It's no laughing matter, after wembley Hull will be in free fall

Care to elaborate on which bit was funny?

But it cant sing and dance and it cant walk

But it cant sing and dance and it cant walk

Correct, but it wins you nowt. Our position with 3 rounds to go reflects our level over the season IMO and we've much less chance of winning successive games against 4 teams above us than sneaking a result in a one-off game. Why do you think Wigan didn't risk key players vs Hudds - cup is too important at this point.

Could be irrelevant anyway if we're docked 2 points for fielding 14 players, would cancel out what we achieved today and lost Lineham too. The cup would be even more the basket in which our eggs are put. But we're an egg short.

Neither can Lineham after today. Personally I wouldn't want him he cant catch a cold the poor lad

Why would we be docked 2 points?

See Salford for details. Although both players were involved in tackles in that instance.

???

Quote ="heard1989"???'" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22902724

Quote ="heard1989"???'" www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/22902724

Didn't they appeal it?

Weren't they handed with a fine first?

Wigan probably still thought they could win, and are already mathematically safe in the top 4. You were talking about giving up 2 points for one players to not get injured whilst we're sitting in 8th and 2 of our last 3 games are against teams above us. I don't think that's the same.

Giving up on the league for a cup final is the kind of approach we had under the last regime and it's small time thinking IMO. We're supposed to want to be taken seriously, which means aiming to compete in both competitions for as long as it's still a possibility.

How does this reflect us though?

Just watched the incident back. Pitts in on the field for 15 seconds before Lineham goes off. During that time Lineham is 20 metres behind play with the physio and has no involvement at all.

I would be amazed if we hear anything about it and tbh if it's Rovers who have raised the issue then its very petty and very poor sportsmanship.

Yes, initially fined £10k. Appeal saw £5k and two points. Don't know if this constitutes a precedent or hopefully each case assessed on own merits. Theirs was for a longer period with both players involved. RFL investigating a complaint by the opposition in our case.

Plus the scoreline is 18 points not 4, and as previous poster said he had no involvement and eventually went off with the physio.

Can remember the time St Helens had 14 men on for a minute plus.

Quote ="Mr. Zucchini Head"Just watched the incident back. Pitts in on the field for 15 seconds before Lineham goes off. During that time Lineham is 20 metres behind play with the physio and has no involvement at all. I would be amazed if we hear anything about it and tbh if it's Rovers who have raised the issue then its very petty and very poor sportsmanship.'" You'll find it's a journalist who's mentioned it 1st. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... eport.html Can't see Hull been docked points but I'm sure you'll be fined simply because the player who replaced Lineham should never have been on the pitch to make the tackle.

Quote ="Mr. Zucchini Head"Just watched the incident back. Pitts in on the field for 15 seconds before Lineham goes off. During that time Lineham is 20 metres behind play with the physio and has no involvement at all. I would be amazed if we hear anything about it and tbh if it's Rovers who have raised the issue then its very petty and very poor sportsmanship.'" You'll find it's a journalist who's mentioned it 1st. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... eport.html Can't see Hull been docked points but I'm sure you'll be fined simply because the player who replaced Lineham should never have been on the pitch to make the tackle.

Quote ="Easty"You'll find it's a journalist who's mentioned it 1st. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... eport.html Can't see Hull been docked points but I'm sure you'll be fined simply because the player who replaced Lineham should never have been on the pitch to make the tackle.'" Doesn't a match official let the player on though???

Quote ="Easty"You'll find it's a journalist who's mentioned it 1st. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... eport.html Can't see Hull been docked points but I'm sure you'll be fined simply because the player who replaced Lineham should never have been on the pitch to make the tackle.'" Doesn't a match official let the player on though???

why did the 4th official let pitts on? maybe he deemed lineham wasn't or going to interfere with play

as for the Salford points deduction, they had 14 players defending a cas attack for more than 1 play of the ball

slap on the wrist, result to stand

4th official was Thierry Alibert. Says it all!!

I'd say winning a trophy in AP's 2nd year would be better evidence of progress to being taken seriously than finishing, say, 7th. Winning the CC whilst finishing 9th was a springboard for Warrington.

Given our lack of attacking threat, as it stands we'll be missing 4 of our 1st choice 1-7. Lineham's importance is therefore greater than if the others weren't out too, in my view. Charnley and Richards are pretty handy wingers. Don't fancy Crookes against either.

Hence the reason i suggested in a previous post, stick Whiting there.

Yes many will disagree but Whiting has it all for a winger except the speed. But he's quality in the air under pressure and is a decent tackler also. Plus as today showed, great at interceptions.
Yes we will lose a versatile player off the subs bench, but it will give us the extra opportunity for another forward.

As you said, Crookes against either Richards or Charnley is a no go. Whiting against them more promising.

Quote ="Easty"You'll find it's a journalist who's mentioned it 1st. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... eport.html Can't see Hull been docked points but I'm sure you'll be fined simply because the player who replaced Lineham should never have been on the pitch to make the tackle.'" Fair enough, just that someone on your board mentioned it had come from the club.

Quote ="Easty"You'll find it's a journalist who's mentioned it 1st. www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... eport.html Can't see Hull been docked points but I'm sure you'll be fined simply because the player who replaced Lineham should never have been on the pitch to make the tackle.'" Fair enough, just that someone on your board mentioned it had come from the club.

I think the main area we seem to be disagreeing is in Lineham possibly being the difference between winning and losing.

Whilst I know he's a cracking player and we do have attacking problems, it's worth noting that last week we got it right and scored 12 without him getting on the scoresheet. If we can win, we can win without him, just as we can lose with him, too. I just think that talk of preferring to lose games than have a player (and not even in a pivotal position without backup) get injured is silly.