Sat 3rd Sept: SL: Hull FC v Hull Kingston Rovers KO 15:00

[John Drake]

Discuss Hull FC v Hull Kingston Rovers here.

[Old Frightful]

Aside from local bragging rights there is absolutely nowt riding on this as two teams who have suffered with injuries and lack of form look towards the end of season so they can regroup and rebuild for 2023.

So it must have been nice for Wigan and Saints to pretend theirs was the biggest derby last Friday.

 

[Father Ted]

Hull FC to win.

Wigan v Saints and they don't pretend anything. 

[Niels]

It's a shame it isn't on tv.

I thought the derby at Hull KR was one of the the best games of the season for intensity and atmosphere.

[Cw25]

Hull FC 24-22 Hull KR

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

HKR by 6.

[Ullman]

With neither team having enough players to name full first team squads recently, I did wonder how on earth the reserve team derby scheduled for Friday night could go ahead but Rovers have answered that question by conceding the fixture.

Or to put it more realistically, the reserve team game will now take place on Saturday at the MKM with a 3pm kick off.

[Chris22]

Hull KR running with 16 players on Saturday. Would hope some kind of emergency loan deals can be done.

[Ullman]

3 hours ago, Chris22 said:

Hull KR running with 16 players on Saturday. Would hope some kind of emergency loan deals can be done.

This piece on the Hull Daily Mail website suggests that they have players they could register for the game but the implications for the salary cap prevent them from doing so.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/hull-kr-injury-signing-transfers-7533544

[The Hallucinating Goose]

Well this is gonna be the last game I attend for a good while I think. If I can't afford to buy decent quality bog roll then I can't afford rugby league tickets either so let's just hope it's an enjoyable one, that's all I want from it, that I enjoy myself. 

[DimmestStar]

2 hours ago, Ullman said:

This piece on the Hull Daily Mail website suggests that they have players they could register for the game but the implications for the salary cap prevent them from doing so.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/hull-kr-injury-signing-transfers-7533544

Only the top 25 earners count on the salary cap so it's nothing to do with that.

RFL banning Sims for the final game of his career and insisting on 2 games for Jez Litten that hasn't helped.

[Ullman]

2 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

Only the top 25 earners count on the salary cap so it's nothing to do with that.

RFL banning Sims for the final game of his career and insisting on 2 games for Jez Litten that hasn't helped.

That begs the question, why not register the players mentioned in the article?

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

Only the top 25 earners count on the salary cap so it's nothing to do with that.

RFL banning Sims for the final game of his career and insisting on 2 games for Jez Litten that hasn't helped.

Or both Sims and Litten commiting fouls that are worthy of bans has contributed to the amateurish naming of only 16 players

[MZH]

Regardless of injuries and suspensions it's embarrassing that a top flight team can't name 17 players. Surely there's someone from the academy who can be registered to sit on the bench. He doesn't even need to actually play.

[Jughead]

Twenty seven rounds, hey? Just what we need. 

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

On 30/08/2022 at 20:07, Old Frightful said:

Aside from local bragging rights there is absolutely nowt riding on this as two teams who have suffered with injuries and lack of form look towards the end of season so they can regroup and rebuild for 2023.

If Wakefield beat Shudds it's possible for them to leap above the loser in the League Table.  Points difference permitting.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

14 hours ago, Ullman said:

That begs the question, why not register the players mentioned in the article?

Rovers clearly could name a 17 or 18 if necessary, but a few factors weigh against doing so >

- Any junior players outside our top 40 who haven't already been fast-tracked are part-time at best and certainly aren't physically ready for Super League, especially a Derby. Player welfare is a factor. Remember we've done that with two 17 year olds already so we do promote youth when safe and appropriate to do so.

- Sometimes clubs know that and name a full 18/17 anyway to tick the box, but only rotate 16 in the match, but...

- Rovers are taking the opportunity to make a very visible, public point to the RFL about their policies around player welfare, disciplinary common sense, and late loan registration in exceptional circumstances

The swivel-eyed loon minority of FC's mainly rational supporters will of course make hay with this, but I think it's in all clubs' interests that the RFL changes its approach, so if anything we're doing your club and everyone else a favour!

