i've just seen the Lees tackle on twitter for the 1st time. I agree that D is harsh, and that in this instance taking a broken ankle into account as a result of a high tackle is incorrect IMO. I've posted on this forum and the Warriors fans previously, that taking an injury outcome on a tackle is going down a dangerous route / precedent. I've seen high tackles (bad ones) where the player has just got up, cos they are hard as nails / hard head etc etc, but someone else has seemingly only been caught lightly but outcome far worse. with Cooper / Knowles, there is far more chance that the injury was as a result of the tackle than the Lees one at weekend, and in that instance, i can understand that it could be used when grading the discretion

I think we all know that some players, across all teams, play the game right on the edge, and at times, as you say, are a split second off with their timing. Unfortunately, given the current rulings, they either need to adapt, or accept that they are going to cop bans. I know as fans we want to see the star players on the pitch, but equally, given the pending court case, we also need to protect the players or another court case in a few years time could be the end of the game as RL aint flush with millions in the bank

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?

I’d be all in favour of a bigger bench, as a start increase to 6 but 2 of the 6 have to be under 21 at the start of the season.

I agree but it doesn't mean that there should be more substitutions, just a greater choice.

I've always believed that you should have eight players on the bench (substitutes) but but no interchanges, once a player is off he can't return unless it's a hia.
Allow six substitutions from those eight players. At least two of the players should be 21 or under at the start of the season and four should be home grown.