It would appear from my knowledge that we presently have 3 different sets of rules operating within the RL world. Those in the NRL, a different set for SL and a different set again for the world stage. Is it just me than finds this a ridiculous state of affairs? It must be confusing for the players let alone the officials.

England didn't loose last night because of the ref, fact. The Aussies looked far sharper in attack and we rarely threatened. Fair play to the Aussies. The gap in class still exists and always will until the RFL changes it's outlook but that's a debate for another thread/day. However, we shouldn't have a situation where a game between England and Austraila is being refereed by an English or Aussie official. It makes for all sorts of accusations. This is the same for any teams, not just England. What about Alibert? Some neutrality is neccesary.

Three sets or rules, games referred by a official from one of the competing countries all makes for an embarrassing situation. How can the RFL stand by and let this happen.

A definite call for one set of rules and neutral refs.

First of all I agree that there should only be one set of rules played worldwide. Not the Super League/NRL/Prison rules that we have at the moment.

Secondly, the Aussies were the better side and deserved their victory.

Mind you having seen the highlights back, the penalty try incident was a bit baffling. There's 2 clear sin binning offences. Thurston's high shot in my opinion was deliberate because it was the only way he was going to stop Hall given how good his finishing was all tournament. Secondly Luke Lewis slid in with the knees to knock the ball loose. It should have been 6 a piece and the Aussies down to 11 men. Whether it would have changed the outcome of the game, who knows.

Typical english out look on a game, even though you both state australia deserve the victory, you still point out facts implying you think england were hard done by.
I watch the international rugby league but i do not suport it because our great country seems to appoint, below average coaches, 2nd rate old players that were once amazing but now just dated and most of all the country refuses to admit that the nrl and australia and new zealand are simply better than us.

the competition should of remained 3 nations, the fourth team is a load of rubbish so england have a guaranteed one win, balls to 'the growth of rugby league globally' new zealand had a depleted team and so did australia.

and as for the ramblings on the penalty try incident, johnathan thurston sin bin definately. however luke lewis did not intend to hurt he intended to defend his try line in which i see no harm, he did not injure ryan hall he was not trying to. rugby league is a tough sport the players know this and they expect it to be tough would you rather them play touch and pass ??????????

and also yes you are correct england 13 men australia 11 then the game would have been different.................... for ten minutes, then australia would of been back to 13 and continue to show why they are the best team in the world. end of story.

You see..... You made a reasonably constructive contribution towards the debate until you added this rant on the end.

It would have been 13 against 11 and we would have been in to the realms of the hypothetical. Anything could have happened for all you or anybody else would know we could have scored another 3 tries, the momentum and dynamic of the game could have completely changed long beyong the 10 minutes they were in the sin bin. Which is why I added "who knows" at the end of my post.

As for the Luke Lewis incident, you are not allowed to defend your line by sliding in feet or knees first. Ever since there were some high profile incidents a few years ago, including a couple from Billy Slater, it has been outlawed because there is a high chance of injuring the attacking player. It is an automatic yellow card offence.

Regarding why we can't beat the Aussies, is it any wonder when we have a relatively tiny player pool compared to them. It is the most popular sport in NSW and Queensland where as in our heartland we are still dwarfed by the likes of Man Utd, Man City, Leeds Utd and Liverpool.

Hypothetical views don't win championships. Look at the Leeds rhinos, against every odd in the sport, champions once again. And that rule is one of those in the game such as the momentum rule where as if the referee or video ref see it fit to take further action than the one already carried out (in this case a penalty try). Englands rugby leagues biggest enemy now and for the past 5 years, and the reason they will not win a major title, including the mid season international with the exiles, is those sport pillocks sat in redhall rfl needs a complete revamp.

Have to agree with you on that one. I thought it would go on report at the very least. Did he even get a talking to?

So how would you revamp the RFL in order to improve our game at international level?

One simple sentence,

Look at Australia

From what I saw in the ground, after the penalty try was converted, Cecchin called Darren Lockyer over for a chat but no other players were summoned.

Haven't we been doing that for the last 30 years though? And as we move one step forward they do also, so we're the still the same distance behind.

I'd rather see us innovate rather than immitate.

One part of the problem I feel is the quality of the competition in the respective countries. In the NRL, the competition to me seems far more open with different teams challenging for honours each year. In SL it's one of 4 every year. You are right though, when we think we've closed the gap we get a rude awakening and realise it's widened if anything. I think the RFL's expansion plans do tend to work in conflict with our International aspirations.

Slight variation to questions posed but its about rules so here goes.
As most may know the Scorpions have recently signed a deal with wigan and Dave Clark is thei4 coach although paid by wigan, and i just read they have access to 5 players via dual registration is 5 the standard rule set by rfl.

Put one side the issue of feeder clubs. I am not sure on the limits.

Mr. Dominance, your comment to me seems twaddle as I do believe all the talk this year was about 2 teams and did either of them win the main prize? Just because the champions have breske crowned before did not make them an obvious choice for old trafford, your comment = no logic.

