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.

Grown adults can disagree without it being an argument.

No they bl**dy wont............................................oh, wait a minute

Bowen, Manfredi, Bateman, Thornley, Burgess, Green, Hampshire, Crosby, McIlorum, Dudson, Pettybourne, Clubb, O'Loughlin.

Not a bad side at all that, all of whom missed Sundays game.