All depends on who Peet feels might benefit from a week off really - Liam Marshall is obviously one but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a couple of others. Can't imagine London having a chance if the attitude is right but Peet can't be blamed if he rotates key players and something does go wrong - any 17 out of that 21 should be more than good enough to get the win.

Fully agree. Some people will always say to play your first choice team but it's not only about resting players when you leave guys out, it's about keeping everyone happy and getting them some chances. You look at Hampshire and Eckersley and one played a couple of games and the other not at all. In the case of Hampshire he could've walked and I'm confident he would've got a starting shirt elsewhere (be that lower superleague or high up in the Championship) and Eckersley has been playing well out on loan, was seemingly promised a chance last year and then for one reason or another, he didn't get it.

Those two as a minimum should get the chance this week IMO and if we lose the game, it won't be because there wasn't enough talent on the field and will all be on the attitude not being right on the day. FWIW, I think we will rest a few and we'll be fine and will win the game by 18+ points.

Imagine junior will start on bench hopefully to replace one of isa or faz

I hope he does get the nod, looks robust enough despite his age and build.

Should we pick up a knock in the halves that will see someone out for a few weeks then Rocky steps in, but in a 1 off game with squad rotation the experience Farrimond will get will benefit the club more than giving Rocky the start.

I see the logic in that, but if it's a toss up between the two I'd still start Hampshire. Partially because like you say, he's the next cab off the rank if we pick up an injury and he's probably needs first team rugby than anyone else in the squad. But he's also had to be so patient for his chance to play, it'd be a real kick in the teeth for him to get overlooked for Farrimond now.

Hopefully we'll get a kind draw in the Challenge cup and they'll both get game time before Easter.

Due to the restricted minutes French/Field/Smith need to drop out from games and London is the first ideal opportunity. Not sure if Peet will gamble with a Hampshire/Farrimond partnership on Saturday but I’m certain at least one of them will get a starting slot. I’d be tempted to move French to FB and rest Field and Smith.

That hasn't started yet had it?

Quote: Jukesays "That hasn't started yet had it?'" Edit Just re-read some articles and one says 2024, the other mentions 2025 for tackle height but doesn't say anything about Time limits implementation date. Edit edit https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ex ... -from-2024 Looks like 2024, but also there's far more flexibility and common sense than I first thought

Quote: Jukesays "That hasn't started yet had it?'" Edit Just re-read some articles and one says 2024, the other mentions 2025 for tackle height but doesn't say anything about Time limits implementation date. Edit edit https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ex ... -from-2024 Looks like 2024, but also there's far more flexibility and common sense than I first thought

Looking at that article I think the normal injury/rests will cover most of that, particularly with the concussion protocols now in place. Forwards have less games but are generally out injured more. Young players have less games but are generally used sparingly anyway. Seems a quite sensible implementation to be fair. Not something we can often say where the RFL is involved

I see what you're saying Itchy but I think most forwards are rested/injured during the season anyway, particularly in the front row but Nsemba has already missed 3 games, Walters will have missed all his by the time he comes back, ditto Harvard, Byrne will have missed at least 2 and Leeming around 3 so most of those have already served their time, so to speak. Most front rowers only play half a game in terms of minutes anyway which won't get close to the maximum minutes and Isa will be spelled in the natural scheme of things. As you say, it may impact Farrell if we get to both finals but resting him would be no bad thing imo anyway to maximise his longevity and, we would need to do that anyway to give everyone sufficient game time.

Backs are a slightly different subject as they play more minutes per game and, generally speaking, suffer less injuries. That said, pretty much all of our back line have suffered time out to some degree during most seasons so it may be more a case of a little extra on top rather than thinking they would need to miss all the games due to the protocols. In addition, all of Hampshire, Farrimond, Eckersley and Jacobs would be expecting game time this year so you could argue it fits in well with the requirements of our current squad.

If they are now starting to count minutes then it's the perfect opportunity to drop the golden point farce. If it's a draw at full time, then it's a draw.

A great point.

I think the RFL's motivation is to be seen to be doing something to protect player welfare if/when the lawyers come knocking again.we have taken reasonable measures and have a process in place. Not saying this is perfect but good to see them making a start.

I wonder if we will see bigger benches - say a panel of 6/7 with the same number of interchanges, just a thought?

As for reducing the minutes, surely we all accept that SL would be better with fewer games? But of course, that's turkeys voting for Xmas for the clubs.

I wouldn't want us to be going too far in the direction of rugby union there!