Call for NRL to trial players wearing gloves

[East Coast Tiger]

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

And you choose to ignore all of the facts I have stated that prove that the policy of requiring players to wear boots is absolutely valid, while any such suggestion about gloves is sheer stupidity.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

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.

Why are they 'absolutely' necessary? Can you not play rugby league barefoot or with regular shoes, cleats or any other sort of footwear?

They are absolutely necessary due to the game stipulating they must be worn, and pose a risk to other players not wearing them. In terms of ability to play the game without them, then it can absolutely be played without them.

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.

I suggest you actually go back and look at what was written ECT. Boots are no more a necessity to play the sport, than clothes are. They enhance performance, and are there for good reason, but it's absolutely flawed logic to say it's a requirement to play the sport with boots like you claimed. I couldn't care less whether gloves or boots are any more or less required, you're the one who decided to go down this path of discussion. Both enhance performance, that's the reality of it.

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.

Of course, due to the fact that fields can be poorly maintained, and other people will be wearing boots, so there is a risk of injury. Where have I claimed otherwise? On a professional quality field with consistent surface and no foreign objects, can you or can you not play rugby league with shoes or barefoot?

That's without even considering the other facts, like the need for boots in extreme cold weather.

I suggest you look at my 'maybe we should make players wear gloves for fear of frostbite in siberia' comment, it kind of addresses the logic. I couldn't care less what extreme weather conditions you want to throw down as justification for it. Boots are not 'required' to play the sport, if they were, it would be unplayable without them in all conditions. Now, at no point have I EVER suggested that rugby league be played without them, you've made that assumption all on your own. The same sort of logic you are applying is 'a snow plow must be present at every football field, for fear of a blizzard', even if it's in sydney.

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.

Nowhere have I suggested this. Brush up on your reading skills kid. Just because I'm required to wear a steamer wetsuit to go diving in the arctic, doesn't mean I'm required to wear one to do it in the tropics. Therefore it doesn't mean it's required equipment. In fact it's you who is applying the logic that 'because it's cold somewhere the sport is played, everyone must wear equipment to handle the cold'

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Why are they 'absolutely' necessary? Can you not play rugby league barefoot or with regular shoes, cleats or any other sort of footwear?

They are absolutely necessary due to the game stipulating they must be worn, and pose a risk to other players not wearing them. In terms of ability to play the game without them, then it can absolutely be played without them.


I suggest you actually go back and look at what was written ECT. Boots are no more a necessity to play the sport, than clothes are. They enhance performance, and are there for good reason, but it's absolutely flawed logic to say it's a requirement to play the sport with boots like you claimed. I couldn't care less whether gloves or boots are any more or less required, you're the one who decided to go down this path of discussion. Both enhance performance, that's the reality of it.



Of course, due to the fact that fields can be poorly maintained, and other people will be wearing boots, so there is a risk of injury. Where have I claimed otherwise? On a professional quality field with consistent surface and no foreign objects, can you or can you not play rugby league with shoes or barefoot?


I suggest you look at my 'maybe we should make players wear gloves for fear of frostbite in siberia' comment, it kind of addresses the logic. I couldn't care less what extreme weather conditions you want to throw down as justification for it. Boots are not 'required' to play the sport, if they were, it would be unplayable without them in all conditions. Now, at no point have I EVER suggested that rugby league be played without them, you've made that assumption all on your own. The same sort of logic you are applying is 'a snow plow must be present at every football field, for fear of a blizzard', even if it's in sydney.


Nowhere have I suggested this. Brush up on your reading skills kid. Just because I'm required to wear a steamer wetsuit to go diving in the arctic, doesn't mean I'm required to wear one to do it in the tropics. Therefore it doesn't mean it's required equipment. In fact it's you who is applying the logic that 'because it's cold somewhere the sport is played, everyone must wear equipment to handle the cold'

You still don't get it genius. If boots are required at ANY time in ANY game of rugby league, then is required in ALL games of rugby league. It's called consistency. That's what rules are you dopey merkin.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

You still don't get it genius. If boots are required at ANY time in ANY game of rugby league, then is required in ALL games of rugby league. It's called consistency. That's what rules are you dopey merkin.

