We're all out of hookers though Stu. Both Leeming and Forber injured and O'Neil banned (absolute joke of a decision). Hooker is such a pivotal position that it will definitely even things up even if it doesn't prove to be the difference between a win and a loss.

I thought the sinbinning was ridiculous but to ban him as well it utter b*****ks

Farrimond to 9, Keighran to 6, Eckersley to 3 would be my guess.

The decision to sin-bin O'Neill was bad enough, but the ban is absolutely stupid. To top it all off, Mike Cooper has been given a £250 fine for being knocked-out by Mulhern's head. Honestly, this disciplinary panel are an absolute farce. How anyone can say Wigan are favoured by them is beyond me.

O'Neill's suspension is bonkers.

We could go Keighran to hooker and Eckersley in for a little less disruption also, probably my favourite choice. I would rather not split up Farrimond and Smith if that is what we are looking at running until Field returns. I think any uncertainty regarding French still being effective for us at fullback can be put to bed now so as long as Farrimond is performing and confident in himself, keeping them 2 together makes the most sense for us.

Other option would be next cab off the hooker rank, would that be our academy hooker? Not sure who that would be and how ready they would be for what would be a huge step up.

No appeal for O’Neill so he’s out.

He’s a massive blow given the other hookers are out.

My main priority for a 9 is them holding up defensively in the middle of the field so I’d consider Farrell there. With Walters starting back row. Simple job of tackling everything that moves and giving the ball to Smith/Farrimond and French.

Keighrans another option but not sure how he’d hold up defensively.

Hampshire could spell there too.

Farrell is probably the best option, we know he'll have no issues defending and can do the 80, all he needs to concentrate on is getting the ball out of dummy half asap

O'Neill's is about as clear a ban as you are likely to find if you simply apply the rules. Legs over the horizontal in the execution of a tackle.

I thought we were meant to never write off the saints ?

I've seen half a dozen tackles this weekend when the attackers legs have been beyond the horizontal but no action has been taken. We move on and use it as motivation. Both teams will now have four players missing from their squad.

SFW:

Those aren't the rules. You're just making things up. For it to be an offence according to the *actual* rules, the tackle has to involve either lifting or throwing, neither of which O'Neil does.

A bit left field (and probably won't even be under consideration) but Miski to hooker might not be a bad shout. Strong in the carry, good defensively and a good engine. Plus we wouldn't lose anything bringing Eckersley/Douglas in. Maybe hasn't got the distribution but then neither has Farrell.

Had to search to see if Hamsphire has experience at Hooker and it seems he has. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/34781347.amp Now it's not ideal, i get it. But moving Hampshire straight in rather than moving two-three other players out of position has to be an option surely?

Had to search to see if Hamsphire has experience at Hooker and it seems he has. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/34781347.amp Now it's not ideal, i get it. But moving Hampshire straight in rather than moving two-three other players out of position has to be an option surely?

I reckon put someone like Faz to hooker with Hampshire on the bench to try and liven things up a bit.