Saturday, 11 April 2009
Co-Operative Rugby League Conference National
East Lancashire Lions 16-52 Hemel
Liverpool Buccaneers 56-8 Featherstone Lions
Warrington Wizards 18-36 Bramley

Nottingham W/O Carlisle

Huddersfield Underbank Rangers O/W Gateshead Storm (i.e. Underbank couldn't raise a team, which has me shocked I have to say)

Not sure if these are rearranged or awarded 24-0

I have to feel sorry for Gateshead Storm as they haven't had a match the first two weeks

as far as i am aware they are trying to re-arrange them

Embarrassing for the competition all the same

no more or no less than the other three games that have been postponed for the same reason

Precisely - so how do you see the direction the competition goes to revive its credibility ?

i'm not sure there is a direction or is that direction

What happened with Dewsbury Celtic-East Lancashire Lions who couldn't raise a team there?

Not sure how fair it is on Gateshead Storm to have to play loads of midweek games through no fault of their own, 2 scratched so far and possibly one next week (as East Lancashire have to go up there).

I'm guessing the issue is overlap with BARLA primarily as it only seems to be northern teams affected (and thus regionalisation wouldn't solve things), and there wasn't a problem last year so much but this year we have an extra four rounds lengthening the season.

I guess they have to either tighten minimum criteria (which wouldn't leave many teams) or shorten the season and have a pre-season comp for the teams that can play then. Sadly I imagine they'll either pretend there isn't a problem and make up scores or they'll shorten the season but not provide any more games for the better run clubs

East Lancs



yeah that is a worry



it could be, it could be the lack of foresight



Minimum standards? they have some?

shortening the season turns the comp into a may to august season, ooo hang on, don't they do that in the RLC premier.

that's fine for those that want it, what about the ones that don't?

Maybe with a little bit of thinking, the teams that could get a team out could have played each other at short notice to reduce to call offs to only two games in the first two weeks.

Not a complete solution but could have kept creditbility to the comp.

that calls for common sense, have you met our leaders ?

Not face to face as they have their heads in the sand most of the times.

There's probably only about 7 teams in that category though. To be fair if they're happy to play a smaller league with extra fixtures and have the others in the Premier then that could work, otherwise trying to run a full length season with about a third of the clubs uncapable of doing that is unviable

so why not pipe up whne the fixtures came out? why not re-arrange fixtures on to days when they could fulfil them? they've had plenty of time to sort it out.

I suppose they expected to be able to do a Featherstone Lions and put together scratch teams til the BARLA season ends, but that's easier said than done. In reality they need to limit the number of BARLA players or something if games involving certain teams are going to all go ahead during the BARLA season, as BARLA based teams clearly are going to struggle to raise a team when the BARLA season is still going. Agree clubs should have raised it as a potential issue earlier though, as they may have been able to do something then (whether that means midweek fixtures regularly for BARLA based clubs or a separate pre-season comp and shorter league season is another question). Whether these clubs will survive if BARLA ever switches to summer is very doubtful unless they change

the teams in the so called hot bed of rugby league will be getting more and more players turning out for them for now on with the winter leagues fixtures finishing

Yes they will but it doesn't help the last couple of weeks.

While I would not like to see cancellations resulting in walkovers at this early stage is it really fair that Gateshead Storm have to rearrange both the cancelled fixtures to times more suiting to their opponents?
Gateshead Storm potentially would have won both of these fixtures if the opposition were only able to field weakened teams - I say potentially as I understand that this is not a given - leaving them in a great position 2 wins from 2 at the start of the season. They however find themselves not having played a game and maybe having to take a weakened team to huddersfield midweek and then possibly playing liverpool at the end of august when who knows what position the clubs will find themselves in with regards to injuries?
Cancellations are damaging to the image of the league regardless of when they occur but surely clubs knew well in advance when the season started and had ensured that they would have sufficient available players for the opening rounds?

Yeah at the very least the Underbank game should be switched to be played at Gateshead Storm for that reason in my opinion (though I would automatically make them walkovers, rather than letting teams cancel willy nilly without even a slap on the wrist leaving no incentive to actually turn up if you're a bit weak one week

I ARGEE IN THE NORTH WEST COUNTIES JUNIOR LEAGUE IF YOU CANT PLAY THE AWAY FIXTURE YOU FORFIT YOUR HOME ADVANTAGE WHY CANT THIS HAPPEN IN THE SUMMER CONFERENCE

If you allow a team to play a midweek fixture whether home or away to suit when they have their strongest squad available, where is the measure that then discourages teams from scratching fixtures all the way through the year.

Im going back a bit but we travelled to St Albans one year with 14 players (hardly a short trip from Gateshead!!) We finished the game with 9 players on the field but we fulfilled the fixture!!
We had at least 9 or 10 under 18s in the team that day!

As has been stated, the fixtures came out months ago, each team had the opportunity then to voice any concerns about fixtures and rearrange them. If they failed to do so, whether it be bad planning or whatever, the fault lies solely with them, not the other club!

Each situation needs to be addressed individually, as I dont think you can just say if you scratch a fixture then you concede the walkover as it does depend on the circumstances surrounding it, ie: mid way through the season if you have a side decimated by injuries, thats completely different to first 2 weeks in the season.

If players have other commitments that the deem more important, in my opinion you need to look elsewhere for new players....

I'm with you Minato, it would be advantageous to a side to have say 13 home fixtures instead of just the 10 at the moment.

The downside is the pitch availability and advertisement problems re-arranging at such short notice.

Is this league not effectively "self-governing"?? I could see the majority of clubs plumping for a rule change that gives home field advantage away if a fixture has been "dodgilly" (sp) postponed