Official West Hartlepool RFC

In a shock development today WHRFC has announced that World Cup winner and British & Irish Lion Richard Hill is available for selection for the Hartlepool & District RFU 2nd Team Competition The Pyman Cup.

This is apparently because he mentions West Hartlepool a couple of times in his autobiography.

A spokesman for WHRFC commented "it is quite a surprise to find out that Richard is available but he has mentioned us in his book and ran about on some grass that we were also using so we think that it is okay for him to play for us in the final.....anyway what is the Pyman cup without West Hartlepool"!

A member of the organising committee was not available for comment.

What a turn up for the books

Regards
Finbar

Dean Richards was at a dinner last year at the club. does he qualify? I am sure he walked over the grass at some point during his visit

Yes that tenuous link seems to be enough for your club
Any comment on the situation Quinny you usually like a debate

Regards
Finbar

We have some lads digging turf up as i type to rush down to Gloucester for the game tomorrow. If we can throw some in front of the players as they run out and they step on it they then qualify to play in the final for us on Wednesday!

Haha yes it seems so as laughable as it seems! It was embarrassing to witness and then listen to the attempt of justification.

Regards
Finbar

I never said i agreed with it...nor did i say i disagreed with it

To be honest i don't really care, the rules are too loose and need to be a lot more stringent

i was going to go on a rant but again i can't really be bothered
Sorry Finbar

I don't quite know what you are continuing to bleat about.

You have had a detailed reply from Olly - did you fail to read that? You have also had a sporting comment from your own team. Did you fail to read that, too?

As has been stated, when GP was on the pitch you actually played better and could have won the game. We also played two lads who were making their debut at Stags level so we can hardly be accused of strengthening the team.

Please take your leaden humour elsewhere because it is boring and irrelevant.

How's that for a Quinny style bite and rant!

And if that fails...what is the Pyman cup without West Hartlepool"! Haha i can't actually believe someone wrote that to be honest

Stan he is not a player for your club therefore should not have played and therefore you should be answerable to the competition organisers. A precedent was made 6 or so years ago when Athletic were removed from the competition for exactly the same thing.

If you read the thread I said that the young lad looks a real find and I was also really impressed by the fullback.

It does not matter how well we ayes while he was on the pitch he should not have been there! You scored more than us so therefore you won no complaints about the game.

Wonder if he plays in the final and I wonder if Horden will feel the same.

We all know Quinny and a few others like a bite and a debate especially when they think other teams are in the wrong so I asked his opinion on the situation as he has a go at other clubs at times.

Thought message boards were for debate you lot don't seem to want to when you are seen to be on the wrong strange that one isn't it.

Regards
Finbar

Ok here goes....

I didn't really want to be drawn on this as at the minute i am totally fed up with the whole thing and probably won't be involved with West next season
Personally i do not agree with it, but it does not appear to breach the rules and if it does then it is up to Durham to decide on what to do

Regarding this message board, it is missing the point at the minute. If anyone comments on anything certain people do not like, they are either barred or it is removed

That's my opinion, no one else's. If it gets removed, i don't really give a stuff either to be honest

Andy
As you know I have sole moderating rights on here but do the job on behalf of the club as it is the club's official website
The only person who has ever been barred from here is SCH - and he has been allowed back on, for the moment.
I did edit one of his posts yesterday because it was unwarranted criticism of an official. That is not something we are prepared to tolerate as a club.
As you know I have deleted some of your messages in the past but explained why in an email.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2014 16:08 by davepicken.

Dave, i am not having a go at all. I agree with the stance on criticism of officials

Not going to comment any more on this. I have said my thoughts
Cheers

Thanks. It was this bit which offended my journalistic principles of free speech.

"If anyone comments on anything certain people do not like, they are either barred or it is removed"

What exactly is there to debate?

All players are happy.

Olly explained at great length and that seemed fair enough. What part of his post did you disagree with?

You just seem to want to have a go at West irrespective of any logical argument.

Pretty simple Stan. Tournament qualified player comes on for last ten minutes during which time Rovers have their best spell of the game and West don't score any points . Infuriating .

What was said about the officials

Rugby union ... it was the bit from Supercodhead to which you had replied. I removed your reply because it was no longer relevant as I'd deleted the offending bit from his post.
There's been no other mention of the officials.

Ok thanks Dave it's someone who doesn't know much about the game cheers

He's just a wind up merchant as others have said. Best ignored and quite often banned.

Stan the Camel asked what part of Olly's post there was to disagree with. For me it is Olly's interpretation of the eligibility rule and his explanation of how that was applied to Gav Painter playing.

For reference the eligibility rule is :- 4. Teams to consist of Club Members: a Member being one who has paid his subscriptions and played in one or more games for the said Club.

Several people have commented how 'loose' the wording is, which is true, but consider what would have been the intention behind drafting this rule - which I believe is to prevent exactly this type of situation. It then leads to a totally different interpretation to Olly's. I took the phrase "a Club member being one who has paid his subscriptions" to mean a current member who has paid a player's subscription and is registered with the club as a player for that season or part of season. The final phrase "and has played in one or more games for said club" I took to be intended to stop someone joining at the end of a season just to play in the Pyman.

Put simply it seems the intention of the rule is to restrict those playing in the Pyman to be only those currently playing with their club.

Olly also seemed to me to have used his words very carefully when he said "He (Gav) has played for the Stags on several occasions in the past few seasons". I may be wrong (and cynical) but I read that Gav hadn't played this season. However whether Gav had played or not is a side issue. He is a registered to another club and is playing for them either side of a Pyman game.

Now this is just my reasoning. Some people have taken the more straight forward view that Gav has paid some sort of subs to West and has played sometime and therefore he is eligible and it is acceptable to play him. As far as I can see only people from West have come to this view and some other West supporters do not agree. Unsurprisingly no-one at Rovers agrees. The people I have seen post who are independent of both clubs also seem to think the situation is unacceptable. However that means little. I'd say that the best people to comment are those on the Hartlepool and District RFU who drew up the rule to give a definitive statement on what it really means and how it applies in this situation.

Will they?

I have tried to be logical and not have a go at anyone!