Fwiw, whilst I've lost hope of us getting to the GF or anything like that, I still have a lingering sense of optimism that we'll end the season by regaining a bit of self respect if we can get our players back (I'm a masochist). Its a big if as we have been losing them faster than we've been getting them back all season so it may never happen, but I still fancy us to be a much bigger challenge when we get the guys back. Dodd will make us marginally better in attack (how we've been since he's been missing dispelled any notion he was the problem. We've actually been far worse without him) but it's not our attack I have faith in, it'll be the defence which is probably the most important thing in the play offs. I think it's looked a lot better over the last few games (Hull KR aside who seem to just be able to cut us open regardless) and when you can take out some of the lightweight edges such as robertson, bennison and one of blake/ritson and replace them with welsby, percival and makinson. When we can take out whitley and have Sironen there instead, have Bell coming off the bench, and Clark back as starting hooker then I think our defence should show far more steel than it has been doing.

You seem to be acting here as though Stu has been proven wrong but he hasn't really, our injury situation has never gotten better. It's lasted too long for us to really amount to any serious challenge for the title at this point, but to act like it's not been a huge factor in us falling off a cliff this season is a strange one. You say our attack hasnt been good enough for the last few years, but it's been enough to get the job done far more often than not (before the 2nd half of this season i mean)

Sorry mate, many of those who sit in the two Houses made plenty of dosh from COVID.

Oh behave - They are in a cage, there are rules, gloves, weight classes, drug testing, athletic commissions.

Quote ="bazdev"Thats been scrapped hasn't it???'" Seems to be a maybe depending on how discussions go after the end of the season. This article is literally the only thing i could find on it which is odd. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/artic ... his%20year.

Quote ="bazdev"Thats been scrapped hasn't it???'" Seems to be a maybe depending on how discussions go after the end of the season. This article is literally the only thing i could find on it which is odd. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/artic ... his%20year.

Not what i would call gloves, kicks and knees to the head, beating your opponent to a pulp until they are knocked out and bleeding out everywhere. Some sport that. Regardless of what I think of it though. They aren't struggling to be insured and the competitiors of it will be fit for nothing in 20 years.

The main difference is that there has been no change of perception recently. Combat sports have always been subject to big insurance risks and disclaimers so boxing and mma aren't suddenly having to react to massive new bills. For rugby, while there has always been an argument of "they know the risks", the risks people mostly associated with it were to mobility, risks of breaks, hip replacements, knee replacements and so on. With a couple of big lawsuits there is a sudden new financial risk due to dementia, which means insurers that used to deal with the sport have run away and the ones that have stayed are raising premiums at a time when the sport has no money to cope with new expenses. The same is happening down under, but the NRL has the money to cope with some additional expense, and the profile to attract more insurers, so it doesn't have the same effect.

Long term I expect this to settle down a bit but, for now, it's a real challenge for the game over here.