A big game for both sides and one that both will be wanting to win to get some consistency, be important for us to perform again at home.

Not sure what side we will be able to put out but hopefully with a longer turnaround for this game we will be refreshed and ready to go with possibly a couple of returnee's available. Hopefully they can replicate the effort and intensity for 80mins like they did against Leeds and with the forwards again having the same numbers in terms of carries etc.

Spoke to Reynolds in town at weekend and he reckons he'll be back and ready to play in a coupe of weeks.

Hopefully the disciplinary will see sense in regards to Evans and be NFA and we will get no other bans.

For the first time in an age we are well stocked at prop. Even if Evans gets a ban or is injured our front row is still decent.

It'll be good to get Ma'u back. And hopefully Lane.

2 match ban for Evans.

(The description of Matt Prior's yellow card is identical to Evans', but he gets a 1 match ban.)

2 matches seems harsh, but probably expected with how the rulings are going

Do they take into account his NRL ban? As this is technically his first SL offence. So would've thought a 1 match ban would be correct?

Based on Cullens piece from Thursday its presumably due to Evans having form in the past year.

Although by the end of the year that distinction will be irrelevant as every single player will have form!

The collective numbers of games missed due to bans this year will be astronomical.

My team would be

Connor
Mitch
Wynne
Griffin
Swift
McNamara
Lovodua
Satae
Houghton
Sao
Ma'u
Lane
Brown

Fash
Bowden
Ma'u
Shaul

That's providing Wynne, Shaul and Lane are fit.

Really tough game, have a very strong side to Hudds, main some really good signings to add to some very good players and some exciting young players.

Sao back to prop to replace Evans and Ma'u in the second row, then. Hopefully Lane back in the squad replacing Cator.

Conner, Swift, Griffin, Wynne, Mitch
Lovodua, McNamara
Sao, Houghton, Satae, Savelio, Lane, Brown
Fash, Bowden, Ma'u. Can't decide on the last bench spot.

Easier said than done, but try and keep changes to a minimum.

Hudds look decent, but they've played bottom 4/6 teams at the start of the season, apart from Wigan who they lost against.

Good test for us. Let's hope we can start to see some consistency from us

Bit my tongue on the MRP situation, until now. It is becoming nothing short of embarrassing at this point.

I am all for player welfare etc, and Jesus, I could even tolerate the multiple sin bins you see every game now, but to then compound misery with banning a player for two matches, when essentially the attacker ran into Evans chest, is way, way over the top.

the harsh reality is, no matter how hard the RFL come down on players, high shots and late hits are going to happen in our game when 100KG, 6ft+ blokes are running into each other like wrecking balls. The game has moved on from the days of the biff. The vast majority of high tackles/late hits are purely accidental rather than purposely trying to take the other players head off.

The constant banning of the best players in the game is only going to do more harm than good for the sport.

In their effort to supposedly protect players they are systematically destroying the game. When current pro players are saying its stupid and many ex players then you would think the RFL would take some notice but oh no lets just plough on regardless.

For me what the RFL have done is go way beyond what was needed and made it a farcical situation which they keep adding too. ATEOTD in a physical aggressive contact sport there is and always will be an element of risk associated with it and you can not remove that as its part and parcel of the sport but the RFL are trying to just that and in doing so sanitising the game out of existence.

Difficult to assess this game until the squad is announced on Friday. Hopefully Satae will be fine and a few others are back.
Either way I really hope we see a continuation of the attitude from Thursday. I'm not sure we'll see exactly the same energy tbh as much like the Easter period its often the game afterwards where you see the effects.

Your expecting a 'double shift' from Ma'u on his return Dave.? He must have showed up well in training.

I am still in 2 minds about it. I can see what they are trying to do but its pretty ugly at the moment.
I think ultimately its about tackle technique and that isn't going to change overnight so we are going to continue to see the same cards and bans for awhile yet if they continue with this approach.

If only abit of common sense was applied.

The refs are too letter to the law, each incident is different you could have a blatant high tackle with nasty intent fair enough red/yellow card and a subsequent ban, no arguments

But there has got to be scope for common sense applied, if a tackle situation changes and a player slips into somebody, with the tackler not being able to change his stance, then this has to be recognised, especially after watching a replay 3 or 4 times, surely common sense comes Into play.

The panel should know better absolutely no excuses, it's not fit for purpose

If Mau is fit i hope the club rotate him sensibly and dont try and have him on the field for 80 mins.

Think the club should appeal this one.
The only difference is Prior went in as the second tackler but that shouldnt make a difference to the length of a ban.
I wonder if we will see Evans first team appearances into double figures this season?

Don't think an appeal would be wise or successful. Under the current rules if you have had a ban within the last year you automatically get the higher end of the grade. Given Evans' ban carried over into SL it follows that he has 'form' in the last year so he automatically gets 2 whereas Prior presumably doesn't and so gets the lower end.

Lets be honest the part of your post I've highlighted in bold is for me the biggest issue in that the RFL, Officials and the disciplinary panel seem devoid of any sense, common or otherwise.
Its seems from the interview with Moorhouse its agenda she is pushing through regardless of any collateral damage these heavy handed and ill thought out decisions are having on the game. There is an element of risk in any sport especially one that is founded on physical contact like RL. For Moorhouse to tell two ex players that played at a high level that the examples they used (in relation the points they raised) were not very good ones then said that Netball is a better example to use pretty much sums up all that is wrong within the organisation ruining sorry running the game.

How do they get these jobs?

What qualifys them, just incompetence at the top of the game

The issue is that the players are employees of the clubs.

It is clear that being beaten about the head causes long term brain injuries.

We can probably expect legal cases resulting in very large amounts of compensation being paid to damaged ex players.

If the games authorities and clubs are not seen to be taking very serious efforts to prevent head injuries then the game will find it impossible to get insured.

This would mean that the professional game simply stops.

No professional games, no clubs. All gone.

Hence they have no choice other than to crack down on contact with the head - accidental or deliberate contact does not change the nature of the damage.

Cotton wool brigade

If Lane is fit. I'd start Manu on the bench.

As you say ideally he won't play the full 80

Very well summed up. Hodgeson said we need insurance to play and that's the end of it. The discussion should be where do we go now. It's not clear what the sport will look like in a few years once the rules are settled on and the players get used to them. I'd imagine there will be a shed load more offloads for starters. Will it destroy the game? I'll still be going. What else am I gonna do with my time?

How do they get insurance for UFC, Boxing, MMA etc when that is a sport that is about hitting the head, whereas typically RL is accidental contact

I don't know - but it probably has something to do with the fact that they are all independant contractors, not employees.