Super Ben has been given a one match ban & will miss this Fridays game. He submitted an early guilty plea as did Lauaki who got two games ban.

According to the interview with Smith, Carvell and Higham will return this week. Bennie will be a loss but at least we will bring back some fire-power with Carvell.

We are following the one-in-one-out policy at the moment and seem to have been doing for a few games!

Thats a big loss given that we are already without Harrison and Solomona.

Dont really want to move Grix from Loose forward and Im not a big fan of Blythe at second row (not big enough). I wonder If Cooper (who has impressed me recently) could do a job at 2nd row. Or could Morley be asked to play there and have Carvell, Coops, Hill and Wood filling the prop roles.

Its going to be interesting to see what Smith does. Saints have a decent pack and are certain to come here with good heart after demolishing the redheads on Sunday.

Im expecting another cracker of a game.

Coops at second-row for me. Moz and Wood to start at prop with Carvell and Hill on the bench. Blythe can then interchange with the second-rows if needed.

Move Coops into the 2nd row, Moz & Gaz to start in the front row.
Woody and Matty B on the bench along with Mickey H & Hilly.

We will clearly miss Super Ben but Gaz Carvell returning frees up Coops to move to the 2nd row.

Or how about trying Chris Hill in the 2nd row

Hill in the second-row could be a good shout.

I think Smith will start Carvell off the bench though after a few weeks out.

Westwood is the heart and soul of our team and I think one of the very best players currently in SL. Big loss.

Once again, Lefty Goldblatt is expecting ALL swinging arms to the head to get an ban.
But, like an asthmatic, I wont be holding my breath.

And all leads with the forearm/elbow to be ignored

Agreed

Could work in our favour with Benny having a week off ready for Easter

Nice week off for Ben, totally unmerited but there you go.

I'm sure Blythe or Hill will make the most of the opportunity, two players with very good attitudes.

I'll be surprised if we don't shift Grix to right second row and play Cooper loose.

Wilkin will line up on the left edge for them so you can have a mobile backrower in that position, start with Grix and give Blythe a stint there (who's playing really well at the minute).

All that said, with Tony, it wouldn't shock me to turn up and Bridge be in the backrow.

How on earth can you say it's unmerited? His actions were clearly full of intent as he was lashing out in retaliation to something Lauaki had done. He closed his fist and put a swinging arm into his face, the danger of which was proven by his breaking the nose of Waterhouse. It should have been a red card really.

You can claim Lauaki should have been banned for his leading with the forearm, but that isn't relevant to the Westwood decision.

good lord

Get Stuffed...

Quote ="the ditch"Get Stuffed...'" Saddo is correct. That Lauaki one shouldn't even have been a penalty as shown by the disciplinary. Here's the proof. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3450 Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3451 Had it been worthy of a penalty it would have been mentioned. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3447 What I will say is that maybe leading with the forearm (to any part of the body) and the shoulder charge should be looked at by the RFL with a view to banning them from the game, but that is not today's ruling.

Quote ="the ditch"Get Stuffed...'" Saddo is correct. That Lauaki one shouldn't even have been a penalty as shown by the disciplinary. Here's the proof. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3450 Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3451 Had it been worthy of a penalty it would have been mentioned. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3447 What I will say is that maybe leading with the forearm (to any part of the body) and the shoulder charge should be looked at by the RFL with a view to banning them from the game, but that is not today's ruling.

Based on the determination of Lauaki's finding, can somebody explain how Bridge received a ban?

over to rogues...

He doesn't play for Wigan?

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Saddo is correct. That Lauaki one shouldn't even have been a penalty as shown by the disciplinary. Here's the proof. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3450 Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3451 Had it been worthy of a penalty it would have been mentioned. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3447 What I will say is that maybe leading with the forearm (to any part of the body) and the shoulder charge should be looked at by the RFL with a view to banning them from the game, but that is not today's ruling.'" You said Bridge should have been banned against Huddersfield. Why?

Quote ="Rogues Gallery"Saddo is correct. That Lauaki one shouldn't even have been a penalty as shown by the disciplinary. Here's the proof. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3450 Westwood www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3451 Had it been worthy of a penalty it would have been mentioned. www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?3447 What I will say is that maybe leading with the forearm (to any part of the body) and the shoulder charge should be looked at by the RFL with a view to banning them from the game, but that is not today's ruling.'" You said Bridge should have been banned against Huddersfield. Why?