It would help if you learned at least the first clue what you're talking about before posting. That way there'd be less drivel. Just saying.

The one involving BJ was laughable, Alibert stood beside BJ urging him to get up and run with it. I assume the officials have been instructed to not penalise this anymore, I probably missed it in one of the 100 or so rule changes we've had in the last 5 years.

Are you deluded? Seeing some of the crap you post, I think you should have a sit down and have a word with yourself. I'm a bulls fan its not like i'm attacking Bradford so no need to get your girly parts all flustered

Calm down, son. Just because someone pulls up you up on talking crap doesn't mean they are in a tizzy. OK, I gave you the chance to check it for yourself, but as you can't be arrsed and would rather be shown up:

[code[b]Section 11 - "voluntary tackle":-[/b]
A player in possession shall not deliberately and
unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by
voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an
opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall
not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled[/code
So:
1. Was he in possession? - Answer YES
2. Did he deliberately allow himself to be tackled? YES
3. Was it necessary? - No*.
4. Did he voluntarily fall to the ground? - YES
5. Was it when not held by an opponent? - YES
Therefore, emphatically a voluntary tackle as soon as an opponent lays a hand on him completing a tackle.

*=#8080FFIt is difficult to see how it could ever be "necessary". Suffice to say on this occasion, there was no question at all of any "necessity" that I can imagine, even if I try hard.


OK> Oh, er -except, it is:



Now, if you haven't the balls to apologise, I suggest you shut the feck up and get back in your pram.

You tell him, sista

You think? I worry I might have used too many big sentences for him.

Adeybull, you sound like quite a whizz with figures....Why don't you offer your services to the Bulls board, if its really that easy??

Probably because we dont have wealthy owner. Read what he put!

First of all, Riley was catching a ball and your allowed to go to ground with the ball on a reception of a kick or a loose ball, Secondly he attemtped to move when he realised when they were waiting for him, which is when they tried to bundle them into touch. The player wasnt running with the ball then decided to fall over, he caught the ball and fell to ground. I bet he wasn't down for more than a second.

So:
1. Was he in possession? - Initially NO
2. Did he deliberately allow himself to be tackled? NO because he attempted to move cos he wasn't touched and luckily stayed in bounds
3. Was it necessary? - In accordance to the rules yes because he was attempting to retain possession, even though we know what he was doing
4. Did he voluntarily fall to the ground? - YES, but same as above.
5. Was it when not held by an opponent? - YES also same as above.

I will admit the spirit of the game bit was wrong in the way it was worded but no one would ever just lay there.

Good on you for the comeback

Strangely enough, I have done precisely that on occasions, and have sat on a board with the current chairman and CEO and others, and talk with the board members from time to time, especially the CEO. Not that you expected to hear that, of course?

But, as Eddievan observed, we do not have a rich owner. And, since you seemed unable to read the relatively simple English I used, I guess I'd better repeat the words:



Was there any part of that relatively simple sentence that you still don't understand?

they have been trying to unload platt and sykes for a bit now, the reason platt cant go is because of his high wage demands simply no other team will pay it hes on big money for what he is at bradford, sounds likely that sykes will go first though

First of all, well done on coming back with a discussion not another diatribe. All bona fide arguments welcome. But you need a new watch.


Hang on, hang on. I'm not having that! Of course he wasn't in possession BEFORE he was in possession! No player is!! At the material time, i.e. the incident we are talking about, he was in possession. Obviously.


Staying on the ground is not playing on, it is stopping play. You are allowing yourself to be tackled. The fact that you are not, immediately, tackled because the opponents figure out what you're doing isn't relevant. The fact that you "attempt to move" after the event doesn't save you. You shouldn't have stopped in the first place.


You have to play on. Dropping to the ground with the ball is not playing on. It is clearly not "necessary" to drop to the ground to retain possession, as most games we see 80 minutes of players attempting to retain possession, without any of them choosing a voluntary tackle.

.
Well, yes. So he needed to get back up immediately and play on, which is what he deliberately chose not to do.


Full house! All constituent parts of a voluntary tackle.


Fair play.

Nay. Clear voluntary tackle, the rules on a voluntary tackle in no way indicate that the defending team have to place a hand on the player to complete the tackle for it to become a voluntary tackle. To the letter of the laws, as soon as a player goes to ground while in possession of the ball, unnecessarily, allowing himself to be tackled and not moving, it is a voluntary tackle.

The problem is, either refs don't know these rules, or they're instructed not to penalise it, and to simply scream "play on!" until they're blue in the face. It's really quite embarrassing.

So a blatant penalty to us then. On their line. Not given by Mr A.
Thought so...

And exactly the same thing done by Jeffries in the second half, who was on the ground even longer than was Riley. See how these things even themselves out?

But how did that affect the salary cap?

Well Bradford did ten years ago.

I'm sure no Bradford fan would dare to consider that the current highly suspicious Warrington team, was anything like the calibre of Bradford's team back then? How was that under the cap.

So you're saying because the Bulls may have breached the cap (and did in 2005) it's ok for Moran to find ways around it for Wire now?

Well I think what Adeybull was saying (am I right in thinking Adey is an accountant?) is that there's a difference between 'finding ways round it' and 'breaching it', hence saying you can drive a coach and horses through it legally.

It's like there's a difference between arranging your tax arrangements so that you can legally avoid tax on some of your remuneration, and evading paying your tax.

Rather against the spirit of the cap isn't it? It's a bit much to "pretend" to be under the cap when all sorts of wheezes are used to get around it. However it's the elephant in the room as far as the RFL is concerned. They spend an awful of time auditing the cap yet it's so simple to get around.

Makes you wonder why we bother.

People keep saying it's 'simple' to get around but I don't believe it. It's more likely to be very difficult to get around. Personally I'm a big supporter of an efficient cap, as I want a thriving competition among all clubs. However, Sky Sports must be paying S.Tomkins for his TV work, and that won't count against Wigan's cap ( and rightly so ) but it clearly helps to keep him at Wigan that he receives this extra income. Would Adeybull propose disallowing that?

Wondering if the live monitoring of the salary cap extends to being able to see which players have viagogo or seatwave accounts, and just how much inclome they derive from that? Not that I am insinuating anything untoward, or suggesting foul play. in fact, dont know why that though entered my head.

Maybe its from reading comments on twitter, attributed to current SL players regarding the availability of tickets for the SJM concerts promoted upcoming stone roses gigs, and the possibility that perhaps some Warrington players might be able to help them acquire some. Or maybe not!

Was that when he was laid there with Bridges elbow in his throat? Or a different time?

As I undertsand it a club owner could get a third party to pay a player or a player's partner for "services rendered". It would be taxable and fair enough in terms of UK law but never come within a mile of being audited by the RFL for salary cap purposes.

The result is that the salary cap audit says the club is under the cap. Meanwhile players and their partners receive loads extra from other sources for "non playing activities".

I've nothing against payment made to players when it's obvious where they come from. With Tomkins that seems fairly straightforward. It's where a side has internationals in every position, comes in under the cap yet those players seemingly have no other sources of income that I and others get suspicious.