Saints player gets poked in the eye, and its a concussion injury and they get an extra sub, Leeds get two players injured and not got to come back on and lose two subs, this rule needs scrapping as it's being abused.

I didn’t lose last night as I’m not a Catalans fan, but if they are getting called for it every week which looks inevitable then why can’t other teams when it looks obvious? Why is it ok for Catalans to be accused of it but not others?

Would you be having a go at me if I were accusing Catalans or any other club?

What did you hope to achieve with the George King comment?, I know your answer will probably be that you were stimulating debate, but coming out with sarcastic comments like that is surely not the way, and fwiw there has only been one Castleford fan that has accused Catalans of such tricks, so your sarcasm was unnecessary and unwanted.

Possibly so but we have a different view point when it comes to accusing people of cheating.
I have to say I didn't see an obvious collision of heads with King, but I don't instantly accuse him or the club of cheating. When he got up he clearly looked distressed and looked like he'd caught something in the eye.
I'm inclined to believe that it was genuine.
And to be honest he hadn't been on that long. Of all the players to bring off he would have been low down the list.

As for you, you just seem to suddenly have an issue with all things Wakefield. That is a shame as I enjoyed the more constructive discussions.

The thing is I don’t, I’m just genuinely given an opinion on the game and Wakey fans dislike it so much that it has to be an agenda or hatred against them.

Catalans get accused of doing it against Cas....cheating French sods. Catalans get accused of doing it against Hudds....cheating French so and so’s. Wakey get accused of doing it against Catalans.....how dare you Printer you have no concrete proof.

You may disagree but theirs enough their especially timing wise to suggest it was dodgy.

That poke in the eye was an odd one last night. From the replays it was exactly that, an open hand contacting the face with fingers near the eye (accident) It didn't strike me as a concussion. It's interesting how the physios go straight to the head and support it. Is this part of the dupe!

Tbh on the first angle it looked to me that he copped a forearm to the head off a saints tackler but as usual once sky got the finger to the face they replayed that ad nauseam.

I'm inclined to say he did get a head injury

Maybe hetherington needs to push for a 'stevie ward injury' specific interchange, as that appears to be a given in every game.

He's the new Gary wheeler

It was a bit more than that, failed his concussion test afterwards, the incident has cost him 2 games the Leeds one and the Salford one next week.
Can’t see where the abuse is here with that type of injury as we were seriously hampered playing a prop at centre.

I agree that there is room to bend the rules and should be looked at to modify the head concussion rule, I mean it was hardly a kill bill moment to justify him laid out with the physio holding his head in case it dropped off, had the game used proper tackling tactics so there wasn't as many head high tackles then we might not be asking this question

I've no issue with the team physio over reacting on the field, the medic might not have seen the incident and just saw a player motionless on the floor, duty of care to the player comes first. However we do see a player sometimes run the ball in on the next couple of plays as though they can run through a brick wall which does ask the question was he feigning his injury.

Staying still while you sort yourself out is not the same as feigning injury. Sometimes you've just got to make sure.

If a player fails the concussion test then it's not a 'free' sub.

I think we should have more subs on the bench, just look at saints last night playing for 78 mins with just 3 subs. At rovers we've lost 2 players in consecutive weeks during in games to concussion tests. It's a major disadvantage to the team that loses a player to a head test, so more player on the bench needed IMO.

I agree. I'm not necessarily against the reduction to 8 subs, but I don't think it would be too bad of an idea to allow 5 or 6 players on the bench. It would allow a greater variety in tactics (i.e. bringing on a back when needed) and give younger players the experience of being in the squad, even if they may not play.

Although, saying that many Championship clubs last year failed to field even 17 men, so there is that to consider.