Probably because we dont have wealthy owner. Read what he put!

First of all, Riley was catching a ball and your allowed to go to ground with the ball on a reception of a kick or a loose ball, Secondly he attemtped to move when he realised when they were waiting for him, which is when they tried to bundle them into touch. The player wasnt running with the ball then decided to fall over, he caught the ball and fell to ground. I bet he wasn't down for more than a second.



So:

1. Was he in possession? - Initially NO

2. Did he deliberately allow himself to be tackled? NO because he attempted to move cos he wasn't touched and luckily stayed in bounds

3. Was it necessary? - In accordance to the rules yes because he was attempting to retain possession, even though we know what he was doing

4. Did he voluntarily fall to the ground? - YES, but same as above.

5. Was it when not held by an opponent? - YES also same as above.



I will admit the spirit of the game bit was wrong in the way it was worded but no one would ever just lay there.

Good on you for the comeback

Strangely enough, I have done precisely that on occasions, and have sat on a board with the current chairman and CEO and others, and talk with the board members from time to time, especially the CEO. Not that you expected to hear that, of course?



But, as Eddievan observed, we do not have a rich owner. And, since you seemed unable to read the relatively simple English I used, I guess I'd better repeat the words:







Was there any part of that relatively simple sentence that you still don't understand?

they have been trying to unload platt and sykes for a bit now, the reason platt cant go is because of his high wage demands simply no other team will pay it hes on big money for what he is at bradford, sounds likely that sykes will go first though

First of all, well done on coming back with a discussion not another diatribe. All bona fide arguments welcome. But you need a new watch.





Hang on, hang on. I'm not having that! Of course he wasn't in possession BEFORE he was in possession! No player is!! At the material time, i.e. the incident we are talking about, he was in possession. Obviously.





Staying on the ground is not playing on, it is stopping play. You are allowing yourself to be tackled. The fact that you are not, immediately, tackled because the opponents figure out what you're doing isn't relevant. The fact that you "attempt to move" after the event doesn't save you. You shouldn't have stopped in the first place.





You have to play on. Dropping to the ground with the ball is not playing on. It is clearly not "necessary" to drop to the ground to retain possession, as most games we see 80 minutes of players attempting to retain possession, without any of them choosing a voluntary tackle.



.

Well, yes. So he needed to get back up immediately and play on, which is what he deliberately chose not to do.





Full house! All constituent parts of a voluntary tackle.





Fair play.

Nay. Clear voluntary tackle, the rules on a voluntary tackle in no way indicate that the defending team have to place a hand on the player to complete the tackle for it to become a voluntary tackle. To the letter of the laws, as soon as a player goes to ground while in possession of the ball, unnecessarily, allowing himself to be tackled and not moving, it is a voluntary tackle.



The problem is, either refs don't know these rules, or they're instructed not to penalise it, and to simply scream "play on!" until they're blue in the face. It's really quite embarrassing.

So a blatant penalty to us then. On their line. Not given by Mr A.

Thought so...

And exactly the same thing done by Jeffries in the second half, who was on the ground even longer than was Riley. See how these things even themselves out?

But how did that affect the salary cap?

Well Bradford did ten years ago.



I'm sure no Bradford fan would dare to consider that the current highly suspicious Warrington team, was anything like the calibre of Bradford's team back then? How was that under the cap.

So you're saying because the Bulls may have breached the cap (and did in 2005) it's ok for Moran to find ways around it for Wire now?