Craig Hall is showing real promise at off-half but does the forum think this switch malarkey is over complicated (at 6 when we have the ball, at 2 when defending)?

I'm sceptical, tbh, but happy to be proved wrong (I'm happy quite often).

I thought it worked well. Hall is not the best defender, so it makes some sense to switch it depending on defence or attack.

Don't think it's as complex as it appears. Jack Gibson was doing a similar thing 30 years ago with Peter Sterling. Only the 1st tackle transition may be an issue. Hall seems to have a bit of a roaving commission when we have the ball & it suits him, still a bit uneasy about Lovegrove on the wing though, can see this costing us some tries.

I dont think that it is particularly complicated and it wouldnt bother me if it were to continue but i do have a couple of concerns.
Firstly i think that Lovegroves absence from the back row is putting to much pressure on Mika and Horne. They were out on their feet on friday night and we need an interchange option for them.
Secondly, are we employing the switch because Sandercock doesnt trust Halls defence or because he doesnt think Johnson and Latus are good enough to play on our right wing? If it is the latter we will have issues if we pick up injuries on the wings.

switch malarkey. I thought you'd made another overseas signing when I saw the topic.

Kurt Gidley has been doing it for years.
Usually plays fullback in defence where he does very little work and stays fresh, and moves to 5/8 in attack or sometimes even dummy half.
We have even named the position - rover.
Jarrod Hayne does it too.

Cant be as bad as having Dean Andrews on the wing

He might have been picked on the wing but in his mind that obviously translated to second row.

I'll see your Dean Andrews & raise you a Frank Parker

Remember having 8-9 props on the field vs Oldham, pretty sure Paul Fletcher & Rich Wilson were our wingers that day