Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

8,862 profile views

phiggins's Achievements



  1. Not sure missing Asiata will be a blessing, though I was hoping to see him start playing more as an extra prop, albeit a ball playing one, instead of an extra half back. Need to give Moylan and Lam more responsibility. Desperate for some pace in the back line though
  2. How many minutes will Trout be able to play, after such a long lay off? Struggle to understand how Hughes makes the 17, let alone the starting 13 regularly.
  3. Didn't have a problem with the idea of putting grubber kicks in behind in round 1. Found last season that Charnley's tries slowed down a bit as defences pushed up on our left hand side. The only issue is the vast majority of the kicks were poor. There might also be a case of too many cooks, with Moylan being more involved in the attacking play than Reynolds was, and Asiata still playing as first receiver. Big ask without Amone and Ipape tonight, though Amone was targetted and nullified pretty well in the same fixture towards the end of last season, and had a poor game against Hudds imo.
  4. I'd feel more comfortable if we had brought in the armpit height rule now, rather than have the current guidance which seems to be basically to be telling defenders to get out of the attacker's way. Even the tribunal conceded that the contact was the ball carrier onto Amone ("The result of this was the attackers head made contact with the jaw of Tom Amone, which in itself demonstrates that Tom Amone was in the wrong position.")
  5. Amone's charge was downgraded from a C to a B, and ban reduced from 2 to 1 matches. The tackle was, this year, a legal technique to wrap the ball, unfortunately the ball carriers head dipped at the point of collision. The clash of heads was minimal (if any frankly), and play went on without any issue. A ban seems pretty harsh to me.
  6. Penny for Ben McNamara’s thoughts on that one. Still desperately need some pace in the back line
  7. Another game that shows why the on field call needs to be removed from the video ref protocol. How the wardle try was given I will never know
  8. If the RFL, MRP or whoever stand by the red card then it could be very dangerous. Being sent from the field because of an accident, rather than foul play starts to edge the game towards a lottery rather than a sporting contest
  9. But do they want to decide on safety? Or do they want the chance to have an input on what some other impacts might be, and ask questions at an early stage. There will always be a balance of what level of risk is acceptable, and if you leave it purely to medics to decide then they could give a fairly extreme answer. If players are told that the number of collisions needs to be reduced then their suggested response could be to reduce the number of games played. If I were a player now, my two questions would be how can the RFL release a video of two defenders clashing heads and citing it as a good tackle, and is there any safety risks associated with playing with a man less more regularly
  10. Only a matter of time before a statement goes out saying they’ve asked to delay an appeal because Derek’s got the trots
  11. I do despair at Leigh’s comms at times. Didn’t even need to release anything. It’s deferred for a week while we don’t have a game. Who cares?!
  12. Makes sense, given injuries to Ipape and Mellor. Imagine Leigh are only looking at a short term loan though
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.