Really? So thermal clothing is required to be worn by players at all times? Every ground is required to have lighting? Mouthguards are required to be worn at all times?

Seems reality doesn't really align with that thinking. If you're talking consistency, we wouldn't have independent authorities dictating rules for different age groups, that do not govern elsewhere around the world. If you were talking consistency, we wouldn't have the shoulder charge banned in the NRL but legal in the ESL. The rules are anything but consistent.

Or does consistency only apply in this scenario because it suits your argument?

 

[ShaneO85]

You still don't get it genius. If boots are required at ANY time in ANY game of rugby league, then is required in ALL games of rugby league. It's called consistency. That's what rules are you dopey merkin.

by this logic does one player being able to choose to wear headgear mean that all players must wear headgear for consistency?

must all players wear identical stud patterns?

because shoulder pads are allowed to be worn by some does that mean every player must wear shoulder pads? must all shoulder pads be identical?

horses for courses mate. if a player on a freezing wet night in canberra in mid winter wants to wear gloves and they don't give a drastic performance boost then what is the harm? i'm sure the same player wouldn't wear them in march on a sunday arvo in brisbane or townsville.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Really? So thermal clothing is required to be worn by players at all times? Every ground is required to have lighting? Mouthguards are required to be worn at all times?

Seems reality doesn't really align with that thinking. If you're talking consistency, we wouldn't have independent authorities dictating rules for different age groups, that do not govern elsewhere around the world. If you were talking consistency, we wouldn't have the shoulder charge banned in the NRL but legal in the ESL. The rules are anything but consistent.

Or does consistency only apply in this scenario because it suits your argument?

Thermal clothing isn't required tor be worn AT ANY time. You are a f**king goose. You keep applying these bullshit examples that make no sense. The international rules of the games do NOT mention mouth guards. But they DO mention boots. So again, more stupid examples that are completely wrong.

And yes, consistency should occur. The fact that the ARLC have banned the shoulder charge against the international laws of the game is a joke. So my arguament is consistent. You are the one making shit up to support a ridiculous argument.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

by this logic does one player being able to choose to wear headgear mean that all players must wear headgear for consistency?

must all players wear identical stud patterns?

because shoulder pads are allowed to be worn by some does that mean every player must wear shoulder pads? must all shoulder pads be identical?

horses for courses mate. if a player on a freezing wet night in canberra in mid winter wants to wear gloves and they don't give a drastic performance boost then what is the harm? i'm sure the same player wouldn't wear them in march on a sunday arvo in brisbane or townsville.

This is about the wearing of boots. Boots are required by the rules of the game. Headgear is not. Mouthguards are not. There is a reason why boots are and the others not, because conditions dictate that they are neccessary. f**k me dead, some people can't comprehend anything they read. The fact that gloves are NOT required by any definition is exactly the point I am making. This clown thinks there is NO DIFFERENCE between the need to wear boots and the need to wear gloves. Any idiot can see why this is utter nonsense.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Thermal clothing isn't required tor be worn AT ANY time.

Unless of course you are playing in russia. You are the one that has stated that because boots are required to battle the elements in some cases, they are required at all times. Surely this is the same case with other sorts of clothing that protect a player from the elements?

You are a f**king goose. You keep applying these bullshit examples that make no sense. The international rules of the games do NOT mention mouth guards. But they DO mention boots. So again, more stupid examples that are completely wrong.

So now you are quoting 'rules' to say that a certain requirement is needed to play a sport? Mouth guards are required in mod league, again, there is inconsistency. You are the one talking about consistency. But in any case, the rules are irrelevant to the original point I made, you chose to bring it into discussion, then went on some idiotic tangent about feet getting cold as some sort of justification that boots are required to play the sport. A laughable reason at that, it wouldn't even be a consideration in reasoning. It's because the sport is downright dangerous when you have people playing with boots, and others are not. Boots are preferred playing equipment, hence all players must wear boots... Pretty simple really.

