RFL move the goalposts again.

[cpwigan]

This thread could go off on two tangents. 1) The merits of the development of the International game. 2) The systematic racial discrimination as implemented by the RFL. It seems one is being used to justify the other.

"racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life

racial group "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin"

According to the definition as posted it’s pretty clear that regime the RFL have in place is in fact racial discrimination. It’s also pretty clear that many fans of the game support this policy. For some reason the same people get a little uncomfortable when the policy is called by its actual name. That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The exclusion of a player based purely on their nationality by any other name is still racism.

Why not remove national boundaries, let's call the world, pangea and allow people to move wherever they want and do whatever they want.

Ironically, the Australians and New Zealanders are supporting this policy as they believe it will benefit their domestic competitions.

I guess they like most rational people can see the policy is well intended and better for the greater good albeit the odd selfish individual will no doubt lose out. Far more important things in the world to worry about.

[Lil Feka's Dad]

I guess they like most rational people can see the policy is well intended and better for the greater good albeit the odd selfish individual will no doubt lose out.

I don't believe it's irrational to state the obvious regardless of the intention. History has shown many well intended policies "for the greater good" which thankfully now are considered to be wrong. I think the problem here is that many accept the policy without stopping to consider what it actually constitutes.

Far more important things in the world to worry about.

Agreed.

However I’m not criticising the International game, merely the structures imposed by the RFL. I just believe that if the RFL get the domestic game right the International game would look after itself.

There are many possible ways to encourage more players into the game, but the salary cap and squad restrictions prevent that. How many good players have been released from Wigan for salary cap reasons before they have had the opportunity to reach their full potential?

Imagine a scenario where a player developed through a youth system never counted on the salary cap as long as they stayed at that club. Only players who have transferred into a club are counted on the cap. Would clubs invest more in youth development? Would players be given longer to develop? Would fewer young players leave to play Union?

It may take time, but the focus for clubs would be on developing players in favour of “buying players” (regardless of their origin) which ultimately would lead to more clubs getting more players playing at a higher level.

More players at a higher level = better player pool for the International selectors.

[cpwigan]

My own personal opinion re RL is no salary cap, no restrictions but I know that will never happen.

[Lil Feka's Dad]

My own personal opinion re RL is no salary cap, no restrictions but I know that will never happen.

I agree 100%. I wish it could happen

[cpwigan]

My own personal opinion re RL is no salary cap, no restrictions but I know that will never happen.

I agree 100%. I wish it could happen

Not a chance unfortunately. Just as youth development would have been far better if RL clubs had allowed lots of SKY money to be put into that area. Again, not a chance. The clubs would argue over pennies rather than looking at a long term whole game scenario.

[DaveO]

The problem is, that for the "Overseas quota" to work, all clubs needed to respect the decisions from the governing body regarding who actually was regarded as "overseas" or not.

Absolutely and it was Caisley when he was Bradford chairman who challenged the last change in the rules to the quota about players qualifying to come off it.

So when I read this:

But the player, with the help of former Bradford chairman Chris Caisley in his role as a sport lawyer, has gained exemption from the rule and is now set to be offered a new contract with the Bulls.

Why am I not surprised?

The fact Hood said this

"Had the board of the RFL not taken the enlightened stance they have and awarded Simon his exemption then we should have felt compelled to support him in seeking justice through the courts."

Is an utter disgrace. This is short term thinking taking to put it mildly. What he was prepared to do for the sake of ONE player who' career will be over in a few years was screw up the new quota rules.

What a totally short sighted club before country moron.

Bradford are the first club to break that agreement for their own selfish reasons! Expect more to continue this now - especially as Castleford were "forced" to release Tom Haberacht for the supposed same reason, after signing Mitchell Sargeant.

If the clubs want to try an break the rules in this way they should not get a franchise. A condition of the franchise should be acceptance of the operating rules.

Dave

[DaveO]

According to the definition as posted it’s pretty clear that regime the RFL have in place is in fact racial discrimination.

It's 100% obvious they are not. The RFL are "discriminating" based on where a player was trained in pro RL in simple terms. Which is not covered by ANY of those things you underlined. They are not being excluded due to nationality or race or of the other things you mentioned. Finnigan was being excluded because he was an ex-NRL player who learned the game over there.

Unless we start including what sports teams you played for in racial discrimination laws they don't apply here.

This is why Hansen an NZ international is not classed as an overseas player.

Dave

[DaveO]

I guess they like most rational people can see the policy is well intended and better for the greater good albeit the odd selfish individual will no doubt lose out.

I don't believe it's irrational to state the obvious regardless of the intention. History has shown many well intended policies "for the greater good" which thankfully now are considered to be wrong. I think the problem here is that many accept the policy without stopping to consider what it actually constitutes.

Which isn't racial discrimination.

Imagine a scenario where a player developed through a youth system never counted on the salary cap as long as they stayed at that club. Only players who have transferred into a club are counted on the cap. Would clubs invest more in youth development? Would players be given longer to develop? Would fewer young players leave to play Union?

It may take time, but the focus for clubs would be on developing players in favour of “buying players” (regardless of their origin) which ultimately would lead to more clubs getting more players playing at a higher level.

Developing players cost money. If there is an easy supply of ready made players then the past few years ever since the Kolpak rule came into effect proves the clubs will take the easy option.

More players at a higher level = better player pool for the International selectors.

Which is what the rules are trying to achieve by implementing an effective overseas quota.

Dave

[gpartin]

I personally think that more clubs should legally challenge the unlawful rules the RFL operate under.

[ancientnloyal]

Here is them actuially moving the goalposts!



Sickening