No Such Thing as a Straight Line

Boots 'n' All was on last night. Of all the magazine shows about Rugby League on Sky, Boots 'n' All is close to being one of my favourites.

When you have Eddie, Terry (pronounced Ter-reh), Phil and Stevo in a room talking for one hour without a match to guide them, it can get pretty ridiculous.

Phil was first up and had an email question from an annoyed man in Bradford. The crux of the issue is a lot of forward passes creeping into the game. Mr Bradford Man claims forward passes are being ignored by the refs and are ruining his enjoyment of the game. He can clearly see the ball being passed from behind one of the many white parallel lines and ending up in front of it, and he doesn't want it blamed on camera angles.

I have to agree with Mr Bradford Man, I watch a lot of games live and (mostly) on T.V. and it is one of the main things that get on my nerves, what does Phil think?

Phil, whilst talking with a wry smile on his face, announces in fact that these passes are "flat" and then questions in mock horror if they have changed the rules to outlaw this? Apparently you shouldn't look at the parallel lines as a pass can still be back if goes forward, it is all in the wrists and this is what you should be watching.

That doesn't make sense, how can a parallel line be misleading as to a forward pass? The only constant in the whole fucking eighty minutes is the markings on the pitch. It is the first thing that should guide you. I can, admittedly, almost see where he is coming from. He may be referring to the momentum rule, but he doesn't let on.

Phil Clarke also waxed lyrical when discussing a try saving tackle from a Hull KR player (the ginger one, really can not remember his name). He made a pretty awesome try saving body-check after a 45 yard gain from Warrington. It was cool and deserved to be shown on TV; I don't think it deserved praise though, as the reason they made 45 yards was because of his missed tackle in the first place. It comes down to this, do you want a shitty player who never gives up, or a good player who would never even contemplate running back 45 yards (but then he doesn't have to as he always makes the original play)? Me and Phil disagree on which one to pick.

Phil also disagress with the 'theory' that Wakefield lost to Quins because they were effectively playing with a pool of 14 players, instead of 17 (Wakefield lost three of their best players to injury early on). Apparently, you still have 13 on the pitch don't you?

The guy is a fucking genius, I assume teams will be rushing out to debunk this 'theory', they will play games with only 13 players, after all surely the interchange weakens things because you are putting on 'lesser' players? Makes sense.

Phil leaves and is replaced by Stevo, happy in the knowledge that I am banging my head against a brick wall. Stevo is quite good, he answers the question of whether Halifax will get a franchise (Hint: rhymes with go). However he did state that a decade ago Australian teams didn't care about the World Club Challenge a decade a go. Of course this isn't groundbreaking as it wasn't played a decade ago, no team would have taken it seriously.

It worried me that Sky had a piece on Halifax's application for a franchise. Does anyone believe they can do get a franchise? Why don't I apply for a franchise? At least i'm solvent! Is it really desirable that they get one? They are too close to Bradford, Huddersfield and Leeds to warrant any serious mass fan/TV interest. Also, they don't appear to be in rude financial health, sold their own stadium and now play in this half-finished masterpiece. Surely this is the sort of club that Rugby League should not have in the top-flight and at the very least discourage from thinking about it? Why are people encouraging them and congratulating them on their ambition? Madness!