Call for NRL to trial players wearing gloves

[Firey_Dragon]

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.

The legal liability exists because firstly, if they didn't make boots mandatory, all boots would need to be banned. And secondly, they cannot guarantee the quality of the surface.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how the game is actually played, and whether someone is capable of playing the sport without them. So no, they are not 'required' to play the sport, they are mandated that they must be used, but it has nothing to do with the game itself. Just like any other field sport requires you to use footwear.

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.

And if the same law existed for gloves, you would carry on with the bullshit argument that it is some actual proof that it is 'required' to play the sport.

Perfect example of this is, in junior soccer, it was a rule to play the sport with your shirt tucked in... Do you think you cannot play soccer with your shirt tucked in? Or is that different?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

You still can't comprehend can you?

It wouldn't matter if the rules of rugby league allowed every player to show up and play bare foot. Regulations relating to public liability on sporting fields would mean they cannot play. It's not difficult to understand.

So boots are neccessary. Gloves are not. Anyone suggesting there is no difference between the two has NFI.

 

[9701]

The legal liability exists because firstly, if they didn't make boots mandatory, all boots would need to be banned. And secondly, they cannot guarantee the quality of the surface.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how the game is actually played, and whether someone is capable of playing the sport without them. So no, they are not 'required' to play the sport, they are mandated that they must be used, but it has nothing to do with the game itself. Just like any other field sport requires you to use footwear.


And if the same law existed for gloves, you would carry on with the bullshit argument that it is some actual proof that it is 'required' to play the sport.

Perfect example of this is, in junior soccer, it was a rule to play the sport with your shirt tucked in... Do you think you cannot play soccer with your shirt tucked in? Or is that different?

The bolded part makes entirely no sense. If they arent madatory they are banned? Mouth guards headgear and shoulder pads aren't madatory and aren't banned.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

You still can't comprehend can you?

It wouldn't matter if the rules of rugby league allowed every player to show up and play bare foot. Regulations relating to public liability on sporting fields would mean they cannot play. It's not difficult to understand.

So boots are neccessary. Gloves are not. Anyone suggesting there is no difference between the two has NFI.

Yet here we are, having a discussion that was about the NRL, which you claimed you needed boots to play, which is bullshit on a professionally maintained field. Arguing about people literally getting cold feet, (I was the first to mention liability in relation to field quality, and risk around other players boots btw), it's interesting how your argument has evolved from something that was completely baseless, to some sort of concern around public liability which never entered the discussion until I mentioned it.

Yes you are correct that on public fields the game cannot be played without footwear due to litigation risk. But again, you've made the assumption that no boots = no footwear. Touch football for example can be played with any sorts of shoes, legally, in Australia. So irrespective of the international rules, the sport can indeed be played here, in Australia, legally if it didn't mandate boots that fit a regulatory bodies specifications. But again, we're going in circles. Point is, you can run, step, and kick a ball without the latest pair of X-Blades on.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

The bolded part makes entirely no sense. If they arent madatory they are banned? Mouth guards headgear and shoulder pads aren't madatory and aren't banned.

It absolutely makes sense, football studs pose an injury risk to anyone who is not also wearing footwear. If you're not wearing a mouthguard, you're not going to do any damage to anyone else other than yourself.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Yet here we are, having a discussion that was about the NRL, which you claimed you needed boots to play, which is bullshit on a professionally maintained field. Arguing about people literally getting cold feet, (I was the first to mention liability in relation to field quality, and risk around other players boots btw), it's interesting how your argument has evolved from something that was completely baseless, to some sort of concern around public liability which never entered the discussion until I mentioned it.

Yes you are correct that on public fields the game cannot be played without footwear due to litigation risk. But again, you've made the assumption that no boots = no footwear. Touch football for example can be played with any sorts of shoes, legally, in Australia. So irrespective of the international rules, the sport can indeed be played here, in Australia, legally if it didn't mandate boots that fit a regulatory bodies specifications. But again, we're going in circles. Point is, you can run, step, and kick a ball without the latest pair of X-Blades on.

So you admit that rugby league can't be played without boots. You can play semantics on whether footwear equate to boots all you like, but it's the same thing. Therefore boots are required to play rugby league. Gloves are not.

I never said anything about the NRL. You are the one trying to bring in even more ridiculous rules that will only apply to the NRL while the rest of the sport of rugby league continues to become a different game. If boots can't be worn in amateur football, they can't be worn in professional football either. Otherwise it's just another inconsistency that further separates the elite game from the rest.

