I thought that at first but the Official report says all 3 players can serve their bans in the reserve final.

Surely you would have had to play in a previous round to be eligible for a final?

He has had a couple that were harsh to be fair to him. But I reckon if it is true that only one player can serve it, French would be the one, I agree we can win it without French but Ellis missing out means we could move KPP into the middle where I think he’s his strongest, and we may even have Havard and/or Isa back so it’s not all so bad.

What if you have injuries and only other option is to play someone who hasn’t played all year?

Which report?

It’s a joke, but I don’t blame Wigan in the least. I’d want Rovers to do exactly the same if they were in this situation.

Nobody at the RFL ever seems to ask ‘what if…?’.

It’s almost worth clubs employing professional loophole specialists.

Yeh I get what you’re saying and I’m not having a pop it just seems mental that for arguments sake you’ve obviously earned the right for a week off but if matty peet decides he doesn’t want them to have the week off you could field your full 1st team in the reserves cup final

But Wigan haven't done anything to exploit a 'loophole'. Come the playoff, the players are free to play. It's not as if Wigan have put in an application. Fans can complain but they can only complain at the system unless they're suggesting Wigan shouldn't pick players who are available to play.

The loophole has avoided any need for this to be called out but the Wigan Way Twitter account made a great point. If you finish places 1-2 and get a one game ban in the last weekly round, your player will miss a semi final because you don’t have an extra game to use it in. Teams finishing positions 3-6, would have their players available for a semi final because they have to play an extra fixture. It’s borderline punishing teams for playing well enough to finish top 2 and getting a week off. This ridiculous loophole needs closing but I also think that needs looking at. If your top 2 and get the week off, they should count that week as a game towards your ban IMO.

In short, it’s only fair the 3 lads will be available!

Let's have it right; its NOT a loophole, it's simply the rules. Been the same way since reserves were introduced, and we're far from the first to benefit from it. A perk of running a reserve team I suppose...maybe more should do it?

I meant ‘loophole’ in the sense of an inadequacy in the rules rather than something that is outside the rules.

I sought to indicate that I don’t blame Wigan by explicitly saying I don’t blame Wigan.

Just so we have it right.

Looks like my info was wrong

I fully expect the RFL will decide that none of them can use it for their bans as using the game would be against the spirit of the disciplinary process

I think it's the other way around - Each player can only count 1 reserve fixture against his ban.

And they don't need to be included in the 21, as a banned player would not be named in the squad - Same as for a normal 1st team game. The coach doesn't have to leave himself short of a player in the squad, he just doesn't get to choose him for inclusion.

He did it twice if I remember correctly, what suspension did he get for the other? What about Makinson?

Flashbacks to Wigan going against the 'spirit' of the salary cap in 2006...

Why?

What game did Makinson do it in ?
Don't remember LMS doing it again

This was sent to me earlier before the Bans were given

Law 15.1 Deliberate or reckless physical contact with a match official ( eg placing hand on arm to attract attention)

Last season McCarthy-Scarsbrook (August and September) and Makinson (September) were charged with this offence. LMS escaped a ban for the first offence and received one match for the second. Makinson was cautioned.

Thank you Jukesays, that has saved me some work. All this about Wigan being treated leniently is a figment of some people’s imagination.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ev ... an-in-2023 I’m pretty sure there’s a large number of occasions that pre season friendlies have been used too

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ev ... an-in-2023 I’m pretty sure there’s a large number of occasions that pre season friendlies have been used too

By whom?

If we’re talking about leniency. Remember when Abdull got banned for 8 matches for a squirrel grip when Makinson got 5. Now I’m not sure how that could be ruled any different regardless to passed disciplinary actions

He's noted elsewhere that his info was incorrect Rogues.

The whole situation is simply bringing out a lot of peoples hatred to all things Wigan. Reading about various social media platforms and forums, the common line is that Wigan are wrong for 'using a loophole' but these same people haven't mentioned this in the past, when other clubs have benefitted from it. People are also going on about Wigan finding a loophole as though they've filled in some sort of application form or sent an email to the top brass stating they should serve the bans in the reserves. The only way Wigan couldn't benefit from it is if they said themselves 'no, we don't agree with them using it in the reserves and will stand them down from the semi final' and as everyone knows, Wigan and every other club on the planet would not do that. It's the journo's like John Davidson that jump all over it and fail to mention this isn't a new thing or a Wigan thing that annoy me the most.

Think League Express have now put a article out about how many times SL clubs have used it