As it's that time of the season I wondered what the general feeling was when it comes to clubs 'resting players' ahead of the play offs? Personally I think if a club has worked all season to put themselves in a strong position why shouldn't they rest whoever they want, they've earned the privilage.

It's an interesting one...

There was outrage when Millward sent his under-strength teams to Bradford to rest players, although when Tony Smith did it this season before Cup nobody really criticised it.

Players should only be included in SL squads if they are thought to be good enough to play at that level, and therefore I think a coach should be able to choose whoever he wants to play from that. Nothing wrong with rotation if the squad is big enough to do it

Happens in Soccer all the time.

You have a squad of players. You can pick who you like as far as I'm concerned. I don't see why RFL or anyone else can decide what is your best team to play in a game.

Resting players for particular fixtures can certainly be contentuous.
For instance, if Warrington rest some of their senior players this weekend and come unstuck against Widnes, although it wont affect Warrington or the teams at the top of the pile, it couild affect the winners of the wooden spoon and whilst there isn't any relegation in the current system, I'm sure that both Cas and London will want Warrington to win.
Having said that, the coaching staff at any club should be free to pick their own team.

Apart from over 80% of the Warrington "fans"...................(well at least for a week).

The argument that you have to register a squad is a winner. If it wasn't, then in effect the RFL would be saying "This is your first choice team, and nobody else in the squad can ever play, unless any first choice players are unfit".

Otherwise, if the RFL is NOT allowed to say who are the "first choice" players, then how can they say any team is a "weakened team"?

And then they would have to move on to the question of exactly how many of their deemed first choice players need to be rested before it became a punishable offence. Clearly not one. But why not? Still a "weakened team"?

And that doesn't even take into account that if necessary, a legitimate doctor's note could be produced to excuse just about ANY player, in ANY game.

And even that does not take into account that even if physically fit, a coach may judge that a player is mentally not right for selection in a given game (for example, overplayed, or jaded, or whatever) and need a break.

And none of that lot takes into account the main issue which is that it is (to me) 100% legitimate for a coach if he chooses to rest those players he thinks it will help, the game before a major match, or those he is not prepared to risk being injured. He wants to be able to play his best team, all fit and ready to play, in the big game and frankly, so does pretty much everybody else.

It's a shame the topic is about RL then eh.

Giants started resting their players in April.

There is a difference between the 2 examples. When Saints did it, IIRC you didn't have to name a squad prior to the game, so both Saints and Bradford fans turned up expecting a competitive Saints lineup. Now at least you know the vast majority of the squad before you travel to a game. Also I'd suggest, with all due respect to London, resting players v London is a different prospect than resting them v a very strong Bradford team. One could legitimately be seen as an attempt to rest players and rotate the squad, whereas the other is effectively forfeiting the game.
Having said that I think Smith rested too many. IIRC it was 8 he rested, if he'd just rested around 4 players I don't think anyone would be bothered.
I would also say that I think the Wire team put out v London was perfectly capable of beating London.

Very true. Unfortunately London did not follow the script and played very well that evening, some thing they have not been credited for.

Spot on, it was a great performance from London.