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

2 hours ago, MZH said:

Regardless of injuries and suspensions it's embarrassing that a top flight team can't name 17 players. Surely there's someone from the academy who can be registered to sit on the bench. He doesn't even need to actually play.

That's right, Rovers could have done that - but instead Maguire and Hudgell are making a very public point to the RFL, to embarrass them into change

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Hull Kingston Bronco
Typo

[FearTheVee]

48 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

That's right, Rovers could have done that - but instead Maguire and Hudgell are making a very public point to the RFL, to embarrass them into change

 

I'm not sure it embarrasses the RFL into change but it should probably embarrass your conditioning team and the players picking up bans despite knowing how low you are on numbers.

Injuries are part of the game but there must surely be something amiss when there are so many out across first team and reserve grades that you can cancel a reserve team fixture and still not name 17 players.  Player welfare isn't just the responsibility of fixture planners, what on earth is going on?

Edited September 2, 2022 by FearTheVee

[boris74]

Even odder given that Rovers have at least two loans players playing champ 1 who were recalled last week and this week in prep to play first team. Just let them play for their loan club if you have no intention of giving them a first team jersey.

Strange.

[ATLANTISMAN]

Could be the lowest attendance for a Hull derby for a while cannot see more than 12000 (Hope I am wrong:)

 

P

[Ullman]

3 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Rovers clearly could name a 17 or 18 if necessary, but a few factors weigh against doing so >

- Any junior players outside our top 40 who haven't already been fast-tracked are part-time at best and certainly aren't physically ready for Super League, especially a Derby. Player welfare is a factor. Remember we've done that with two 17 year olds already so we do promote youth when safe and appropriate to do so.

- Sometimes clubs know that and name a full 18/17 anyway to tick the box, but only rotate 16 in the match, but...

- Rovers are taking the opportunity to make a very visible, public point to the RFL about their policies around player welfare, disciplinary common sense, and late loan registration in exceptional circumstances

The swivel-eyed loon minority of FC's mainly rational supporters will of course make hay with this, but I think it's in all clubs' interests that the RFL changes its approach, so if anything we're doing your club and everyone else a favour!

 

Good answer, I think you're absolutely spot on that this is an attempt to make a point. Both clubs have in recent weeks resorted to fielding players who are not physically ready for this level. It's a serious welfare issue.

Naming 17 and only rotating 16 is also exactly what Hull did last week. Satae was on the bench but not fit to play.

[Ullman]

1 hour ago, ATLANTISMAN said:

Could be the lowest attendance for a Hull derby for a while cannot see more than 12000 (Hope I am wrong:)

 

P

That sounds a little on the pessimistic side. I can't see there being only 3,000 more than were there at the Toulouse game with zero fans in the away end.

[LeeF]

3 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Rovers clearly could name a 17 or 18 if necessary, but a few factors weigh against doing so >

- Any junior players outside our top 40 who haven't already been fast-tracked are part-time at best and certainly aren't physically ready for Super League, especially a Derby. Player welfare is a factor. Remember we've done that with two 17 year olds already so we do promote youth when safe and appropriate to do so.

- Sometimes clubs know that and name a full 18/17 anyway to tick the box, but only rotate 16 in the match, but...

- Rovers are taking the opportunity to make a very visible, public point to the RFL about their policies around player welfare, disciplinary common sense, and late loan registration in exceptional circumstances

The swivel-eyed loon minority of FC's mainly rational supporters will of course make hay with this, but I think it's in all clubs' interests that the RFL changes its approach, so if anything we're doing your club and everyone else a favour!

 

What exactly do you mean by the phrase in bold? If a player commits a foul that is worthy of a ban then they should be banned. No ifs no buts no special considerations

[LeeF]

3 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

That's right, Rovers could have done that - but instead Maguire and Hudgell are making a very public point to the RFL, to embarrass them into change

 

Why the RFL? Why not SL? What change are they looking to embarrass them into?

Have they considered the very amateurish impression they are giving to both current & potential future sponsors not just of KR but the game in general