But you are good entertainment, using the cold as reasoning for boots, but gloves are not ok, even if fingers are just as susceptible to frostbite :lol:

And yes, consistency should occur. The fact that the ARLC have banned the shoulder charge against the international laws of the game is a joke. So my arguament is consistent. You are the one making shit up to support a ridiculous argument.

Rugby league rules are inconsistent, but your argument is consistent, therefore rugby league rules are consistent. Got it.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

This is about the wearing of boots. Boots are required by the rules of the game. Headgear is not. Mouthguards are not. There is a reason why boots are and the others not, because conditions dictate that they are neccessary.

But only in some cases. So ergo, some instances for boots mean blanket rule across the league, other assistance items not so much. It wouldn't have anything to do with boots being a danger to others if some people use them and others do not.

f**k me dead, some people can't comprehend anything they read. The fact that gloves are NOT required by any definition is exactly the point I am making.

Neither are boots. Gloves are absolutely required if you're playing in sub zero temperatures unless you want your fingers to drop off. They aren't required in Australia because we don't have the climate that needs it.

This clown thinks there is NO DIFFERENCE between the need to wear boots and the need to wear gloves. Any idiot can see why this is utter nonsense.

Any 'idiot' can see boots have a certain level of requirement for varying conditions, hence the logic to have boots as a mandated requirement, because of the injury risks they pose if there is inconsistent application of their use. Gloves do not have a dangerous impact if all players do or do not wear them.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Unless of course you are playing in russia. You are the one that has stated that because boots are required to battle the elements in some cases, they are required at all times. Surely this is the same case with other sorts of clothing that protect a player from the elements?


So now you are quoting 'rules' to say that a certain requirement is needed to play a sport? Mouth guards are required in mod league, again, there is inconsistency. You are the one talking about consistency. But in any case, the rules are irrelevant to the original point I made, you chose to bring it into discussion, then went on some idiotic tangent about feet getting cold as some sort of justification that boots are required to play the sport. A laughable reason at that, it wouldn't even be a consideration in reasoning. It's because the sport is downright dangerous when you have people playing with boots, and others are not. Boots are preferred playing equipment, hence all players must wear boots... Pretty simple really.

But you are good entertainment, using the cold as reasoning for boots, but gloves are not ok, even if fingers are just as susceptible to frostbite :lol:


Rugby league rules are inconsistent, but your argument is consistent, therefore rugby league rules are consistent. Got it.

And why are boots "preferred" because any sensible person realises that they are required in difficult conditions. Players already play in these difficult conditions without gloves and that is just another piece of evidence that to suggest gloves are as neccessary as boots is a load of shit.

For the soft c**ks who want league players to become like the fairies in other sports and wear gloves, maybe you should go and watch the VFL or something. The fact remains that boots are required to play rugby league and the international laws of the game agree. Gloves are for Victorians and other assorted pansies and the laws of the game very rightly ignore the very idea of them being used.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

But only in some cases. So ergo, some instances for boots mean blanket rule across the league, other assistance items not so much. It wouldn't have anything to do with boots being a danger to others if some people use them and others do not.


Neither are boots. Gloves are absolutely required if you're playing in sub zero temperatures unless you want your fingers to drop off. They aren't required in Australia because we don't have the climate that needs it.



Any 'idiot' can see boots have a certain level of requirement for varying conditions, hence the logic to have boots as a mandated requirement, because of the injury risks they pose if there is inconsistent application of their use. Gloves do not have a dangerous impact if all players do or do not wear them.

Bullshit. From top to bottom. There are plenty of places in Australia where temperatures are zero or even lower during rugby league season. The fact that you don't even know this shows inbelievable ignorance. Yet no one wears gloves. So, proof again that they are not neccessary. Boots very much are. Which is why they are worn, and why the rules of the sport dictates as much.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

And why are boots "preferred" because any sensible person realises that they are required in difficult conditions.

