That hasn't started yet had it?

Jukesays wrote: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

Jukesays wrote: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

If we are successful in all competitions then we could play up to 34 games so for all the backs who normally play the full 80 minutes unless there are injuries they will have to be rested for 4 games or potentially carryover a game if we make the GF. Obviously I’m hoping for no injuries but but with a bit of luck it’s feasible that the likes of Smith, Field and French would have to “miss” 3 or 4 games unless we start “spelling” them. Effectively the players who the crowds want to see won’t be available unless they are injured, once every 10 games.
Farrell virtually always plays the full 80 minutes so barring injuries/suspensions he could have to “miss” up to 9 games which could be over a quarter of the season. Obviously when Walters and Nsemba are fully fit one of them can spell Farrell and possibly Isa but effectively Farrell an 80 minute regular will only play for 75% of game time unless he’s injured or suspended. That will have a major impact on us.

As per the other changes my worry is that if there are no reductions in head injuries then the natural next step would be to reduce the maximum minutes per season. Could be a very slippery slope.

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!

Quite a few changes might back fire but in Peet we trust