Thanks again for your reasoned argument and your frank view on my opinion. That is just my view which differs to yours, however, I am mature enough to respect that.

Haven't St Helens appeared in the last 4 or 5 grand finals. Leeds then won 4 of the last 5. My view is the NRL is a more open competition. You obviously disagree, fine......................

but where does your view come from as ive kept an eye on every team this year and alot of results to me are shocks and show that the super league is an open competition, and yes saints in last 5 finals and how many have they won shows me its far more open than you would care to imagine.

In the NRL this season there have been 17 games where the margin of victory has been 30 points or more.

In the Super League this season there have been 54 games where the margin of victory has been 30 points or more.

In the NRL this season there was 1 game where the margin of victory was 50 points or greater.

In the Super League this season there were 10 games where the margin of victory was 50 points or greater. Warrington were the winning team in 6 of these games.

I think this safely suggests that the NRL is a vastly more competitive league than Super League. And that the difference between the best teams and the weaker teams in Super League is vast. Our best players are not getting competitive games week in, week out, unless they happen to play down under.

Wwhhhooooossssshhhh!

i do believe the debate was one of an open competiton and yes i your right on the results front there is a massive difference but what was that comment oh thats right warrington were in 6 of them games,oh the same warrington that made it to the grand final ? oh no wait they didnt make it that far, this showing it is an open competition.

How many team have won the Super League Grand Final since it's inception?

How many teams have made the Super League Grand Final in the last 5 years?

How many teams have made the Super League Grand final since it's inception?

How many teams have played in Super League since it's inception?

Answer these simple questions and you will realise that Super League is not a wide open competition where any team can possibly win it. Despite a salary cap in place which in theory should make the competition open, there are only 5 or 6 teams, less than half the league, that are capable of spending all of it and funnily enough these are the perennial contenders.

Just because Warrington lost at home to Leeds in a one off playoff game does not meant the competition is open.

it doesnt matter how many teams have been in the grand final what matters is the games during the season that shows it is an open tournament as alot of the results have shown through the last season.

how can you not see leeds as been the underdogs the year just gone, everybody wrote them off and they proved that this tournament is open just because they have been in previous finals.

This is the Leeds side with Sinfield, Peacock, Webb, Burrow, McGuire, Hall and Jones-Buchanan in it? They under achieved in the regular season, still made the cup final mind, but as the saying goes "Form is temporary, class is permanent"

Leeds proved that Super League is open because they won this season's grand final and have appeared in previous finals?

I suppose using this same fine logic it means that Super League is an open tournament because St Helens have featured in the last 5 Grand Finals.

the competition is an open one and if you stodd and asked any super league coach they would tell you there wasnt a team in the league they considered an easy game. just because certain teams make it to the final and bigger games does not mean it isnt an open contest i think the statement you arelooking for is that , super league although an open competition through the regular season come the business end certain teams rise above the others. just because its the same teams does not mean it is not an open competition.

the same could be said of championship it must not be open because featherstone and halifax seem to be always the higher rated teams. so should the cougars throw the towel in before its started ?

A super league coach would tell you there no potentially easy game is an easy game for the sake of psychology so that players don't become complacent.
The competition isn't as open as it could be.
The Championship is more open. For example the play off winners of the championship over the past 5 years have been: Castleford (2007), Salford (200icon_cool.gif, Barrow (2009), Halifax (2010), Featherstone (2011) i.e. 5 different teams

Also Featherstone have been strong the last couple of seasons but their rise in end of year league positions has risen over the past 5 years:
2007 Ch1 2nd
2008 Ch 8th
2009 Ch 6th
2010 Ch 1st
2011 Ch 1st
And this is why Keighley should not throw the towel in! Because if we match Featherstone we can top the league in 3 seasons and maybe sooner or maybe pickup other silverware along the way.

I do see where you are coming from. However I wouldn't consider the SPL or La Liga open leagues based on the shock results of last weekend, F.C Barcelona losing to Getafe and Glasgow Rangers lost to St Mirren.

By no means is Super League a completely closed shop when you compare it to say Spanish, Portuguese and Scottish Football. Neither is it the most open league either when you compare it to the NFL, NRL, NHL or Championship Football.

Now as regards your last point, I think this coming season's Championship will be a good one. You've mentioned Featherstone and Fax as the better teams and I think you're right. I have Fev as favourites, why? Because they're well coached, and have stability and continuity in the side. Fax have a new coach and have recruited heavily with good players, I think it may take them half a dozen games or so to gel. I don't think they're miles better than everyone else Leigh and Sheffield will be there or thereabouts and then the rest are pretty equal. Us and Swinton have come up and recruited well, Batley have lost the coach and some of their best players to Fax. Dewsbury always seem have a beast of a pack. Hunslet and York have some pretty good players in their side.

All the more need to keep the faith, I think we've a good chance at making the top 6 this season.