that recent out of your league podcast and it sounded like they were tempted to try and go totally the other way and reinvent the game but it would take a brave man and plenty of squad investment to do so. The game is currently being won by teams akin to Jose Mourinho’s old Porto, Chelsea teams or an Italian team who would defend their ways to titles but football changed with guys like Guardiola and Klopp and attacking football started to win out again. It’ll happen in Rugby League here at some point IMO but I doubt we’ll be the trailblazers. I can see that being Wire next season under Powell. If he could get that Cas team of 2017 playing as they did, I shudder to think what he can do with a spine containing the likes of Ratchford, Widdop, Williams and Clark.

The professionalism and dedication to training in the early 2000s is comparable when you look at the players who were around in many of the top sides. It’s not like there’s too big a disparity like there would be from 2000 to the 1980s. Yes coaching and tactical analysis has moved on but I shudder to think what Sculthorpe and Farrell could’ve done in this era to the teams we have now.

England 6 New Zealand 49

1. Kris Radlinski
2. Chev Walker
3. Scott Naylor
4. Keith Senior
5. Paul Wellens

6. Paul Deacon
7. Sean Long

8. Stuart Fielden
9. Tony Smith
10. Harvey Howard
11. Paul Sculthorpe
12. Mike Forshaw
13. Andy Farrell

14. Jamie Peacock
15. Andy Hay
16. Darren Fleary
17. Paul Anderson

There are some standout players in there but some very average ones too. I think the main difference between early 2000s and now is actually the quality of imports, which is a function of the money now in the NRL, and a slower play the ball which makes talented players look less talented than when we were playing with a massively faster play the ball. This in turn leads to more structure which again makes players seem less talented.

I actually think the overall standard of English players and youth development is higher now but I'm happy to admit there is a strong argument in the other direction.

but the coach at the time always played people out of position, I mean for gods sake Wellens is on the wing....says it all really

wheres gleeson, connolly, price, Morley, Joynt, Sinfield, Newton...loads missing

Cheers Grimmy. I can't see any mention of that anywhere but I'm happy to stand corrected if that's the case. However, whilst the Faz one was on the line, the other instance wasn't iirc. Why was that ruled the same way?

Edit: Can you point me to this rule mate. I've just been and checked on the official rugby league site and can find no mention of it in the rules.

Child is a home referee.
We've benefited from some of his more outlandish decisions at the DW.

It's a lot easier to do it when defending your goalline because the man playing the ball isn't in your way if you are to one side with your foot on the goalline. Anywhere else on the pitch you would either have to be not square, or the hooker would have to pick the ball up very slowly, for you to do the same thing. It's inconsistent with other areas of the pitch, but it is a good rule IMO. Sometimes these rules change because one player works out a way around them, then everyone copies him. It was the same with the situation we had a few years ago when players worked out that playing the ball into the defender at the back of the ruck would gain them an offside penalty. Everyone started doing it so the rules had to be adjusted.

Other similar loopholes I think could come up in the next few years:

- If the ball hits the referee or a trainer then the team with territorial advantage (i.e the team nearest to their opponent's try line) get the turnover. Nothing to stop a team deliberately passing the ball into the ref to get a fresh set of 6 as it stands.

- High tackles are penalised even when the attacker is falling. Nothing to stop an attacker deliberately losing his feet last second to draw a high tackle penalty (apart from self preservation )

- There is no rule against a team running over their own dead ball line. Teams with a narrow lead tend to grubber into touch with a minute left and defend the set. It would be far more effective in most situations to waste more time by running all the way back (even if it's 90 metres), dancing around for a bit until a defender gets near, then going over the dead ball line. The clock then continues to run down even more whilst the touch judges run back to the halfway. That could probably kill a minute or more, especially as defences won't react straight away whilst they haven't seen the tactic before. Hooter goes without the opposition getting their last set.

Two matches for Isa, KPP got a caution for his late hit

Actually, this is true. I hadn't thought of it that way. Once Roby picked the ball up it was 'game on'. Pedantic, maybe but the rule itself, and indeed James Child's interpretation of it, is also pedantic. Which is why I have to disagree with Grimmy's post a couple down that it's a good rule. Just different opinions of course.

I think rules that are dependent on interpretation in this way in order to be operational are, by definition, flawed.