Call for NRL to trial players wearing gloves

[Firey_Dragon]

Firstly, you asked "what was the argument for boots back in the day". It wasn't an argument for them, it was a necessity. Playing football with a heavy leather ball on a hard pitch in zero degrees would be a pretty good argumeht for wearing boots without even considering the issue or grip. Gloves are NOT a necessity in any way, otherwise the game would be unplayable without them.

The game is playable without boots now, in Australia anyway.

So why do we still have them? The game is 'less' playable in regards to catching the ball than it once was, even though the athleticism has increased massively.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What?

The game is not playable without boots at all, not everywhere. Apart from public liability that has made wearing boots a legal requirement (which is why mod rules had to be changed), it would also be impossible to play in many areas during winter because of the weather and on some grounds because they are not good surfaces. If I played in my home town without boots in June or July I'd end up with frost bite and the rest of the year the hardness of some of the pitches would be a nightmare.

And, to suggest the game is less playable now without gloves than ever before makes no sense either. What evidence is there for this?

 

[Firey_Dragon]

What?

The game is not playable without boots at all, not everywhere. Apart from public liability that has made wearing boots a legal requirement (which is why mod rules had to be changed), it would also be impossible to play in many areas during winter because of the weather and on some grounds because they are not good surfaces. If I played in my home town without boots in June or July I'd end up with frost bite and the rest of the year the hardness of some of the pitches would be a nightmare.

Can you run, step, and kick the ball without boots? If you answer yes, then indeed it can be played without boots.

Legal liabilities are irrelevant at a junior level, we're not talking about that. Mod league also mandates that mouth guards must be worn in most states, and NZ. It is not compulsory in the NRL.

And, to suggest the game is less playable now without gloves than ever before makes no sense either. What evidence is there for this?

I wasn't aware that synthetic balls had as much grip as a leather ball when damp or wet, and that all games were now played of a day, like they used to.

There is plenty of 'evidence' of this, try holding a wet leather ball with 2 fingers, and try holding a wet synthetic ball with 2 fingers. See which one is more difficult to get grip on. Fact of the matter is, boots are simply worn because they make the game easier to play, they don't have a stigma of cheating attached to them because they have been a part of the game since it's inception.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Can you run, step, and kick the ball without boots? If you answer yes, then indeed it can be played without boots.

Legal liabilities are irrelevant at a junior level, we're not talking about that. Mod league also mandates that mouth guards must be worn in most states, and NZ. It is not compulsory in the NRL.

Oh, I was under the impression that rugby league was played outside the NRL. So this is another rule that will make the NRL a completely different sport to the rest of rugby league. Great.

You CANNOT get rid of boots just because under the right circumstances it is feasible that the game could be played without them. And if you CANNOT do this then the game requires boots. It's as simple as that. And the laws DOES require the wearing of boots at all levels now. No council or any sporting organisation is going to condone kids running around on public fields bare foot. There is no such issue with gloves on either count, therefore to compare boots with gloves is misleading.

I wasn't aware that synthetic balls had as much grip as a leather ball when damp or wet, and that all games were now played of a day, like they used to.

There is plenty of 'evidence' of this, try holding a wet leather ball with 2 fingers, and try holding a wet synthetic ball with 2 fingers. See which one is more difficult to get grip on. Fact of the matter is, boots are simply worn because they make the game easier to play, they don't have a stigma of cheating attached to them because they have been a part of the game since it's inception.

I said evidence, not hypotheticals made up by some bloke on a forum. Just saying the ball is harder to handle now than in the old days doesn't make it a fact. And what's more, wearing gloves is not proven to make it easier to play the game. So by no measure is there any reliable evidence of the need, or even the beneift, of wearing gloves at all. None whatsoever. Boots on the other hand, well, common sense tells you that they are very much required.

 

[ShaneO85]

I said evidence, not hypotheticals made up by some bloke on a forum. Just saying the ball is harder to handle now than in the old days doesn't make it a fact. And what's more, wearing gloves is not proven to make it easier to play the game. So by no measure is there any reliable evidence of the need, or even the beneift, of wearing gloves at all. None whatsoever. Boots on the other hand, well, common sense tells you that they are very much required.

To be fair if there is no evidence of any great benefit or disadvantage then why shouldn't it be up to the individual player as to his preference of wearing or not wearing gloves?

Just playing devil's advocate cos really i am not fussed either way.

the gloves/no gloves choice would then be akin to the screw in tags/moulded tags/blades and low/hi-cut boots.

 

[LESStar58]

Gloves in rugby league? Great, lets become more like rugby union now that we've banned the shoulder charge.

It's a vote of "no" from me.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

And you'd be wrong.

How is a glove to the eye any different to a finger to the eye? If anything, it'd reduce risk of scratches due to the nails on someones finger being covered.

The gloves don't cover the fingertips.
The glove material is not as soft as the skin on your palm. It's ridged and plastic.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Oh, I was under the impression that rugby league was played outside the NRL. So this is another rule that will make the NRL a completely different sport to the rest of rugby league. Great.

