I'd like to think Thompson will be fine.

Don't be so ri... Actually this is the rfl were talking about, who can tell.

He shouldn't though, there's nothing in it, beyond Phil Clarke supporting whoever Saints play. I actually thought the Washbrook high shot on Wilkin was a lot worse than the Wilkin highshot on Washbrook ... Was flat on, first contact with the head and a swinging arm ... But no doubt that's not what sky want...

He just isn't good enough and when he came on he did nothing. So I stand by KC's decision.

What where the injuries to Lomax and Percival.

Lomax looked like knee and Percy lower leg. Percy looked like broken leg at first.

I thought the same after the first reply. Looked like it bent the wrong way.

But he was playing hooker when he came on, which isn't playing half back is it. Wello, bless him, touched the ball once all night that I saw. Can't wait to see his stats, particularly his missed tackles as he was falling about all over the place.

Hohaia should have played at stand off. When Lomax went off it was simple, Wello to fullback, Lance to 6. Instead we had all sorts going on, Makinson back to fullback, LMS to centre. It was bizarre.

Wakefield are going to cop some almighty hammerings this season. They are woeful. We need to sort the 1,6,7 positions though. Are there seriously no kids in the academy able to step into those positions? We cannot replace Lomax, presuming he's out for several weeks, with Wellens, he simply isn't up to it. His defending is embarrassing now. He could have been sent off when he got stepped and he got sat on his backside by a few forwards outpacing and stepping him. There must be an academy winger, fullback or half able to step in now?

Knee ligaments for Lomax and I'd say ankle for Percival. He seemed to have the foot in a protective boot and nothing on the knee when he hobbled across the pitch didn't he?

Roby was carrying an injury and has been for some time I believe. Hohaia had to move there and Roby looked like he was defending in the HB position

But why did he wait so long to bring him on?

I think I heard Ray French said twisted ankle for Percival, don,t know about Lomax. Looks as though Dawson and Jones is in for next week, maybe Swift or Makinson or Wellens at full back.

As I said 2 days ago:


The sponsor is one of the coaches sponsors.

The problem is he doesn't want to play and KC doesn't want him to play,,,,, unless its the last resort (after the club dog)

Roby was carrying that arm for the last 20 mins against Cas last week.

I was told he is struggling with his hand/wrist. Don't know how true that is though.

Cunningham nearly let it slip in the interview at the end too! Managed to stop himself

Its after this inglorious win and a good 2 points after which that the coach has to really earn his coin with these injuries.

Good job it was Wakey, christ they were awful

Incorrect.

He was in the vicinity of the Wakey player attempting to catch it. Regardless of whether the Wakey player actually caught it or touched it, Turner's close presence is deemed to have effected play/player.

Yes, I must admit I thought we were a little lucky with that one.

Marginal call. It only the boot of the kick he has to be level with. I'd have given it offside on first viewing. Butt. In footy they can draw lines across. Maybe we should do the same. Clear it up a bit.

I thought the Turner try decision was fair. It's true you have to be further than ten metres from the receiver when he touches it, if you start from an offside position. However, that's ten metres in a circle with the centre of that circle being the receiving player. In other words, the offside player must be at least ten metres in any direction. So when a man collects the ball, as soon as he's run 10m in any direction -sideways and backwards too - he is onside and can be tackled.

So Turner didn't have to be 10m further down the pitch. He just had to be 10m away from the catcher. As he was off to one side, the distance between him and the catcher was greater than 10m. Hence he was not penalised for offside even though he'd started in front of the kicker.

Then, of course, the wakey player touched the ball and lost possession, at which point everyone is instantly inside no matter where they started from.

It was strange with lance. But hey we won and burns will be back to steady the ship.

I've been one of the few thats stood up for lance in his stint here but last night he was poor. We lost all direction when he went to 9. He looked like a player that didn't know our plays at all which I know isht true. He was passing to wrong players, went wrong side , threw some murder balls and even passed to greenwood on 5th!

I understand he will be rusty but looked totally lost last night.

Brinkmanship? That's a big suggestion.
However the number of wrong calls seemed something beyond rust.
The Sister Duffy Pass to Flanagan set the tone.

Best outcome is loaning him out if talk of him packing up at season end
and going to the States is true (NRL not an option).

Otherwise you come to an agreement on inclusion and game time
, isolate him make him train alone and give him every job his contract covers,
or pay him up.

Those are your choices

Very very harsh!

Lance was good last year and decent the year before. You need to remember, we signed him as a fullback to play 6! He played 6 with no out and out 7 so he struggled. He's also played 9 few times which he's been ok in the past but can't expect him just to play these roles like a veteran.

He needs more game time and Roby needs more rest or we will burn him out again. I think it's common sense to give lance more game time.

Don't forget, lance won us the grand final

I'm not the one who needs convincing.

There is definitely something between him and the coaching staff.
Passed over for bit part second rows and kept on the bench
as an absolute last resort. Matched by him having amnesia over patterns of play.
Think both parties need to take a moment.


Definitely a need for a second hooker running roby into the ground is folly.
This is not just a Lance thing, the reluctance to blood any youngster at 9
(Charnock etc) follows the same pattern.