I was meaning the play that led to Salfords last try, not the drop goal.
Though you're right about the effort to put pressure on. I don't think it's disgraceful in terms of effort, I think nobody in the KR defence was thinking properly and didn't realise Salford were now in drop goal range.

I don't think the Hull KR players thought Salford were in range to even get close from where they were which is why there was no pressure and they paid the ultimate price. To be fair it was a great goal, straight through the middle.

Completely agree. Not enough brains in our game. Not enough ability to make the right decisions under pressure. Do smart players stand out enough at junior level compared to their Neanderthal competitors?

Sensational game.

Super League has largely been boring dross. But that game was a super piece of entertainment.

Salford were busted, one of the most unlikely comebacks ever. It wasn't on the cards.

Once Jones and Griffin on the fringes got a few balls out, Hull KR capitulated. What about that money ball from Flash? O Brien can't kick goal kicks for toffee but can plant a near 50 metre drop goal in extra time. Great sub plots throughout.

Salford get a lot of stick, mostly deserved, but they deserve a lot of respect for getting the job done and producing a fairy tale finish (ignoring all idiot fans from boths sides) in difficult surroundings. Let Koukash have his moment.

Agree with all points in both posts - particularly around 'elite' juniors. 'Elite juniors' nowadays tends to simply mean the biggest, hardest or fastest (but preferably all three) in the eyes of most clubs.

In terms of should they've have given a penalty away - of course they should. If you look at the NRL currently, there's a real problem with teams purposely giving away cynical penalties in their own 20 to disrupt the attack and get time to set their defence, because they know that the only way their defence will generally be beaten is if heir structure has gone to pot. You see teams giving away 4 or 5 penalties in a short space just to keep re-setting their line - it's awful to see, but very effective. That's not usually required over here though, as one of the following will happen long before it gets to 4 or 5 consecutive sets;
1 - The attacking team will make a mistake and turn the ball over (most likely)
2 - Soft defence (usually an individual mistake) will allow a fairly simple try

Or if it's Leeds who are attacking, they'll just play 6 ineffective plays and turn the ball over on the last.

Forget the current setup. The only way to settle it fairly is a 2 legged shoot out between the bottom club of SL and the top of the Championship. Simple. Usually the teams that find themselves in that position deserve to be there.

It's very relevant. Cockayne has complained that the rules of the competition, rules that have been in place for two years, are unfair because they could lead to him losing his livelihood. That is a non argument to advance as to the merits of the competition structure.

Many things could lead to Cockayne losing his livelihood from the game. Many things that he has personally done away from the game could have (and probably should have) lead to him losing his livelihood. We could go back to franchising and he could, theoretically ;

1. Suffer a career ending injury
2. Commit another criminal act and lose his liberty
3. Commit a breach of club discipline and be released
4. Start to play so poorly that he is released

Are any of the above factors that we should take into account when deciding the merits of the league structure? Should we hold dear the earning potential of Ben Cockayne when he, himself, has paid such scant regard to it?

The effect of the structure on the players should clearly be a factor in deciding the merits of the league structure. Without players there is no game.

But none of the factors you list are relevant to the merits of the league structure. They are entirely independent of it. Cockaynes indiscretions have no relevance to the league structure whatsoever

The only players complaining are the ones directly involved , and indeed some of these stated they were in favour of it before they were directly involved

So ask the other 350 in SL and the other 5/600 in the Championships before you come to a certain conclusion

It is RL relevant , not just HKR players relevant , particularily Mr Cockayne and Peacock ( who wasn't actually a player up to 3 weeks ago )

HTH

They did ask the players before the change. As a group they were hugely against it.

HTH

All the players , or just the SL ones ?

In other news...Turkeys vote a resounding 'yes' to banning Christmas

And yet Jamie was quoted as saying the opposite , it's Sport , if you don't like it , don't play it , be it Super 8 s and a MPG , normal P and R , every other year , or closed shop licencing , you will not please everybody all of the time

Tuff , deal with it

A brilliant outlook for a game desperately in need of growth.

Just SL..

Players who play SL are surprisingly far more important to SL than players who dont and wont.

There is life outside SL..Honest.

And we have 2 of them complaining , 1 who was and is now retired

How does the sport grow if it continues to keep players who have not or cannot perform to the levels required to improve the sport.

The sad indictment on the sport is that most of these players will be signed by the other SL teams rather than them risking youth.

If this were the 80's Cockayne would be playing in HKR's A team and working full time on the docks.

If this were the 80's I'd be in university plotting a different course for the rest of my life.

and stinking of fish.

You obviously know him far more like intimately than I do

A brilliant outlook for a game desperately in need of growth.

You think it is a problem for RL that Super League doesnt prioritise the interests of players who don't and won't play in Super League? It seems an odd suggestion, explain you reasoning?