You CANNOT get rid of boots just because under the right circumstances it is feasible that the game could be played without them. And if you CANNOT do this then the game requires boots. It's as simple as that. And the laws DOES require the wearing of boots at all levels now. No council or any sporting organisation is going to condone kids running around on public fields bare foot. There is no such issue with gloves on either count, therefore to compare boots with gloves is misleading.

Who said anything about getting rid of boots? I'm only proving a point that they're currently only in place because they enhance performance. I wouldn't want anything so ridiculous as to stipulate that boots cannot be worn, and I certainly don't think that there should be a rule that can ban gloves either. You are the one that argued that the sport cannot be played without boots, not me. I'll keep that in mind when I've taken off the thongs, and played barefoot at the local park with some beers and some mates.

I said evidence, not hypotheticals made up by some bloke on a forum. Just saying the ball is harder to handle now than in the old days doesn't make it a fact. And what's more, wearing gloves is not proven to make it easier to play the game. So by no measure is there any reliable evidence of the need, or even the beneift, of wearing gloves at all. None whatsoever. Boots on the other hand, well, common sense tells you that they are very much required.

Who cares if they do or don't make it easier to play the game. As for 'hypotheticals', what on earth are you expecting, a study on the tactile feedback of leather v synthetic balls? Leather is porous, synthetic balls are not, it's like asking for an idiotic study on which is more slippery when wet... Glass or a sponge?

 

[Firey_Dragon]

The gloves don't cover the fingertips.

Did ron massey suggest a brand that I'm not aware of? I must have imagined owning a pair of under armour branded fully closed in gloves which had silicon grip, when I played in a beer league american football comp.

The glove material is not as soft as the skin on your palm. It's ridged and plastic.

Umm, no it's not.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Who said anything about getting rid of boots? I'm only proving a point that they're currently only in place because they enhance performance. I wouldn't want anything so ridiculous as to stipulate that boots cannot be worn, and I certainly don't think that there should be a rule that can ban gloves either. You are the one that argued that the sport cannot be played without boots, not me. I'll keep that in mind when I've taken off the thongs, and played barefoot at the local park with some beers and some mates.



Who cares if they do or don't make it easier to play the game. As for 'hypotheticals', what on earth are you expecting, a study on the tactile feedback of leather v synthetic balls? Leather is porous, synthetic balls are not, it's like asking for an idiotic study on which is more slippery when wet... Glass or a sponge?

I've just realised that you cannot even comprehend simple logic. You clearly think that because you and your mates can take your thongs off in a park and play footy, no doubt i perfect conditions, that the sport of rugby league could remove boots from the sport without any problem. That is just f**king geniused and nullifies any other point you make. You seem to think that consistent rules don't apply to sport. You either have boots or you don't. And you either have gloves or you don't. The neccessities of the sport means that boots are a must. There is no such need for gloves. It's that simple.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

I've just realised that you cannot even comprehend simple logic. You clearly think that because you and your mates can take your thongs off in a park and play footy, no doubt i perfect conditions, that the sport of rugby league could remove boots from the sport without any problem. That is just f**king geniused and nullifies any other point you make. You seem to think that consistent rules don't apply to sport. You either have boots or you don't. And you either have gloves or you don't. The neccessities of the sport means that boots are a must. There is no such need for gloves. It's that simple.

No east coast tiger, I believe you either have boots or you don't because it's a safety issue having some players with boots and others without. Hence why in things like mod league it's stipulated that boots must be worn, as you so kindly pointed out.

It doesn't change the fact that, even in wet conditions, people can run and kick, and play the game. It isn't a 'requirement' to play the game, like say a boat is to go rowing. Sure the standard of the game is much lower as players don't have grip on slippery surfaces, or they can't kick the ball as hard, but it can be played. So no, it isn't a 'necessity', or perhaps you may want to look up the definition of the word.

If you don't agree with gloves, that's fine, but don't hide behind your idiotic logic thinking you're taking some sort of high ground. Rugby league can be played without boots, it just lowers the standard of the game. Gloves, well they may or may not improve performance, but who cares, if we were vehemently against having equipment enhancing the sport, we would have very tight guidelines of the design of boots, of which there isn't other than stud length. Players put glue on their hands before a game anyway, should we also outlaw that?

I suggest you take a deep breath and cool down a bit. Your ranting and insults isn't helping prove your point any better.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

No east coast tiger, I believe you either have boots or you don't because it's a safety issue having some players with boots and others without. Hence why in things like mod league it's stipulated that boots must be worn, as you so kindly pointed out.

It doesn't change the fact that, even in wet conditions, people can run and kick, and play the game. It isn't a 'requirement' to play the game, like say a boat is to go rowing. Sure the standard of the game is much lower as players don't have grip on slippery surfaces, or they can't kick the ball as hard, but it can be played. So no, it isn't a 'necessity', or perhaps you may want to look up the definition of the word.

