Just a thread to post our challenge three pieces in. Go for gold lads!

For my literary piece i have decided to discuss what karl marx might have thought about modern day footie issues such as salary caps and team expansion. Enjoy!

I believe Marx would have seen the salary cap as an attempt by the NRL to avoid manifold class struggle. A shot at formulating an equilibrium where your Owen Craigies and Darrel trindalls don't exist. Recent days have shown just how much the NRL dislikes controversy and has displayed an abhoration of complicated arrangements such as the sexual predator (bulldog) and the sexual prey (everyone else). The constant cover-ups of the alternatives lifestyles led by Trent Barret and co signify this effort.This seems a parallel to Marxs idea of the proletariatarians and bourgeios. The entire history of the NRL seems based on this destruction of class struggle and the creation of robot players with no vices and a perfect vocabulary. Where has the fighting gone? To quote that bourgeios malcontent, Reg Reagan"Bring back the biff"!

Marx may have suggested that without class struggle their can be no evolution, no future for the game. We need antagonism to bring back the fans. This means expansion and unlimited salary caps so we can once again see the rabbitohs get flogged by the broncos every week. We can get old farts like wally lewis and mal meninga back on the field with unlimited money. Why do you think we still get to see Hulk hogan runs out twice a year for the WWE?because jokers like Vince McMahon dont have to say "sorry folks, we can only afford the shitty old honkytonk man this week". In modern day it is us being left with that bunch of wankas from new Zeland after North Sydneys departue left no sydney team between Manly and Newcastle.

But back to Marx...expansion is inevitable. To say no to anyone with the money to exploit us is an idea better off in the stone age. Exploitation of the lower classes is nescesary in the constant revolution of progress. Lets completely commercialise league and get every rugby league player in the world to Australia and into bed with the Central Coast Bears. We'll have the money so they can suck our cocks and like it!

Never forget: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles*

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848.

"because jokers like Vince McMahon dont have to say "sorry folks, we can only afford the shitty old honkytonk man this week". "

hahahaha classic

Money makes the world go round, and timing is everything..... thats why i want to uplay my upmost dissapointment in the nrl for introducing this shot clock. i mean dont get me wrong the idea of a shot clock itself is a great idea, do u really think that a kicker in the nrl who might practice 100 goals in a training session would take 3-5 minutes per kick, that would make kicking practice a long long session.

What does piss me off about it is that the penalty for not kicking the goal in the alloted time frame is a measly $2000, and we have allready seen numerous breaches this year, where the clubs have gone " oh no, better get a couple of grand out of petty cash, hes gone over his time limit again." I think the real way to get the kickers kicking quicker is to have the time limit, the ref is watching the time limit, and when the time limit runs out, the ref blows his whistle and bad luck doggies or whoever it happens to be, u miss out on your 2 points.

i also think that it could be taken a step further, as in u just wasted the games time, u miss out on your 2 points, and your side misses out on getting the ball back. if its a penalty shot, a 20m tap instead of a 20m dropout, and if its a conversion, try scorers kick. and look i know a lot of people out there would think that that sort of punishment far out wiegh the crime, imagine if it was a kick that decided the minor premiership, or even the grand final, and there is only 5 minutes to go, the kicker sits back and takes 4:45 to kick the goal, it goes in, yay they win, awww it just cost them $2000, but what the heck, a fines a fine, and it doesnt matter how much game time is wasted, as long as there is anough cash to back the time wasting up............

on a totally different topic, im with reg too, bring back the biff, a very short comment on how fighting in league should be......bloke 1 hits bloke 2 with a dirty elbow across the nose, bloke 2 says thats f*cked and goes to town on bloke 1, bloke 3-4-5 etc run in and get involved, ref and touchies finally break it up......this is what should happen, ref makes bloke 1 and 2 shake hands and puts bloke 1 on report for dirty shot....blokes 3-4-5 etc that run in to get involved all get sent off and 6 week suspensions. that way fights will always be one on one(like they should be no matter where they are) and thered be some biff in the game without it ever getting out of hand too much :)

I have to strongly disagree with Trognierrr on the shot clock issue. If we look at time wastage in the game then i am sure that it is insignificant to count goalkicking as the major time waster. We have video refereeing taking up more time with each passing season when issues seem to not be that hard to judge. We dont see the NRL penalising the video ref for taking four minutes to deliberate on a try/ forward pass etc. Why should a player be hit in the bank balance for taking care. Do golfers get penalised for waiting to make club selections, judge wind conditions, identify the lay of the course, does the government get charged extra money for taking months to send back my tax return, do i get penalised for taking hours to finish in bed? No, its all ludicrous, why penalise someone for doing the job well. A player that has just been running around excited should have a couple of minutes to settle their mind to take a shot at goal that could decide a tight match. If the NRL are worried about losing gametime they should stop the clock and let the player set themselves up. It makes no sense that players get penalised for taking time. Look at the acclaim that Hazem El-Masri gets for his accurate goal kicking, last year he was the leading goalkicker for the season as far as percentage was concerned because he has a ritual way of kicking that he follows. Should he lose out on this aspect of the game because you havent got the extra thirty seconds to sit and wait for him to kick. I reply with a resounding no, dont penalise a player for taking the time to do something right. Im sorry if this seems like a direct attack on you but the issue really gives me the shits. :ouch:

Personally I think time off should be called for goal kicks. It's just stupid to waste valuable game time while the Schifcofskes and Webbs of the game umm and err over a kick they'll miss anyway.

lol @ mr columbo, i just had to write a story on an aspect of the game, it was just an opinion, it was never nessesaraly the right opinion or even my real opinion, at least i know that it stirred up emotion :P, as far as the video ref goes im sure the ref blows time off just before he draws his majic invisable tv in the air......id be quite happy if they just stopped the clock for goal kicks, but i wasnt going to get 400 words saying that :)

lmao, too true.

here is my ramblings for the day, enjoy

Expansion of the game

If there is one thing that our game lacks, it is the fact that Rugby League hasn't been adopted as Australia's game. Instead this has just become a game for the east coast.

