I can't quite work out whether you're saying that Melbourne only had 2 players in their squad, or that Leeds had 48? Both seem unlikely to me.

Seems a crazy arrangement

It was, thanks for clarifying.

Melbourne had a squad of 23, which was less than Leeds' squad of 25

At 1st grade level in 2011 - All of them.

For Leeds - 36 (27 - Regular Rounds, 4 - Play-Offs, 5 - Challenge Cup)

For England - 6 (2 - Australia, 1 - New Zealand, France, Wales, Exiles)

(I don't keep any player records away from Leeds so I'll stand to be corrected on the England element but IIRC not only did he play in every available 1st grade game open to him in 2011 he also scored points in all of them also.)

I wonder how often that's been done. It actually requires quite a strange performance by the team to reach both finals and play in every single round of play-off fixtures doesn't it?

Plus the 4N final

I think that was covered as one of the 2 v Australia.....

For the second time in his career IIRC, having done it before in 2005?

Like I said I don't keep any meaningful player records outside of Leeds games so I was only taking a mental note on the International aspect of the season. Each England game I recall noting Sinfield's selection and whether he contributed to the scoresheet as he was clearly on a run of doing so for Leeds at the time and I felt it could prove to be a significant milestone if he remained 100%.



In 2005 Sinfield suffered a dislocated thumb in the opening ten minutes of a MOTM performance at home to Bradford on the 1st July. He missed the following five matches including the CC semi final V Toulouse at the McAlpine. Other than for those five games he were an ever scoring present though.

Sinfield's ever-present Leeds 1st grade seasons - 2001, 2003, 2007, 2011

Sinfield's ever-present + scoring Leeds 1st grade seasons - 2007, 2011

Was referring to your post which said he got to both finals, and was pointing out that he actually played in a 3rd final.

[size=85I'm not liking this multiquote thing being back [/size

Me neither, it'll make some of the more in-depth conversations even harder to follow.

Perhaps that's a good thing.

What happens when JuanCornetto and thebloodbath start one of their love-ins? At what point will the server break when it has a 3000 word post embedded as a quote in a 5000 word post, embedded as a quote in a 1500 word post, which is embedded in a 7000 word post..... ad infinitum/nauseum todeal with?

In addition to the reduction in interchanges there will also be the following changes:

1 - Players in possession who come into contact with the corner flag during general play will no longer be deemed to be in touch.

2 - Players will be allowed to drop-kick for goal when taking conversion attempts.

3 - Referees will be told be show more leniency to players who carry on playing after failing to hear their shout of "held". Instead of being penalised, the players will be allowed to go back and play the ball.

1. understandable, though in the NRL, they just don't have posts is that right?

2. will never happen in pro leagues

3. sensible

On (2) the only time I can see it happening is if a team is 3 scores behind with time running out - they score under the posts (or gets a penalty bang in front) - pop over the drop and get on with it asap

While not a new rule per se this bit could be the most important change...

The corner posts were still there judging by the Sky highlight programms I've seen from the NRL this season.


___________



So intentional foul play can now be ignored by officials if it impacts on the flow of the game?

No change there then.

I think its sensible. Often a player cannot hear the held call.

Often a ball is offloaded at the same time as the held call.

A penalty in this scenario is harsh, and this is a common sense approach

I don't disagree with any of that but I was pointing to the 'intentional foul play' part of the refereeing protocol rather than that specific technical infringement.

If the officials are to be encouraged to ignore blatant offences in order to keep the game flowing as a new default position then I think that will lead to increased frustration on the terraces where scores do not immediately follow.

It's OK to allow a brief advantage but if none is forthcoming you should still go back to the penalty and I hope that system will continue even under this new protocol.

I read it as encouraging the referees to allow play to continue so as not to disadvantage further the team against whom the offence was committed.
If an advantage does not accrue then go back to the point of the offence, if it does, allow play to continue then at an appropriate break in play deal with the offender(s).

That's how I read it - say for example a player gets taken out late after passing the ball and the player he passed it to then makes a fifty yard break upfield before getting tackled.

If you take it back for the original penalty, where's the advantage to the team offended against - particularly if the break comes early in the tackle count?

What I have struggled with is trying to understand if there is a change to the "rules"/"laws" "conventions" on the ball going dead in touch or in goal.
Can anyone explain if these have changed & how?
PS the drop goal for penalties/conversions seems so obviuos I was amazed that it wasn't already allowed.
I think there was a game last year where one side wanted to do this but wasn't allowed to.

How long after an offence are you willing to allow an advantage?

A tackle (as is often the case at present) seems about right to me.

Will this new protocol change that? Gawd forbid we end up like Union where several phases (which can last seemingly minutes) can go by before going back to award the original penalty.

From an article in the Warrington Guardian...



IIRC weren't the interpretations different depending on whether the player coming into contact with the ball was straddling the dead ball line or the touchline?

This seems to standardise them - if the ball has bounced and you touch it while you're in touch/dead in goal then you're deemed to have taken it over the line.

If you catch it on the full and you're in touch/dead in goal then it's deemed to have been put dead/in touch by the kicking team.

Sounds like the RFL are finally doing a bit of housekeeping with the rulebook rather than making any noticeable changes to existing interpretations.