Rugby League 2008 Season

I didn't bother buying it, just read the letter in the newsagency. :)

It was about how people placed on report should be interchanged because the team isn't really being penalised on the field if the other team loses a player to injury. Not sure if I agree, personally.
 
That's a stupid idea to be honest. If a player deliberately injures another player they get sent anyway under the current system, if they accidently hurts a player they get sent too?

In fact, let's just make it touch football, or have bits of rag tucked into their shorts.

Players get injured in contact sports, fucking deal with it and don't tone down a game that's already been toned down far too much.

Did big league print that as a satirical letter of the week?
 
Hate to say it, but after last night's effort by the Broncos, without Lockyer and Hunt, I'm starting to be come a bit of a fan. Hard to say if they were great because of the new buys, or because they were playing the Cowboys.
 
That's a stupid idea to be honest. If a player deliberately injures another player they get sent anyway under the current system, if they accidently hurts a player they get sent too?

In fact, let's just make it touch football, or have bits of rag tucked into their shorts.

Players get injured in contact sports, fucking deal with it and don't tone down a game that's already been toned down far too much.

Did big league print that as a satirical letter of the week?

you obviously didnt read the letter, cause i didnt say get sent off, I said get charged an interchange IF the player who was hit high has to go off

that would mean they would be free to come back on at a later point during the game

but I forgot.....i always have to ask you first before im allowed to formulate an idea and post it on here
 
Even still, charging them an interchange is a silly idea too.

You can formulate whatever ideas you want without my permission, but if I think it's a fucking stupid idea, I'll say it's a fucking stupid idea.

If a player gets injured, a player gets injured. It's been part of the game for 100 years, don't change the basic fabric of the game to even things up for the modern weak as piss players. A contact sport should reward people for being tough enough and fit enough to not get injured.
 
I reckon we should make it like the AFL, where players can bash the fuck out of opposition players and all that happens is there's a free kick.

Except they can't bash them in above the shoulders, below the waist, in the back, in the air...

..and if you punch someone, it's a ridiculous monetary amount.

We should stop it becoming AFL, because it's fucking soft.
 
Except they can't bash them in above the shoulders, below the waist, in the back, in the air...

..and if you punch someone, it's a ridiculous monetary amount.
.

Yeah, but nothing actually happens on the field at the time. There's no send offs or sin bins, is what I meant. You can basically cripple a guy on purpose, and then just keep on playing. There's something about that I can't understand.
 
I think it's called the benefit on the doubt.

The AFL officials give the players the benefit of the doubt that they don't actually have the balls, the muscles or the pants to deliberately hurt another human being. They've culled their game of thugs and made it similar to under 9's netball,and mothers everywhere are doing the same to league.