Yes, mid season rule changes are a sign of a professional and mature administration.
Absolutely, where required. Administrations shouldn't fear change if it's needed. A brave admin takes the requires stand even if it brings criticism or is unpopular.
Changing a multiple decade long definition of a legal and illegal act in the span of a couple of months on the whims of the Daily Telegraph is a sign of a professional and mature administration.
Firstly there is no change in the definition of the act that I can see, perhaps you can point it out to me. Just greater accountabilty being applied. Your 'Tele' inspired argument as to the timing is your interpretation as to the reasoning behind it. Mine is it's responsibilty for player welfare, and acountability for behaviour, therefore a sound decision. We'll have to differ on that. You stick to the view that they are soft minded enough to be influenced by a worthless rag, I'll take the view that they are strong willed enough to do what's best for the game and it's stakeholders.
And continuing to perpetuate the juvenile victim mentality by pretending the grazing of a players head on another's shoulder was the cause of a concussion and not the near simultaneous high speed thrust of 110kgs into the man's chest is the height of maturity.
I don't get this sentence at all, maybe I'm not smart enough to understand what you're geting at. What I do get is that you see the whole debate as a vehicle to vent your hate for a particular club and it's fans. Puts you at the same level as Pugzley, which is a shame for you because sometimes you can argue your point quite lucidly. It's ok to have an opposing view if you're prepared to argue the issues, but when you start to make it about individuals/personalities it becomes polluted. As per your closing comment
Just another clown.