I know, manly people will tell you that the markets of New South Wales, Queensland, ACT, Victoria and New Zealand are the only markets in league that we should focus on, whilst this would make up a healthy market. I feel that is we want to show that we are a professional we must really make a fist of the expansion of our game.

In the 1980's this game made a mistake, it wanted to turn a state competition, into a national competition. When the likes of Canberra and Brisbane joined the NSWRL in 1982 and 1988 respectively it sent a clear message that the NSWRL is going to be the top level in Australia, and no competition in Queensland or the ACT would ever top it.

Whilst the name changed in 1995 and the admission of a North Queensland, South Queensland, Perth and Auckland teams. Whilst North Queensland and Auckland (New Zealand) still exist today it seemed that both South Queensland and Perth fell flat on their arses.

In 1997 there was an attept to create a "Super League", to turn Rugby League into a national game, with Perth, Auckland, Brisbane and Canberra going across along with new team Adelaide, it seemed that Murdoch and his cronies wanted not only the a national comp but also for Rugby League to become the gridiron of Australia. The plan seemed to be overly ambitious and with the pressure of AFL and Rugby Union, it seemed that both Super League and it's ARL brother would make reluctant truce and merge both competitions calling it the "National Rugby League".

In 1998 the National Rugby League kicked off, and a further new team this time from Melbourne took it's place but Adelaide were one of the teams unfortuantely cut. So Melbourne have now become the last expansion side ever to join the competition.

It is now 2004 and the NRL is currently thinking on whether to bring in annother team, with the choices being either Singo's Central Coast Bears, Gold Coast or Wellington. In my veiw, Central Coast should just get a team to relocate there, whilst in Wellington, I believe that the Warriors should split their venues 50/50 with Wellington and Auckland.

I believe that the NRL needs to find a new approach in expaning the competition, whilst still keeping it's traditional teams, which would be to give teams a cash incentive to move half of their home games to an area of expansion. An example of this would be if say the Canterbury Bulldogs wanted to move about half their home games to Perth, and become the Canterbury Perth Bulldogs. The only problem with this approach would be if a joint venture like St George Illawarra wanted to try to same thing.

Whatever road the NRL wishes to take, it should bear this in mind. AFL has a team in every state bar Tasmania, and Rugby Union is already looking at a team from Perth. This game needs expansion, but solid expansion that won't fall on its arse

An issue for a number of years now in English rugby league is the amount of overseas players currently plying their trade in the ‘Old Dart’.

Great Britain’s recent efforts in somehow losing a home series against a weakened Australia side 3-0 highlighted once more that the side coached by David Waite – himself an Aussie – lacked genuine quality in the key positions of the game.

With Paul Sculthorpe struggling after a long season, and skipper Andrew Farrell clearly not fit, Great Britain resorted to the tried and tested – Kris Radlinski at fullback, Sean Long in the number seven jersey and Mike Forshaw at lock.

While Radlinski has never let his side down at international level, Long has been a constant failure against the Aussies, while Forshaw is a committed defender but has little to offer in attack.

But apart from the odd exception – most noticeably Richard Horne, who was bizarrely picked on the wing – there are few options for Great Britain or England in those key positions, especially with Kevin Sinfield often flattering to deceive.

Looking around for alternatives in Super League however brings up a motley bunch of journeyman former NRL players, who are obviously not only not eligible for the Great Britain side, but are also stopping those that are from making the grade.

While few would argue against the fact that the state of the game in England means that overseas players do lift the quality, the sheer quantity of ordinary overseas players going to play in Super League is something the English authorities need to look at.

While they have dropped the ‘overseas quota’ per club from 5 to 4, strange eligibility rules mean that overseas players who have been in England for a few years – like Robbie Paul at Bradford for example – aren’t classed as an overseas player.

The Bulls are one club who have taken full advantage, often fielding a side with just ONE player eligible for Great Britain in the backs (Leon Pryce) while only five of the first choice starting XIII are eligible.

So what can be done? Well in my opinion the actual overseas quota should be LIFTED, for say the current 4 up to 6 – but apart from that 6 every other player should be eligible to play for Great Britain.

Maybe then some more young English players may come through the ranks, and clubs like Salford, currently struggling after being promoted to Super League, will first look at their U21 side for a new face, rather than taking the easy option and signing an ordinary NRL player like Kevin McGuinness.

Very nice work guys. I definitely enjoyed the articles by Matt and Mark.

Ya'll know the drill. Submit your votes for elimination to me by MSN, IM, or email by midnight Saturday.