In extreme cases like the Saints v Bradford one, yes it was obvious that a weakened team was put out.

But how do you police this on a week to week basis? You mention submitting a preferred 17 to the RFL at the start of the season - I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. Things change over the course of a season, certain tactics/opposition require a certain personnel. Then there is form to be taken into consideration. You are suggesting that coaches effectively pre-pick their team for the entire season.

You are confusing two different issues.

We know who was injured which included Lockers but in my view given Wane said he wasn't resting players some of his selections were deliberate choices not forced on him.

The second issue is a general one about the fact Wane or any other coach could put what amounts to a reserve side in a game like that which according to Jonh has secured Wakey's SL status.

That is just not on in my view now we have P&R back.

If it happened in a crucial game soccer there would be a national outcry as there was when Chelsea threatened to hand Liverpool the match by resting players in the run in to this years Premiership. They didn't and won 2-0 which was a key result in deciding the title.

I had a very uneasy feeling about the game yesterday when I turned up and saw the team. None of the following -

Bowen/Hampshire/Burgess/Manfredi/Green/Thornley/Clubb/Pettybourne/Crosby/Dudson/McIlorum/Bateman/O'Loughlin - that's 13, have I missed anyone?

This is an injury list of Biblical proportions. Never thought I'd see Jack Murphy in a first team shirt again, though I thought he did well. The pack was out fought and the play the ball desperately slow. MMc, Lockers and Green were badly missed.

The decision to go to Sydney for the WCC continues to affect the season. Our catch up game on Wednesday cost us two points yesterday as the Wakey coach admitted.

We may well lose Faz for Friday to add to that little lot.

Why?


No I am not. Not in the slightest.

None of these problems you are dreaming up prevented us as a sport having and enforcing the old rule prior to it being changed. It doesn't prevent soccer applying the same rule and actively abiding by it. A team involved in a relegation match or involved in a crucial game would not get away with sticking a reserve side out in soccer without good reason.

As I said the rule was never designed to stop teams from resting the odd player or for that matter giving debuts to new players but it was there to prevent the abuse of the section process in crucial games.

Policing it is easier than you seem think because believe it or not a little bit of common sense goes along way with things like this. Everyone classes that side we put out at Wakefield as a virtual reserve side. Under the old system Wane would have had to explain his selection and if required submit his injured players to examination because the RFL are also capable of spotting that was a very inexperienced side.

But who do you think should have played who didn't then? Other than Murphy the 13 players who started were all established first team players, the bench was weak but it's bound to be when we have so many injuries in the forwards. There was no reserve team fielded and there were no changes for the sake of changes. We had a bad day at the office and Wakefield's 9 day turnaround compared to our 4 day one proved too much, simple as that.

I can't decide if you are being deliberately obtuse. I have explained in my post why it is ridiculous.



Again, you are being extremely unrealistic. If a coach wanted to pull a player out of the squad the day of the game due to a slight injury, and that injury had cleared up by the time the RFL doctor appeared, then how do you prove if this was genuine? Or do you expect a RFL doctor on call at every game?

It's one thing having a rule that states coaches musn't openly take the mick, but to have a rule that includes pre-picking your strongest 17 would never work. Nor would it work to have a rule that states "coaches must pick their strongest 17 at all times" because form and natural squad rotation wouldn't allow this.

I think you are being very naive.

Some people will argue about anything.

Picked from an earlier post by Aboveusonlypie

"Bowen/Hampshire/Burgess/Manfredi/Green/Thornley/Clubb/Pettybourne/Crosby/Dudson/McIlorum/Bateman/O'Loughlin - that's 13, have I missed anyone?"

Thought I'd highlight the ones in RED which were injured.
I think that answers the question?
Didn't highlight Dudson as although I was told he was out he did warm up with the team (IIRC)?
So not sure which players he didn't "Select" that could have changed his line up yesterday?
Dudson? But as I say there was a doubt about him anyway?

Tierney?

Played for Workington in their win v Featherstone on Sunday.

just seen the highlights, From the 15 minutes it seems James was complete turd, Goulding and Smith are very week in defence when not switched on. Gelling is by far the best centre we have.

Goulding is simply not up to it anymore

He doesn't look in the same physical condition as last year more like pre 2010.

Oh dear ....hope some of you had the hot dogs to try and forget about the defeat?

You now can see why Wane has signed Tautai for next season.