Legally, I'm not sure how the rule would be enforceable. Do players still get match fees/bonuses etc? Limiting a guys ability to earn money via that method seems some sort of restraint of trade. A set rule on players under 22 doesn't seem fit for purpose either. Not all 19/20/21 year olds are built the same or as developed as each other. Look at Nesemba compared to somebody like Cain Robb at Cas. One is 6ft 4 and 17 stone and at 21 is bigger/stronger than lads who've been playing a full career in Superleague and the other weighs 12 stone and is about 5ft 7, yet they're around the same age. It feels as though rules would need to be more bespoke than just 'you're under/over 22 and you're a back/forward' so you're sitting down for these games. 


It all feels a bit like them trying to be seen to be doing something/anything, so they can take it to the lawyers in these concussion cases. In fairness, I do have a lot of sympathy for them in that regard. 

Jukesy on the the forum said the rules aren't in place this season anyway and you'd tend to think that is the case when you consider Nsemba was played at Salford. I don't think we do that if we think he'll be sat down later in the season. 

**Edit** Just reading on all out rugby league that the RFL are writing to the clubs 'suggesting' they stick to these rules this season but the clubs are going to ignore them, on the basis that they were not given any confirmation of them prior to the season starting. 


Total and utter RFL incompetence again. 

Not that it needs highlighting, but it just shows how incompetent the RFL are. It's absolutely typical of them and completely embarrassing for game. These minutes rules should be abandoned anyway IMO but if they have evidence that it will be beneficial for players and are hell bent on introducing them then just abandon it for this season, put clear legislation and guidance together so its ready to be rolled out to the clubs when they all report back for preseason in November/December so everyone knows where they stand before the 2026 season kicks off.

Am i missing something? It seriously cannot be that difficult to make that decision and do the right thing for the clubs and players.

Does this potential new rule have salary cap implications? If the RFL are determining how many minutes players can play then that would suggest clubs need bigger squads to cope with players missing games...

Cant remember if it was on here or Warriors fans but someone had suggested increasing the subs bench, which is a reasonable suggestion, but that would clearly benefit Wigan for example who run a bigger squad than most, and thats not necessarily including the young talent we could bring through

however, if running a bigger bench / squad, that would surely lead to calls for the cap to be increased or other clubs saying its not a level playing field as they cant afford it


all in all, a farce, and for me stick with how it is now, and let the clubs manage it

I mentioned a larger bench from four to eight. In that clubs have to name a squad of 21 reduced to 17 an hour before KO. It may benefit Wigan in the larger picture but each of the 12 SL clubs has to name 21 for a game. In soccer they have a bench of around eight Union the same. Our bench of 4 in out of date, needs modifying and this is the opportunity.


Clubs like us Saints and Leeds will have the advantage due to current work in the youth sector. All three clubs have the four tier set up with Scholarship, Academy, Reserves and First Team. Other teams are now going along with the four tier but it needs to be a requirement in the new 14 team Super League.


 

i think its a fair suggestion and one that should definitely be considered, if the minutes rule does get implemented, but i also think there would be opposition to it. If i take our current pack we could have Havard, O'Neill, Thompson, Faz, Junior and Ellis starting, with Walters, Mago, Dupree, Byrne, Hill, Leeming, Eckersley & Farrimond on the bench, thats pretty impressive, and thats before we get to the upcoming youngsters. Another slightly different slant to it, and it falls into the suggestion you make about all clubs having scholarship, academy, reserves and 1st team (which i completely agree with and have aired my view on this in relation to the IMG gradings) is that in that bench of 8 you need to have at least x homegrown players which is promoting clubs to develop their own players. The other part to having 8 is how many can be used whether that be number of interchanges / number of the 8 that can be used, but all good points for a discussion

Yeh, I think a bigger bench could have merit. It would give more tactical variation to the game and make it easier to bring youngsters on.


I do get the argument that it would benefit "bigger" clubs more, I don't necessarily agree with that but its worth a trial or a discussion at least?

I’d be all in favour of a bigger bench, as a start increase to 6 but 2 of the 6 have to be under 21 at the start of the season.

I agree but it doesn't mean that there should be more substitutions, just a greater choice.

I've always believed that you should have eight players on the bench (substitutes) but but no interchanges, once a player is off he can't return unless it's a hia.
Allow six substitutions from those eight players. At least two of the players should be 21 or under at the start of the season and four should be home grown.