It wasn't a head injury and he wasn't interfering with play.

Well there'll be no sponsorship next season from that particular sponsor..



Disillusioned with the alarming drop in attention/events/hospitality offered to sponsors - markedly since the departure of Rob Parker.



And on the subject of Rob Parker - when he took the role - the bar takings and use of the Coral Stand suites was negliable.



He built it up to just about full at every home game - and of course the income that came with it.



I know for a fact he was miffed about the attitude of one member of the management team in relation to some poor on field performances...



So wasn't surprised to see him go - just very disappointed - and of course - post not filled.



I read that as further lost income.



We have a long had winter ahead.

So since I missed the game due to sunning myself in Spain, I have a quick question. If you had to pick a side of the fence and weren't allowed an answer of "a bit of both", was it:



a) Bulls playing well

b) Oldham playing awful



My twitter feed while the game was happening seemed to suggest the second option, but I'd be interested in opinions of some of the intelligent ones on here. I don't have Bulls TV so won't see the highlights. Other than the Welham video that I saw on Facebook, which appeared to suggest quite terrible defence.

I'm going to go with Bulls played well. As i have said before, this would have been a game that finished 58-16 earlier this season.



Oldham were terrible and offered little defence. BUT we can only play what is in front of us and the pleasing thing for me is we didn't put the que on the rack and think we'd done our job at 50 points. We carried on trying to sore, trying to play well, and more importantly keep them nilled. Having that attitude will help us when it comes to tougher games. The attitude in previous games of us putting the que on the rack after we had done enough, came back to bite us big time in tougher games.



It was all about the attitude for me.

Of course it was an outstanding performance, yes we SHOULD have been totally dominating part-timers all season but even so, such a scoreline is exceptional by any possible standards.



Oldham just got us on the wrong day. They were not so much poor, as in the wrong league. They were made to look bad because we had the right heads on, and the personnel they couldn't cope with.



They came on the back of 2 wins in the comp (30-16 Workington and 30-8 Swinton) and you can also compare our previous 2 games (48-4 and 44-12).



This season they did a double over Sheffield, and had wins against teams including Dewsbury, Batley and Featherstone, and comfortably knocked SuperLeague Hull KR out of the Cup. They're not jesus christ, but they can and often are very naughty boys.

He is meant to stop play at the next available opportunity once he is aware the Doc has entered the field of play, regardless of what the injury is though. I can't remember how quickly the Doc came on though

It's always a bit of both, tbh.



We kept the pressure up all game - probably for the first time this season and our plays came off. Defence was solid, though it is far to say Oldham didn't offer much and, as said earlier, you can only play what's in front of you.



I thought Oldham had a bit of bad luck with injuries, which was unfortunate for them and certainly didn't help their cause, though giving away penalty after penalty is just bad discipline and down to them alone. As a match it was a total mis-match - though, if you must watch a game which ends 82 - 0 , I have to say it's certainly better to win than to lose.

Yes I agree we played some good rugby most of the game. The second half was best as we didn,t seem to be trying to score in the first 2 plays of each set. Can't remember how many times we lost the ball within first 3 tackles in the first half hour. Also as said above we stiuck to playing for full 80 mins and Oldham shot themselves in the foot with their indiscipline

Definitely a bit of both. We scored some opportunistic tries from their unforced errors, and bagged a couple while they were down to eleven men.

But at the same time, we scored some tries that involved some nice passing movements and good support play. Joe Keyes in particular looked very composed at six and had a hand in a number of tries via both cut-out passes and well timed short ones.

Chisholm scored his trademark solo effort by running across the defence and darting through a gap, then bagged another when Oldham were attacking by doing well to pick up a grubber kick that was down by his shoe laces and ran 90 yards to score.

I haven't seen the incident in question, but I understood it to be only if the player is close to the play or it's a head injury. If the player is well behind the attacking line and it's anything but a head injury, the referee isn't supposed to stop it, is he? It may be also that if he's well behind the defensive line, they may stop it due to a break potentially causing the play to go his way, but it's so unlikely behind an attacking line that they don't stop it.



If they did stop it every time, it would encourage gamesmanship whenever a team was looking dangerous. Which we all know is part of the game now whether we like it or not. (Not saying the Oldham player was party to that of course)

If anything it makes me feel all the more bitter that we put together a performance like that when it doesn't really matter.



Maybe our group of lads can have that sense of flair and freedom from taking to the pitch knowing the game counts for eff all, and so they are devoid of any pressure.. Bless em.

" Treatment to an injured player, by not more

than one attendant, may be permitted while play proceeds if, in

the opinion of the Referee, such treatment is not likely to interfere

with play.

The attendant shall not place anything on the ground likely to

interfere with play, or carry anything of a rigid nature likely to cause

injury in the event of a rapid switch in play causing an unforeseen

collision"



That's the paragraph in the operational rules. As soon as a 2nd person (normally the Doc) enters field of play, the ref "cannot permit play to proceed". Equally if the emergency equipment begins to come on ie oxygen, stretcher etc. as it is unsafe to continue.



If it's just the physio, play can continue, as soon as it starts to escalate, it can't.



The Doctors professional obligations are covered under the RFL medical standards.