RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:We don't know yet - but it should or the entire thing is a waste of time.
In any other match, if you play someone who's not eligible, then you typically forfeit the match.

ETA: Image above not wanting to embed for some reason, so I've made it clickable.

I could see potentially an AP match being forced to forfeit, but Euro or even dafter, International?

Happens in RWC qualification matches (which are already international) - why on earth would it not happen in Europe.
Play an ineligble player, forfeit the match - it's a well established principle going back decades.
In this instance, it'd be an RFU/PRL joint policy; but the principle is the same.

Surely I'm missing you're underlying point. I think that if an ineligble player plays the match is forfeit (often in retrospect, because it's typically not known in advance; because it simply doesn't happen where it's known).
Why would there be a difference if the player wants to play or not?
If George North decided he wanted to play for England now, he wouldn't be allowed to, however much he wanted to. If a concussed player wants to return to the pitch, he's not allwoed to, however much he wants to (excepting cheating whereby no-one happened to be looking at the screen that makes up 100% of their job description)

Unless this is a world rugby initiative (which I don't believe it is), then on what basis could an international be forfeit? This is surely no different to the PRL agreeing with the RFU to give England players rest periods, it doesn't always happen as it is, and they certainly don't seem to be forfeiting games.

OK, I still don't understand your point, so I'm bowing out until I know what question is being asked.

Why would a prem game be forfeit?

If that was to happen the team forfeiting would be docked points hopefully.

Which Tyler wrote:OK, I still don't understand your point, so I'm bowing out until I know what question is being asked.

Who enforces this rule?

Raggs wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:OK, I still don't understand your point, so I'm bowing out until I know what question is being asked.

Who enforces this rule?

Historically nobody, and actually both sides have enjoyed some wriggle room. There does seem an intent to bring about change without seeking enforcement, and actually I'd perhaps look at training next after the drop to 30 games

My concern is that we don't have a domestic and international game that work together that well

So, how much say does a player have in what games he plays?

Can a player say he isn't playing for his club so he can play more international games?

Or is the summer tour going to be made up of players who haven't reached the caps only?

Raggs wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:OK, I still don't understand your point, so I'm bowing out until I know what question is being asked.

Who enforces this rule?

In an agreement between RFU and PRL? Then the same people who enforce every agreement between RVU and PRL - which would be the RFU and PRL.

Now it may be all talk and brushed under the carpet the moment it becomes relevant, like concussion protocols (although they come from WR); or it may have teeth and never be challenged, like the EPS agreement. We can have no way of knowing until it happens.

Which Tyler wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:OK, I still don't understand your point, so I'm bowing out until I know what question is being asked.

Who enforces this rule?

In an agreement between RFU and PRL? Then the same people who enforce every agreement between RVU and PRL - which would be the RFU and PRL.

Now it may be all talk and brushed under the carpet the moment it becomes relevant, like concussion protocols (although they come from WR); or it may have teeth and never be challenged, like the EPS agreement. We can have no way of knowing until it happens.

If it's enforced by the RFU and PRL (the people who agreed it), under who's authority would an international game be declared forfeit for player ineligibility?

Raggs wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Who enforces this rule?

In an agreement between RFU and PRL? Then the same people who enforce every agreement between RVU and PRL - which would be the RFU and PRL.

Now it may be all talk and brushed under the carpet the moment it becomes relevant, like concussion protocols (although they come from WR); or it may have teeth and never be challenged, like the EPS agreement. We can have no way of knowing until it happens.

If it's enforced by the RFU and PRL (the people who agreed it), under who's authority would an international game be declared forfeit for player ineligibility?

I'd like to be the person who comments only 'whose'

And then further comment for the purposes of brevity we are making progress in all this, we're just doing it slowly in a messy and often contradictory system

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: In an agreement between RFU and PRL? Then the same people who enforce every agreement between RVU and PRL - which would be the RFU and PRL.

Now it may be all talk and brushed under the carpet the moment it becomes relevant, like concussion protocols (although they come from WR); or it may have teeth and never be challenged, like the EPS agreement. We can have no way of knowing until it happens.

If it's enforced by the RFU and PRL (the people who agreed it), under who's authority would an international game be declared forfeit for player ineligibility?

I'd like to be the person who comments only 'whose'

And then further comment for the purposes of brevity we are making progress in all this, we're just doing it slowly in a messy and often contradictory system

I shall blame living in a foreign country for the last decade for my grammatical error, and thusly absolve myself of all blame.

We do seem to be improving, which is great, I'm just interested to see what happens when things get to the sharp end of the season.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
If it's enforced by the RFU and PRL (the people who agreed it), under who's authority would an international game be declared forfeit for player ineligibility?

I'd like to be the person who comments only 'whose'

And then further comment for the purposes of brevity we are making progress in all this, we're just doing it slowly in a messy and often contradictory system

I shall blame living in a foreign country for the last decade for my grammatical error, and thusly absolve myself of all blame.

We do seem to be improving, which is great, I'm just interested to see what happens when things get to the sharp end of the season.

If we're not going to more actively manage through the season I can't believe there'll suddenly be no wriggle room. Providing the trend is downward in the main I can't see anyone wanting to pick a fight, not even Bath with their less than popular owner

Hartley set to return this weekend.

And I thought brexit was depressing

It's funny, the RFU looking into Cips' case has now got it into the news even more.

Ashton up today, and for a tip tackle rather than the punch. is he being let off the punch or is it both?

Digby wrote:Ashton up today, and for a tip tackle rather than the punch. is he being let off the punch or is it both?

Different angle clearly shows it was actually a tip (not really a tackle, since it was after play had stopped). The arm that looked like a punch due to the rapid movement, was actualy where he arm was coming up and around from the tip.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:Ashton up today, and for a tip tackle rather than the punch. is he being let off the punch or is it both?

Different angle clearly shows it was actually a tip (not really a tackle, since it was after play had stopped). The arm that looked like a punch due to the rapid movement, was actualy where he arm was coming up and around from the tip.

Ah, I assumed there was a bad tackle and then a punch not there was no punch (spoon)

7 weeks for ashton.

Predictable, but harsh.

Also predictable is that the French authorities gave Kockett 1 week.

Wow. A penalty if you’re an All Black, but a red and 7 weeks for Ashton. Cool.

They are the spiritual guardians in fairness

I’m not a massive fan of Ashton’s but that ban is ridiculously harsh

The Daily Mail is reporting that Genge and Willis are well ahead of schedule in their recoveries. Genge may be back by November and Willis possibly in February.

Always hard to tell with the Mail but great news if it’s true.