If you don't agree with gloves, that's fine, but don't hide behind your idiotic logic thinking you're taking some sort of high ground. Rugby league can be played without boots, it just lowers the standard of the game. Gloves, well they may or may not improve performance, but who cares, if we were vehemently against having equipment enhancing the sport, we would have very tight guidelines of the design of boots, of which there isn't other than stud length.

IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO PLAY THE GAME. If you think you can play rugby league in freezing conditions in the north of England, south of France, in parts of NSW and many other places without boots you're a f**king idiot. AND public liability means that no sporting organisation or council would allow barefoot football anyway. So yes it IS a requirement that rugby league be played in boots. Just because you can't comprehend that doesn't make it wrong. It just makes you wrong.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

IT IS A REQUIREMENT TO PLAY THE GAME. If you think you can play rugby league in freezing conditions in the north of England, south of France, in parts of NSW and many other places without boots you're a f**king idiot.

So they can't play in these areas in running shoes? Or some other foot covering? I wasn't aware that boots were the only means of keeping your feet warm. Maybe we should stipulate players must wear gloves for risk of getting frostbite in siberia?

AND public liability means that no sporting organisation or council would allow barefoot football anyway. So yes it IS a requirement that rugby league be played in boots. Just because you can't comprehend that doesn't make it wrong. It just makes you wrong.

You're out of your depth here tiger. The reason there is a public liability risk is firstly, risk of injury from other peoples boots, and secondly risk of uneven surfaces at a community level.

It isn't a necessity to play the game, like you claimed it is. If it was, it would be impossible to run and kick without anything other than boots, shoes included. But again, I never claimed that we should remove boots, you just came up with the idiotic assertion that it cannot be played without them.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So they can't play in these areas in running shoes? Or some other foot covering? I wasn't aware that boots were the only means of keeping your feet warm. Maybe we should stipulate players must wear gloves for risk of getting frostbite in siberia?


You're out of your depth here tiger. The reason there is a public liability risk is firstly, risk of injury from other peoples boots, and secondly risk of uneven surfaces at a community level.

It isn't a necessity to play the game, like you claimed it is. If it was, it would be impossible to run and kick without anything other than boots, shoes included. But again, I never claimed that we should remove boots, you just came up with the idiotic assertion that it cannot be played without them.

You are a fool. You are the one who tried, stupidly, to compare boots with gloves despite the obvious fact that boots are absolutely neccessary and gloves are not. It's just that a dumb merkin like you still can't understand this simple premise. For anyone to claim that because they and their mates can flick their things off and throw a footy around is evidence that boots are not required to play rugby league is one of the most geniused pieces of non-logic ever seen on these forums. And that is saying something. Any comparison between the use of boots and the potential use of gloves is ludicrous and the person making such a claim should be treated with the contempt they deserve. There is a reason that NO organised rugby league competition in Australia allows players to play bare foot anymore and anyone with any common sense or knowledge of public liability will know why. That's without even considering the other facts, like the need for boots in extreme cold weather. The kind of moron who thinks all rugby league is played in a park in summer with a scattering of discarded thongs nearby and therefore the same conditions can be applied to the entire sport should consider if logical thought is something they should leave to others.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Did ron massey suggest a brand that I'm not aware of? I must have imagined owning a pair of under armour branded fully closed in gloves which had silicon grip, when I played in a beer league american football comp.


Umm, no it's not.

Good luck passing with gloves covering your fingertips...

Gloves in the NFL are 100% designed for catching. In RL you have to catch, pass and tackle. I'm not sure why some people aren't getting this.

They were a fad in Union, nothing more. Can't see them being any different in RL.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

^^^^
This bloke doesn't get much.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Good luck passing with gloves covering your fingertips...

Gloves in the NFL are 100% designed for catching. In RL you have to catch, pass and tackle. I'm not sure why some people aren't getting this.

People get it, they just don't care about it. The argument is about whether gloves should or shouldn't be permitted in the NRL. The implementation of the technology is irrelevant. If a winger wants to wear gloves that improve their catching, but limit their passing ability, then who cares. If a halfback doesn't want to wear gloves because they can't pass well, who cares.

They were a fad in Union, nothing more. Can't see them being any different in RL.

I'm likely to agree with you on this point, although if they were ever allowed I could see them being used by wingers and potentially some front rowers or wrecking ball type players with limited passing.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

^^^^
This bloke doesn't get much.

I get that you're struggling to come up with reasoned answers, so choose to insult instead.

 

[Led_Halen]

National Rugby League the greatest game of all.

 

[ShaneO85]

Good luck passing with gloves covering your fingertips...

Gloves in the NFL are 100% designed for catching. In RL you have to catch, pass and tackle. I'm not sure why some people aren't getting this.

They were a fad in Union, nothing more. Can't see them being any different in RL.

This is my thinking that it really doesn't matter. Some players may chose to wear them. I think the vast majority would not.

They'd be a fad. Might take off if someone like barba wore them and then all the kids wanted to be like him. Similar to the arm warmers in Basketball and guys like dwight howard and carmelo anthony.

In all i don't think it would make any great difference to the game and can't see the harm in trialling them in pre-season or all-stars to prove it once and for all.