 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Junior Player | 25 | Wigan Warriors |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2023 | 1 year | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote Jukesays="Jukesays"Oh I absolutely do understand your point, I just think (and if I'm honest know) your wrong
It's like closing your eyes, swinging your arms and then saying oh I didnt mean knock his head off. Yes he didn't mean it, but he did things that risk injuring the other players with bad technique
Rightly or wrongly the rules are now head to head contact must be avoided so its incumbent on the tackler to keep his head away from the ball carrier, and if you go head on face to face upright with your head in the path if the attacker you risk getting pulled/penalised/fined/banned for it
If Coopers head had caught his head in a way that concussed/injured the ball carrier then he'd have seen red imo (or at least banned on review) and under the current rules it would be fair, the fact it was the other way round is incidental and doesnt matter cooper was the one injured.'"
Respectfully, I think you're the one comparing apples and oranges now  I know you've not done so maliciously, but you're making a strawman argument right now.
A careless and reckless tackle should be punished, absolutely. However, most genuine accidental head clashes should not be penalised as both the runner and tackler have a responsibility to ensure their heads don't whack into each other. Mulhern is running hard and Cooper is sliding to close the gap, it's unfortunate but a few miscalculations cause a headclash. It happens. I also don't dispute the ruling, but the new rules are just awful and I don't know any rugby fan that does like them.
I don't believe we'll come to an agreement on this so we'll just agree to disagree. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 15881 | Wigan Warriors |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Does this potential new rule have salary cap implications? If the RFL are determining how many minutes players can play then that would suggest clubs need bigger squads to cope with players missing games...
| | | |
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Academy Player | 251 | Wigan Warriors |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2023 | 2 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Jukesays[Gareth]:
Does this potential new rule have salary cap implications? If the RFL are determining how many minutes players can play then that would suggest clubs need bigger squads to cope with players missing games... Cant remember if it was on here or Warriors fans but someone had suggested increasing the subs bench, which is a reasonable suggestion, but that would clearly benefit Wigan for example who run a bigger squad than most, and thats not necessarily including the young talent we could bring through however, if running a bigger bench / squad, that would surely lead to calls for the cap to be increased or other clubs saying its not a level playing field as they cant afford it all in all, a farce, and for me stick with how it is now, and let the clubs manage it | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 8202 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I mentioned a larger bench from four to eight. In that clubs have to name a squad of 21 reduced to 17 an hour before KO. It may benefit Wigan in the larger picture but each of the 12 SL clubs has to name 21 for a game. In soccer they have a bench of around eight Union the same. Our bench of 4 in out of date, needs modifying and this is the opportunity.
Clubs like us Saints and Leeds will have the advantage due to current work in the youth sector. All three clubs have the four tier set up with Scholarship, Academy, Reserves and First Team. Other teams are now going along with the four tier but it needs to be a requirement in the new 14 team Super League.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Academy Player | 251 | Wigan Warriors |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2023 | 2 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| JukesaysFather Ted:
I mentioned a larger bench from four to eight. In that clubs have to name a squad of 21 reduced to 17 an hour before KO. It may benefit Wigan in the larger picture but each of the 12 SL clubs has to name 21 for a game. In soccer they have a bench of around eight Union the same. Our bench of 4 in out of date, needs modifying and this is the opportunity.
Clubs like us Saints and Leeds will have the advantage due to current work in the youth sector. All three clubs have the four tier set up with Scholarship, Academy, Reserves and First Team. Other teams are now going along with the four tier but it needs to be a requirement in the new 14 team Super League.
i think its a fair suggestion and one that should definitely be considered, if the minutes rule does get implemented, but i also think there would be opposition to it. If i take our current pack we could have Havard, O'Neill, Thompson, Faz, Junior and Ellis starting, with Walters, Mago, Dupree, Byrne, Hill, Leeming, Eckersley & Farrimond on the bench, thats pretty impressive, and thats before we get to the upcoming youngsters. Another slightly different slant to it, and it falls into the suggestion you make about all clubs having scholarship, academy, reserves and 1st team (which i completely agree with and have aired my view on this in relation to the IMG gradings) is that in that bench of 8 you need to have at least x homegrown players which is promoting clubs to develop their own players. The other part to having 8 is how many can be used whether that be number of interchanges / number of the 8 that can be used, but all good points for a discussion | | | |
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| First Team Player | 183 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Nov 2021 | 4 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Jukesays Mark_P1973:JukesaysFather Ted:
I mentioned a larger bench from four to eight. In that clubs have to name a squad of 21 reduced to 17 an hour before KO. It may benefit Wigan in the larger picture but each of the 12 SL clubs has to name 21 for a game. In soccer they have a bench of around eight Union the same. Our bench of 4 in out of date, needs modifying and this is the opportunity.
Clubs like us Saints and Leeds will have the advantage due to current work in the youth sector. All three clubs have the four tier set up with Scholarship, Academy, Reserves and First Team. Other teams are now going along with the four tier but it needs to be a requirement in the new 14 team Super League.
i think its a fair suggestion and one that should definitely be considered, if the minutes rule does get implemented, but i also think there would be opposition to it. If i take our current pack we could have Havard, O'Neill, Thompson, Faz, Junior and Ellis starting, with Walters, Mago, Dupree, Byrne, Hill, Leeming, Eckersley & Farrimond on the bench, thats pretty impressive, and thats before we get to the upcoming youngsters. Another slightly different slant to it, and it falls into the suggestion you make about all clubs having scholarship, academy, reserves and 1st team (which i completely agree with and have aired my view on this in relation to the IMG gradings) is that in that bench of 8 you need to have at least x homegrown players which is promoting clubs to develop their own players. The other part to having 8 is how many can be used whether that be number of interchanges / number of the 8 that can be used, but all good points for a discussion Yeh, I think a bigger bench could have merit. It would give more tactical variation to the game and make it easier to bring youngsters on. I do get the argument that it would benefit "bigger" clubs more, I don't necessarily agree with that but its worth a trial or a discussion at least? | | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
|
| POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD |
|---|
| 19.67M | 1,551 | 80,283 | 14,103 |
|
