I tell you what if they announce after the game they knew we could not go through but took our money anyway, i will be absolutely livid, if this is true this may go some way to explaining the radio silence from the camp and what happened last weekend out of the blue, someone should speak up now or lose some serious respect, i sincerely hope this can be explained or is wrong, if its true and we have broke the rules we should kicked out and someone should be sacked, we would have screwed up in 2 cups and be out of the top four in the league.
Boy do i hope this is wrong.... please tell me theres a clause and we got permission to play him or that the hornets report is a misprint.. maybe the lager went to my head and he didnt play at Swinton, HELP!

was Posner and Clay responsible for checking registration



The RFL would have acted by now if we breached rules, I am not worried.

Would you want this statement before or after the one about Clay and Posner? FFS get a grip - if the club have made a mistake - then the RFL would have picked up on it when we played Swinton? Dont you think?

Do you want them to make a statement on everything that might happen?

Its called communication, its really not that difficult

Just emailed the rfl now

another box ticked!

They have a Widnes Junk mail filter. Most of them are weekly yoof updates from SOC. The rest are from you.

This is what the RDL said after the Jamie Thackeray incident for Hull:

"An RFL statement read: “The RFL board of directors have considered the matter of the Hull FC club fielding an ineligible player in the Carnegie Challenge Cup 2008 and view it very seriously.

“However, the RFL operational rules covering this do not prescribe a specific penalty for playing an ineligible player.

“It is, however, clear that playing an ineligible player is a serious breach of the operational rules and the board has referred the matter to the RFL compliance manager to deal with under the misconduct rules.”

The RFL have also said they will undertake a review of operational rules to decide whether such an offence should lead to mandatory expulsion from the cup in the future."

In the same way that they picked up on the Jamie Thackeray business as soon as he had played for Hull against Rochdale, rather than only after he had played against Widnes as well?

Oh, wait ... this is the RFL we are talking about isn't it?

Maybe we should ban the idiot that started it, then?

they even let hull carry on, bet no such luck for fax.

i think we should give the people in charge at the club a little credit and assume that everything is above board and he is elligible to play. If he isnt and someone is at fault, then by all means we should question the club as to what is going on - but for now there seems to be nothing in this, so lets just get behind the side tomorrow and smash Batley.

The rules CLEARLY state that a player can not play for a club in the Challenge Cup if he has played for another club in a previous round. Cup-tied. There's no error margin here, its written in stone. Tomorrows game should not go ahead until the situation is clarified, its that simple.

So have i ................

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8659704.stmWidnes fans damage licence bid[/url

=#0000FFWith Super League's top points scorer Pat Richards having been given the night off from kicking duties, Australian hooker Mark Riddell was also given his chance with the boot, finishing with six goals from eight attempts.

But the Rugby Football League may look into circumstances surrounding his first miss on the stroke of half-time, as it appeared a plastic drinks bottle was aimed at him as he took the conversion.

You just want the game awarded to Batley.



Actually, if someone from the club could confirm yay or nay whether our Challenge Cup world is about to come crashing down i can make alternative arrangements for tomorrow before i make the 80 mile round trip.

ta.

It was a joke my fellow championship fans.

I wonder why your 2 directors have left the club in a sudden manner, business whatever, game carn't go ahead tomorrow, its simple, a rule is broken.

So, the Football Director (whose job, amongst others, is to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen) remains and two "un-connected" directors walk. I don't think the things are linked.

But you are dying for the tie to be awarded - i can sense the frothing mouth in your post

Ive emailed the RFL too. They confirmed that Ostick will be allowed to play tomorrow

The office is shut. It's the weekend. Or do you have Nigel's Blackberry number?

Question - are Rochdale a "member" club of the RFL? Were they granted this status after going bust and ressurected last year? If they arent a full member club, then its fine that Ostick played for them and now plays for us.

B4:11 Only players who are not on the Register of a Member Club and who are bona fide players of
the Club concerned may play for a Non Member Club in the Cup. For UK based Non Member
Clubs only players who have been registered at Rugby League Services are eligible in this
respect.
B4:12 A player who plays for a Non Member Club in the Cup cannot in the same Season play for
another Non Member Club in the Cup. A player who has played for a Non Member Club in the
Cup may play for a Member Club in a later round or rounds of the Cup provided that he is on
the Register of that Club at the time set out in B4:9 above.

Ive got him on Facebook. He uses a false alias in order to steer clear of abuse from fans of most clubs in the game of rugby league

The RFL still lists Rochdale Hornets as a member club, but the list seems to be out-of-date. Rochdale went bust and were resurrected as "Hornets Rugby League" in January 2009. It would be good to know for sure, but from what I can gather, if we have broken the rules the last club we played would benefit from our expulsion - so Swinton before tomorrow's game, and Batley afterwards. I've ignored the "Batley beat us" situation, as it's all rather irrelevant then!

"Hornets Rugby League" might be their trading name, but they are still trading as Rochdale Hornets. If it listed the trading names of all of the clubs then I can guarantee there would be some unfamiliar names!

Would guess a non-member club would be Aussie clubs etc, and maybe BARLA-affiliated clubs, though not 100% on that one.