In an interview with the Warrington Guardian, [url=http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/wolves/wolvesnews/10414657.Smith__concerned__about_rugby_league_s_leadership/?ref=twtrecTony Smith speaks his mind about the quality of leadership at the RFL[/url.

Do you agree with what he says? On the whole, I think I do (although I don't think docking points from Salford was justifiable given the precedent).

I'd agree in general with him, but as you say I don't think the RFL could have docked Salford points given the previous "punishment".
Once again it's a difficult situation, in the past we've heard cries a plenty of 'the RFL need to listen to the clubs" amongst crap about "ivory towers" and the like. So most major decisions are made by the clubs by a vote. Issues like the SL sponsorship, the academy comps and the change to a new structure have all been decided the clubs not the RFL.
So I'd agree that I think they're daft and retrograde decisions and that I'd rather the RFL didn't listen to amateurish clubs who would struggle to run a bath, but Smith needs to look around at his fellow clubs as well as the RFL.

Tony Smith is right on the money.

He is right oon two critical points: (1) you can't judge the value of the current system in the midst of a terrible economic recession (2) you don't make judgments of what is best for the game by going out and asking people with vested interests. That is abdication of leadership.

I have never had much faith in Nigel Wood as a leader. Now I know that Brian Barwick is also a poor leader.

By getting the opinions of the Championship clubs (obviously they want a change that gives them a chance to be promoted to SL more easily) and the lesser lights in the structure of RL, the RFL leaders have abdicated leadership.

That's Tony Smith's point though, it SETS a precedent. It isn't acceptable to have 14 on the field at all. What if this happened in a cup semi, a cup final, the play offs, Old Trafford? It makes a mockery of the game. Salford's 'Dr' has already threatened to break the salary cap, what's to stop him instructing an extra man on the field. It might sound like a target Salford post, but the implications of 1 extra man when defending are massive, especially at the back end of a game. Ultimately in the "dead" rubber style rugby us bottom clubs play in, it doesn't really matter but it could easily make the difference between relegation or not or promotion, not just 2 dead points as on this occasion.

From all that, this was his best point in my opinion:

Despite thinking personally that he is a ' Smug git ' , I agree pretty much with all he says in that article

Its almost as if they are saying , " We dont know the answer , so if you pick , it's not our fault "

Not very inspiring , then again they havent inspired confidence in me for a long time

Regarding the bold Doctor, I can't see why he's shouting his mouth off re the salary Cap. Salford are actually nowhere near it at the moment (or if they are, they're wasting an awful lot of money). Spend to the Cap, then shout your mouth off, and don't threaten to break the rules just because you've got the money.

Totally agree with him on the RFL side of things.

Pretty useless by the sounds of it at the top at the moment.

Agree with all of it.
On the Salford issue, if we are holding on to a tight lead in an important game, stick the extra man on and I'm sure Mr Moran will happily write out the cheque.

I wonder if the fine was so they didn't have to admit incompetence on their own behalf, the refs assistants should have spotted it before it happened too.

That's how I see it. They don't have the strength and conviction to make a leadership decision and enforce it, so they make the clubs to vote on it and wash their hands of any kickback. Very poor.

Yep , Same here .

But when the rfl put criteria to the clubs and the clubs vote against it,what are the rfl suppose to do?