Fair play to Peet for just giving the next kid a go. Wellens would swap around our entire team before giving a kid a go in a game like this

I think the beauty of Peet is that he does learn his lessons. He, like Wellens was quite cautious when it came to giving young players their chance but I think the success of Nsemba this season has calmed his nerves and I think he is starting to not only trust the young lad in question but is trusting the team around them to help get them through bigger stints. It helps him that these lads are so good mind. The likes of Nsemba, Hill, Eckersley and now Farrimond have hardly missed a beat and have pretty much looked a first team player from minute one.

I remember last year when Wellens was fronting up about mistakes he has made and admitting that he needs to improve. Seems a long time ago now.

I think Peet has largely had a stronger team to drip feed these players into. Last week Wellens had to throw Burns and Vaughan in as there was nobody else. That's not to say Wellens would have done the same, indeed he has had the opportunity to select them in recent weeks/months and hasn't. It's likely that Vaughan, Burns and even Stephens would still be waiting for an opportunity if we had a full set of troops. Now the first two (and possibly another debutant) are going to have to front up for a depleted team in the toughest game of the season with nowhere near enough preparation.

If we're at the point that accidental head collisions get players disciplined, the future is bleak. It would have been no different to Nu Brown's red card earlier this season.

It's much easier though to give a kid a debut as part of a settled side that is winning every week and has fewer injuries.

It would be suicidal for Wellens to give a debut to someone on Friday as part of a team low in confidence, lost the last 2 games and could conceivably be without 8 first teamers i.e would be part of a full strength 1-17, Wingfield wouldn't so I've not included him but with Mbye banned that's 9 out even if Clark is back and that's not guaranteed yet.

Eight first teamers Stu, who are those and who would they replace?

It is but Wellens has had the opportunity to give some debuts out earlier this season, as part of stronger sides and sides playing pretty well and didn't take it. It's not easy in fairness to him and I would say the Saints crop of youngsters are in the main a year or so younger than our crop and there has been more disruption at Saints with injuries (what's happened to that game leading/ground breaking medical department that was responsible for the lack of injuries in the past? It was never about luck I was told by some Saints fans, so I presume they've left the club) but there's no doubting Wellens is quite cautious.

Makinson
Hurrell
Walmsley
Mbye
Matauita
Whitley
Batchelor
Knowles

All out along with Wingfield who would be next in line for any of the forwards missing above. Apparently Clark is back but if not that's ten established players.

Comparing apples and oranges and being too simplistic

Cooper cannot stand upright amd make direct contact with attackers head, he had to get his head to the side or lower to avoid direct contact
Whilst it may not be intentional as such its poor technique and exactly what the rule was brought in for, to avoid direct head contacts which i believe are the worst type in terms of damage done

Comparison to Nu brown is ridiculous, the attackers head moved, deviated from its original trajectory because of an Iinitial.contact by another player and contacted his head secondary, the pure definition of accidental as he didn't put his head in the direct path of the attackers head

You don't understand the point I'm making. I'm not debating the mechanics of each individual tackle, my point is that punishing players for accidental head-collisions is ridiculous in a full-contact sport.

IMO it was more like the James Bentley challenge from last year where he'd have seen a card if he hadn't knocked himself out.

Don’t think there is really any other option, I really can’t think of anyone who could play hooker. If we still had Shorrock in the squad then a decision is to be made. It’s a great time for a player to come into the side though, we are successful and playing well and most around will be experienced first teamers, it will be an unexpected call but it’s not in an injury crisis like happens a lot.

Oh I absolutely do understand your point, I just think (and if I'm honest know) your wrong
It's like closing your eyes, swinging your arms and then saying oh I didnt mean knock his head off. Yes he didn't mean it, but he did things that risk injuring the other players with bad technique

Rightly or wrongly the rules are now head to head contact must be avoided so its incumbent on the tackler to keep his head away from the ball carrier, and if you go head on face to face upright with your head in the path if the attacker you risk getting pulled/penalised/fined/banned for it

If Coopers head had caught his head in a way that concussed/injured the ball carrier then he'd have seen red imo (or at least banned on review) and under the current rules it would be fair, the fact it was the other way round is incidental and doesnt matter cooper was the one injured.

Liam Moore ref, Ben Thaler video, no way is this finishing 13 v 13

Respectfully, I think you're the one comparing apples and oranges now I know you've not done so maliciously, but you're making a strawman argument right now.

A careless and reckless tackle should be punished, absolutely. However, most genuine accidental head clashes should not be penalised as both the runner and tackler have a responsibility to ensure their heads don't whack into each other. Mulhern is running hard and Cooper is sliding to close the gap, it's unfortunate but a few miscalculations cause a headclash. It happens. I also don't dispute the ruling, but the new rules are just awful and I don't know any rugby fan that does like them.

I don't believe we'll come to an agreement on this so we'll just agree to disagree.