At the end of the day rugby league will continue to be played in boots and not gloves. Not just because it makes sense, but because gloves would make the game look f**king stupid, like the VFL. If you can't catch a football without gloves, go and play fumbleball. And if you have a fetish for big men in gloves, watch the NFL.

 

[betcats]

It absolutely makes sense, football studs pose an injury risk to anyone who is not also wearing footwear. If you're not wearing a mouthguard, you're not going to do any damage to anyone else other than yourself.

James Graham probably would taken a chunk clean out of Slaters ear without his mouthguard getting in the way! I would of loved to see that.


Seriously though, why waste so much time debating gloves? Imo we don't need them, I can understand wanting to decrease the number of dropped balls in the nfl, that game is already so boring and stop start. Rugby League is fine, dropped balls are not hurting the gameplay at all.

Let players catch with skill, not gloves.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

So you admit that rugby league can't be played without boots. You can play semantics on whether footwear equate to boots all you like, but it's the same thing. Therefore boots are required to play rugby league. Gloves are not.

It's definitely not the same thing. And do you think that it was mandated people had to play in boots in the 1900's? The original point I made, was boots are performance enhancers, the game can be played without them.

I never said anything about the NRL. You are the one trying to bring in even more ridiculous rules that will only apply to the NRL while the rest of the sport of rugby league continues to become a different game. If boots can't be worn in amateur football, they can't be worn in professional football either. Otherwise it's just another inconsistency that further separates the elite game from the rest.

You're under the idiotic assumption that I believe boots should not be mandated equipment to play the game. I've never suggested anything of the sort. Just the mere fact that it can be played without them.

At the end of the day rugby league will continue to be played in boots and not gloves.

Gloves may or may not make it into the sport eventually, I'm not really fussed, I just don't see the logic in mandating that they cannot be used. When so much money and development time is invested in improving boot technology, it's a bit hypocritical to say one performance enhancer is allowed and another is not.

Not just because it makes sense, but because gloves would make the game look f**king stupid, like the VFL. If you can't catch a football without gloves, go and play fumbleball. And if you have a fetish for big men in gloves, watch the NFL.

Perfect summation of your narrow mindedness. Unfortunately, rugby league is dominated with minds like yours that claim we have the greatest game, yet defiant against any ideas that may make the game a better spectacle, reaching broader mass appeal. Which then in turn would attract more money and a better product.

It's funny how something as inconsequential as gloves could invoke such anger in some fans, at the end of the day, some might use them, others won't, big deal.

 

[woodyk2]

Needs more knee pads.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Boxing gloves! Bring back the biff

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Boxing gloves! Bring back the biff

Soft, should be knuckle dusters.

 

[supercharger]

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.

I love cold weather but Winters can be brutal in canada especially in winterpeg wore glass cutters in a few games back in high school and the season finishes a month before winter starts
Places like Canberra are balmy in comparison

 

[supercharger]

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.

Gloves=soft c**ks/pansies...WHUHHH!?!?!

 

[eozsmiles]

I'm not going to discuss the legality of wearing shoes because I don't give a sh!t. But what is relevant is the technology applied to making the boots. They do a stack of research to improve the performance of the boot - lighter weight for less fatigue and greater speed, different materials in different areas so the ball reacts better when you kick it, etc etc etc.

So the point is that they are constantly making boots better so that the game is better to watch. If using gloves makes the game better then it sounds good.

 

[Mr Fourex]

No ....it sounds shit.

Nothing wrong with the game .......stop f*cking around with it.

Watch something else if you don't like it.

 

[BringBackRovelli]

Boots raise every player's game about equally. They don't decrease the gap between good and bad players, just improve the overall spectacle. But gloves do artificially decrease this gap. Players with good handling skills gain very little by wearing them, but a "feet for hands" bloke gains a lot. This is unfair.

 

[ShaneO85]

It absolutely makes sense, football studs pose an injury risk to anyone who is not also wearing footwear. If you're not wearing a mouthguard, you're not going to do any damage to anyone else other than yourself.

unless you're james graham

 

[ShaneO85]

No ....it sounds shit.

Nothing wrong with the game .......stop f*cking around with it.

Watch something else if you don't like it.

I'd much rather allowing gloves, or even tutus for that matter, to be worn as this would be a rather innocuous change as opposed to outlawing the shoulder charge. This idea is a non-event and has just allowed us all to bear witness to ECT having a meltdown trying to argue against firey.

 

[supercharger]

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.

Oy Vey!

 

[WayneBennett]

All players should wear wicket keeper gloves