agree with Reardon switching with Halley may well work better and thats what I personally would have gone with but just cant see it happening on the day. I am by no means Worrincy's biggest fan at all but the last few games has been playing much better and think he deserves the spot over Donaldson

To be honest Dave seems to have lost a bit of pace to me. That acceleration he had seems to have gone. Maybe he's been doing weights a bit more to bulk up, I don't know, but he's not had the zip that characterised his play all season imo.

Quote ="mat"don't see why Reardon would be seen as an error risk at FB. He never had any issues there in his first stint with us or at wire afaik. We've tried him on wing and he hasnt really impressed as yet so I'd be perfectly happy to give him a shot at FB on friday. Halleys settling nicely on the wing and developing an understanding with Nero, which Reardon hasn't shown signs of so far, so I wouldnt disrupt that. Did anyone else here soundbite with macca on radio leeds on 4.30 sports news?. He said both Langley AND Orford are facing late fitness tests for wakey game. This was a couple of hours after squad was announced without Orford. whats going on? are we going to drive a horse and cart through squad declaration system like leeds did at easter and play Orford without him being named in squad? Only explanation I can think of is that both Langley and Orford have genuine injuries which we could use them to withdraw them from squad. So we've named one in squad and then we do a late fitness test and if Orford passes we withdraw Langley from squad and replace him with Orford. If Orford fails we play Langley. Obviously if both fail then we draw squad from other 18 named. Slightly devious way of being able to potentially choose 1 of 2 doubtful players but still naming 18 fit players in squad if that is the plan. The positive is if Orford is facing a late fitness test this week then he should be back for leeds next ">week.'" Not too sure about the wording of the rule, but wasn't the 19 man squad brought in to prevent stars being [iremoved[/i from the squad and not to stop them[i returning[/i? I'd suspect there is some way of allowing for last minute fitness tests built into the sytem in any case, hence the case of the Leeds players at Easter.

Quote ="mat"don't see why Reardon would be seen as an error risk at FB. He never had any issues there in his first stint with us or at wire afaik. We've tried him on wing and he hasnt really impressed as yet so I'd be perfectly happy to give him a shot at FB on friday. Halleys settling nicely on the wing and developing an understanding with Nero, which Reardon hasn't shown signs of so far, so I wouldnt disrupt that. Did anyone else here soundbite with macca on radio leeds on 4.30 sports news?. He said both Langley AND Orford are facing late fitness tests for wakey game. This was a couple of hours after squad was announced without Orford. whats going on? are we going to drive a horse and cart through squad declaration system like leeds did at easter and play Orford without him being named in squad? Only explanation I can think of is that both Langley and Orford have genuine injuries which we could use them to withdraw them from squad. So we've named one in squad and then we do a late fitness test and if Orford passes we withdraw Langley from squad and replace him with Orford. If Orford fails we play Langley. Obviously if both fail then we draw squad from other 18 named. Slightly devious way of being able to potentially choose 1 of 2 doubtful players but still naming 18 fit players in squad if that is the plan. The positive is if Orford is facing a late fitness test this week then he should be back for leeds next ">week.'" Not too sure about the wording of the rule, but wasn't the 19 man squad brought in to prevent stars being [iremoved[/i from the squad and not to stop them[i returning[/i? I'd suspect there is some way of allowing for last minute fitness tests built into the sytem in any case, hence the case of the Leeds players at Easter.

Quote ="Bulliac"Not too sure about the wording of the rule, but wasn't the 19 man squad brought in to prevent stars being [iremoved[/i from the squad and not to stop them[i returning[/i? I'd suspect there is some way of allowing for last minute fitness tests built into the sytem in any case, hence the case of the Leeds players at ">Easter.'" last minute injury withdrawal is allowed provided there is a genuine injury in the 19 man squad. Leeds didnt even bother going through pretense and just dropped one of their kids and put lee smith in. Sadler had an article about it following week in league express. RFL response was that Leeds hadnt been told about the ruling - strange how other 13 clubs and majority of fans were fully aware of it icon_rolleyes.gif" alt="icon_rolleyes.gif" title="Rolling Eyes" /> we did it correctly for hull kr game where worrincy wasnt named in 19 man squad but was brought in to replace langley when he withdrew injured.

Quote ="Bulliac"Not too sure about the wording of the rule, but wasn't the 19 man squad brought in to prevent stars being [iremoved[/i from the squad and not to stop them[i returning[/i? I'd suspect there is some way of allowing for last minute fitness tests built into the sytem in any case, hence the case of the Leeds players at ">Easter.'" last minute injury withdrawal is allowed provided there is a genuine injury in the 19 man squad. Leeds didnt even bother going through pretense and just dropped one of their kids and put lee smith in. Sadler had an article about it following week in league express. RFL response was that Leeds hadnt been told about the ruling - strange how other 13 clubs and majority of fans were fully aware of it icon_rolleyes.gif" alt="icon_rolleyes.gif" title="Rolling Eyes" /> we did it correctly for hull kr game where worrincy wasnt named in 19 man squad but was brought in to replace langley when he withdrew injured.

As I said at the time, it's a tactic many teams have used on more than one occasion. If you think a star is potentially returning and don't want the opposition to know until late, you purposely name someone in your 19 who is injured. That way you can withdraw them to replace them with the returning player.



Not in the spirit, but perfectly within the rules and something I know Leeds & Saints have exploited before and I'm pretty sure a few other sides have too.

Quote ="DILLIGAF"As I said at the time, it's a tactic many teams have used on more than one occasion. If you think a star is potentially returning and don't want the opposition to know until late, you purposely name someone in your 19 who is injured. That way you can withdraw them to replace them with the returning player. Not in the spirit, but perfectly within the rules and something I know Leeds & Saints have exploited before and I'm pretty sure a few other sides have ">too.'" whilst against the spirit of the ruling I don't have a real problem with that. But at easter Leeds didnt even go through the motions of withdrawing an 'injured' player, they just dropped one of there youngsters and put smith in and RFL turned a blind eye and came out with the feeble excuse that leeds hadnt been informed of the ruling. much too cosy a relationship between headingley and red hall imo.

Quote ="DILLIGAF"As I said at the time, it's a tactic many teams have used on more than one occasion. If you think a star is potentially returning and don't want the opposition to know until late, you purposely name someone in your 19 who is injured. That way you can withdraw them to replace them with the returning player. Not in the spirit, but perfectly within the rules and something I know Leeds & Saints have exploited before and I'm pretty sure a few other sides have ">too.'" whilst against the spirit of the ruling I don't have a real problem with that. But at easter Leeds didnt even go through the motions of withdrawing an 'injured' player, they just dropped one of there youngsters and put smith in and RFL turned a blind eye and came out with the feeble excuse that leeds hadnt been informed of the ruling. much too cosy a relationship between headingley and red hall imo.