UK time is: 17:58:38
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

RUFC - Is The 'Selection Rule' In The JPT Fair?

While Rotherham United get ready to take on Hartlepool United in the quarter finals of the Johnstone's Paint Trophy I got to wondering how fair the competition actually was.

Before the last round Swindon Town Manager Mark Cooper had a moan to the media about the selection rule in the competition with Preston North End Manager Simon Grayson also miffed by the rule.

The rule states that six players who started the previous game should also start the Johnstone's Paint Trophy tie - meaning that you can only make five changes for the game. We've seen teams get round this by starting with six of the previous players who played but then subbing three of them very early in the game.

When this rule was first introduced I presume it was thought it was for the good of the competition meaning that teams wouldn't put their 'young unused players' in but, on the other hand, you have a squad of players so why can't you use your full squad? And isn't it good for the players who probably wouldn't get many chances of first team games to play in this competition?

Our own Steve Evans has said that he will probably make as many changes as he is allowed on Tuesday night - although two are enforced changes as Kari Arnason and Michael O'Connor are away on International duty.

Let's be honest to a lot of clubs this competition means very little unless they get to the Wembley - to the fans as well - and I have to say I feel it's just a set of games that puts your best players in the 'shop window' while they can also get injured/booked/sent-off which won't help you in the league.

So, what do you think? Should the rules be revised and Manager's be able to play who they want? Or do you think the competition is fine just as it is?

Tell us here on Vital Rotherham
Join The Vital Debate






Vital Rotherham on: facebook

Vital Rotherham on: twitter




Use your social login to comment on front page articles. Login using you Facebook, Twitter, Google or LinkedIn accounts and have your say!



Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

The Journalist

Writer: Herringthorpe  Mail feedback, articles or suggestions

Date:Monday November 11 2013

Time: 7:46AM

 

Have Your Say

Log in...
with your social network     OR     with your Vital account

Recent Rotherham United Articles

Stats: Swansea City v Rotherham United (Wednesday August 27 2014)

RUFC - Sadler Injury (Wednesday August 27 2014)

RUFC - Wordsworth 'It Was Hard Work' (Tuesday August 26 2014)

Millers v Swans Preview (Tuesday August 26 2014)

RUFC - Head-to-Head v Swansea (Monday August 25 2014)

RUFC - Ref Watch v Swansea City (Monday August 25 2014)

Archived Rotherham United Articles

List All Vital Rotherham Articles
Have your say
Click here to suggest an article
Click here to suggest a poll

Vital Members League (view all)

1. rybel_b 1240
2. herringthorpe 933
3. sixpence 577
4. miller4life 289
5. mos60 80
6. mvmiller 37
7. Millie Miller 30
8. nogginthenog 29
9. nearlyataff 20
10. axholme 20

League Results (view all)

Latest Results
Rotherham 1 - 0 Wolves
Rotherham 0 - 2 Watford
Millwall 0 - 1 Rotherham
Derby County 1 - 0 Rotherham

League Table (view table)

Team P W D L GD Pts
11. Bournemouth 4 2 0 2 3 6
12. Middlesbrough 4 2 0 2 1 6
13. Brighton 4 2 0 2 1 6
14. Rotherham 4 2 0 2 -1 6
15. Brentford 4 1 2 1 0 5
16. Birmingham 4 1 2 1 -1 5
17. Ipswich 4 1 1 2 -1 4

Breaking League News

What Does Saville's Signing Mean For Wolves?
Wolves : 27/08/2014 17:08:00
Fulham : 27/08/2014 16:52:00
Magath on Victory at Brentford
Fulham : 27/08/2014 16:22:00
Gaffer pleased to progress in cup
Reading : 27/08/2014 16:00:00
RUFC - View From The Opposition - Swansea City
Rotherham : 27/08/2014 15:49:00

Current Site Poll (view all polls)

Capital One Cup - If you don't want it seeded would you like it 'regionalised'?
Suggested By:  
No I wouldn't like that 11%
Yes that would be a better idea 65%
Leave it as it is 24%