How so? Can you not run in mud? Can you not kick a ball when it's raining? No they are 'preferred' because they help you play in adverse conditions. Preferred does not equal 'required',

Players already play in these difficult conditions without gloves and that is just another piece of evidence that to suggest gloves are as neccessary as boots is a load of shit.

Ask someone who lives in an arctic climate if gloves are 'required'. You seem to be getting your message mixed up, you want to blame the weather for reasoning behind boots, but then claim because we don't use gloves in australia, it's a good reason to show that they're not 'required'.

You would have failed a year 6 debate.

For the soft c**ks who want league players to become like the fairies in other sports and wear gloves, maybe you should go and watch the VFL or something. The fact remains that boots are required to play rugby league and the international laws of the game agree. Gloves are for Victorians and other assorted pansies and the laws of the game very rightly ignore the very idea of them being used.

Very poignant, and here comes the crux of your argument. You don't like gloves, failed to come up with anything substantial that supports your convoluted, confused argument. So come up with the age old 'fairies' and AFL argument.

Well played sir, well played.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Bullshit. From top to bottom. There are plenty of places in Australia where temperatures are zero or even lower during rugby league season. The fact that you don't even know this shows inbelievable ignorance. Yet no one wears gloves. So, proof again that they are not neccessary. Boots very much are. Which is why they are worn, and why the rules of the sport dictates as much.

As someone who lived in canada for 5 years, I can assure you, the australian version of 'sub zero' is a walk in the park :lol:

Rugby league is played in europe, there is even a french esl team... Perhaps you'd like to play a game in les trois alpes in the winter for 80 minutes without gloves. You may not have hands after it though. Maybe you are a fan of trying to catch a ball as your skin forms ice crystals, I don't know. In any case, the weather argument is redundant, you've simply shown that you've applied one rule for boots and another for gloves, so your idiotic logic makes zero sense.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

And you have completely ignored one of the very basic pieces of evidence as to why boots ARE required. No council or government owned sporting ground is going to condone people playing sport bare foot, and no governing body is going to risk it either. It is a matter of public liablity. Why do you think the old mod rules that players didn't wear boots was changed? Answer that. It's because the sport would simply not be allowed to be played if players didn't wear boots.

 

[Mr Fourex]

So they can't play in these areas in running shoes? Or some other foot covering?

No......because you'd slip over. Running shoes on grass can be slippery.

p.s

and kicking a ball bare foot, hurts .....after a while. As well as stepping on rocks, bindies, thorns etc etc

The boot thing is a ridiculous argument.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

No......because you'd slip over. Running shoes on grass can be slippery.

Thank you for supporting my argument that they are not required to play the game, they are an aid.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

And you have completely ignored one of the very basic pieces of evidence as to why boots ARE required. No council or government owned sporting ground is going to condone people playing sport bare foot, and no governing body is going to risk it either. It is a matter of public liablity. Why do you think the old mod rules that players didn't wear boots was changed? Answer that. It's because the sport would simply not be allowed to be played if players didn't wear boots.

Legal liability and a requirement as an ability to play the game are very different things.

I haven't ignored the liability issue, it's completely irrelevant to the debate, even if I have mentioned it in at least 5 posts. Just like mouthguards at mod league level are a 'liability issue', but a non issue at NRL level.

 

[StormHi]

Fiery_Dragon wins.

Got no issue with gloves being used.

 

[9701]

If the rules state boots must be worn then They indeed are a requirement.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Legal liability and a requirement as an ability to play the game are very different things.

I haven't ignored the liability issue, it's completely irrelevant to the debate, even if I have mentioned it in at least 5 posts. Just like mouthguards at mod league level are a 'liability issue', but a non issue at NRL level.

It's not irrelevent. You have ignored it because it proves once and for all that boots are required to play rugby league, while gloves are absolutely not.

If you showed up at a game with two teams and no one had any boots the game would not be allowed to be played. And not just because of the international laws of the game. Therefore they are required. Mouthguards are not covered in any way shape or form by public liability. So that's another bullshit example.