They should have had a bit more time, but given that the preferred half back pairing is supposed to be ratchford and Myler they needed time as well. I hope matty Russell comes in, grasps his chance and then allows us to have a settled half back pairing. I would suggest that pairing should depend on who fits in to the team the best over the coming weeks.

Can I ask...& this is an honest question...why is ratchford & myler the 1st choice halfback pairing, ratchford was playing fb last season, as the successor to hodgson. Tony smith signs russell & now ratchford is 1st choice halfback.
I would also of liked to seen how Gaz O'briens skills & decision making would of developed playing along side Briers for the past couple of years as Myler has had the pleasure of doing, instead of been sent out on loan to any team that needed a temporary halfback or at Swinton.

I don't know but given the fact that ratchford was given the number 6 shirt and Myler the 7 shirt I think it's fairly safe to assume that this is the pairing that tony smith felt would be our first choice. I think ratchford was signed to be briers long term replacement but because of his ability in other areas he got chances elsewhere in the meantime, whether he will make the 6 shirt his own remains to be seen but I have a feeling he will be given a good go at it this season. Sadly gob won't get the chance to play more games with briers now, but he can develop alongside other players if he gets a run which I don't think anyone can say he doesn't deserve given his performance last night. I think the halfback pairing is really up in the air but hopefully 2 of the 3 will make the positions their own over the coming games.

Spot on, some sense in among a lot of over-reaction. A very tough opening two matches for you and will no way be a pointer for the rest of the season. Now is the time for someone to step up to the plate and fill the boots of Briers. Enough potential quality players at the HJ for this to happen.

Briers was due to keep the 6 shirt, & ratchford 1 but was briers unexpected retirement TS had to make a quick decision. Unfortunately as you say 2 of the 3 will make the positions there own in the next few weeks....but it won't be on form. After the way warrington have treated Gaz O'brien he should get out of the warrington team at his earliest opportunity for the sake of his own career.

Ratchford, either in a Salford shirt or a Warrington shirt, has never consistently shown compelling evidence to suggest his long-term future is as a stand-off. He is a broken field runner, and a very dangerous one, so FB is is logical position and I've yet to see evidence of the organisational skills and kicking game required for stand-off.

As for Briers, he announced his retirement in November. TS had PLENTY of time to find a replacement but he showed his hand early and said we'll go with what we've got - time will tell if that was the right decision.

Shirt numbers were also given out November time, or do you mean a replacement from outside the team?

I've seen Ratchford at centre for Salford, he's a cracking centre, good hands, thinks, can draw a man perfectly. Everything Atkins isn't at the moment.

I meant from outside the team.

Evidence backing a scrapping of the squad numbers and return to who plays that position wins the shirt as long as his form merits.

The club had a few early warnings last season about Briers's neck problems & should have been ready for him finishing or at least playing a much reduced role within the team.

For me squad numbers means very little. I am suprised it seems to be GOB who seems to make way.

Anyway tonight we were better.
Hill excellent.
Waterhouse put in another terrific stint.
England didn't look out of place as an SL forward
Ormsby didn't let us down - only 1 gaff.
Joel did pretty well and took his try well.
Micky tried hard as always.
Westwood was pretty good.

Generally though we didn't deserve to win. Encouraging, but Myler needs to step up. Kicking game better but much improvement still needed.
I like GOB and think he deserves a chance.

I've not read every page but has anyone mentioned Leeds first try? That pass to Briscoe just before he kicked looked well forward on t.v.

yes rogues i put in the opening lost couldn't believe it was given linesman stood right in front of it. Really don't know what the f#ck they do in the game. I thought thaler had a decent game and of all the refs in sl he is best imo.

Look at the replay from the pitchside touchline cam and look at the trajectory of the ball as it leaves watkins hands. It wasn't a forward pass.

Warrington scored off a forward pass against wigan in 1963 so these things do even themselves out.

It's about time the rule on forward passes was made clear...never mind about the position of the passers hands or the non-existent momentum rule...If the ball travels forward it's a forward pass...Simple really. There are so many lines marked out on the pitch it's easy to see if the ball has a forward trajectory.

There would be a huge number of passes ruled forward under your rationale. There might not be a 'momentum rule' as such but momentum is very significant in judging these things. It would be a farce if it were ignored, and passes that looked backwards would be given forward!

I don't think we need any clarity on the rule: it's already clear.

Without wanting to start a "them and us" thread, did anyone else see the Pies get pulled up for two forward passes in quick succession on Saturday? Not often that happens. Was it down to having two referees on the field?

I must say that originally i thought the pass was forward but the touchline shot looked ok .

Agree with Brady there , why bring in all sorts of fanciful rule interpretations for the purpose of tv cameras when the game should be kept simple ?

Under your rules every pass made would be forward.

No, just the forward passes would be ruled forward. Which is the way it should be!

I think it would stop a lot of back biting between different sets of fans if forward passes were covered on video ref referrals. It's ridiculous that everything but forward passes are looked at ,but then we would need vr facilities at every game ,in an ideal world. Forward passes seem to be more common these days though because of the flat attack that teams & coaches seem to be obsessed with.

I think the easiest thing to do is to stop people who don't understand what a forward pass actually is from watching the game.

The idea that you would call every ball that moves forward in relation to the ground would turn our game in to an utter farce with no passing on the move at all. Other than that though it's a great idea.