im not arguing they will have done so, simply the obvious point that being granted dispensation to be allowed to break a rule, is breaking a rule with dispensation, and that simply a rule allowing for dispensation to break it is still broken if dispensation to break it is allowed. It is a fairly self-evident point.

Even if we are allowed to re-register Dobson we still wont have broken the rule as we will have been allowed to do so by the board just as the rule states.
You can cry and moan all you like but it is there in black and white sweetheart.

We wont have broken the rule as the scope for a board decision is already written in the rule.

A board decision to grant dispensation from it. Which means it isnt being followed.

If HKA werent breaking it, they wouldnt need dispensation from it. Simply because it allows for dispensation doesnt mean that if dispensation is granted it isnt broken.

TBH this is all caught up in the language. The decision being sought (eventually) is not a dispensation or a "breaking of the rule", as it is foreseen in the specific clause. If the board refuse and Dobson plays/trains/whatever, then the rule will have been broken.

That is totally correct Chris would you like try and explain that to our one eyed Leeds friend.

Don't bother. He's well aware of it but will never admit it. I'm really looking forward to the day Leeds come to use this rule.
I'm sure it will then have been correctly applied (as everyone not on Planet Smokey knows it to have been this time).

Oh we all know that will be the case.
I just find it funny that even FC fans agree but yet Mr one eyed Leeds fan who in the past has said he is a solicitor/lawyer can't see it.
I hope to god I got that wrong and that he isn't a solicitor/lawyer or it will prove beyond any doubt that or legal system has gone down the toilet.

Hey don't include all Leeds fans! We don't all have the same hatred towards Hull KR as Smokey does!

In fact most of us quite like Hull KR since you keep beating Hull FC!

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

18 bloody pages, and finally someone shows that plank from Leeds exactly how the rule might be broken, but in fact never will be.

Move along now, nothing to see here.............

It is a dispensation, the rfl have told us so.

They have also told the clause within the rule to allow dispensation is there to differentiate the rule from other rules within the OR which dont allow for dispensation.

The decision being sought is a dispensation

“Hull KR have sought dispensation to be able to re-register Dobson later in the season, it has been indicated to them that it will be granted, subject to the usual regulations being met at the time.

“A number of operational rules allow for dispensation to be granted whilst others are absolute and non-discretionary. With the rules, where dispensation may be applied, each case is judged on its own merits."

Quite right young man.

Like I said Waffle,Waffle,Waffle.

Or its an agreement, or an approval to proceed, or any other way of saying the Rovers get the benefit of something in the rules. I have no love for Rovers (and will be delighted if this goes pear shaped) but they're not breaking any rules on this. Yet.

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.