Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
weloveyouwakefield2

Catalans and Toulouse told they can’t play at home until September (Merged threads)

Recommended Posts

Premier league footy are going to spend millions on testing kits for games to be played (hopefully). RL does not have the funds to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paulwalker71 said:

When you take out the lure of money, and the understandable passion of the fans, and just consider the medical reality....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52462233

It's deja vu, but how's it any different than a return to open plan offices, commuting on trains/tube/planes, shopping in malls etc etc. Social distancing is incompatable in all these cases. If we're going to return to some form of normality, then we're going to have to accept some risk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DoubleD said:

It's deja vu, but how's it any different than a return to open plan offices, commuting on trains/tube/planes, shopping in malls etc etc. Social distancing is incompatable in all these cases. If we're going to return to some form of normality, then we're going to have to accept some risk

I for one would prefer to know I was safe and put up with not taking the risk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I for one would prefer to know I was safe and put up with not taking the risk.

For how long? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years?

And if it meant losing your job? Your career? Your home? Your business?

Are you honestly saying you would give up all that, for an unknown amount of time to avoid taking the risk?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

For how long? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years?

And if it meant losing your job? Your career? Your home? Your business?

Are you honestly saying you would give up all that, for an unknown amount of time to avoid taking the risk?

Not all that to give up.

Each person will have their own view ... that was mine.

However, the answer was in reply to a comment concerning a return to sporting events. .. I would be prefer to not go to matches until I knew I was safe rather than risk it.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Not all that to give up.

Each person will have their own view ... that was mine.

However, the answer was in reply to a comment concerning a return to sporting events. .. I would be prefer to not go to matches until I knew I was safe rather than risk it.

I think many will do the same. I think the return to normalcy will be very slow

But.

Some of the choices we will start facing soon wont be a question of how long we wait. It will start, pretty soon, to be a choice of what isnt coming back 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Angelic Cynic said:

  They  must be attempting to bankrupt Mr Gausch.He was struggling back in March after Leeds were not able to travel,and the game was postponed.

   It will be a significant cost.

   Don't think it will happen.

Thats what I was thinking..who would foot. the cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

For how long? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years?

And if it meant losing your job? Your career? Your home? Your business?

Are you honestly saying you would give up all that, for an unknown amount of time to avoid taking the risk?

This very much sums up the predicament. If we lift the lockdown or loosen, we risk increasing deaths further. If we do not, we risk a pandemic of mental health problems, domestic abuse, heart attacks, delayed cancer diagnoses, economic ruin and consequently austerity related deaths. There are no easy answers from what I can see, and no answer that avoid suffering.

Back to rugby league, I wonder whether we may see a centenary-like season as we did in 1995 before returning to summer as we did in 1996? The multi-national element of Super League makes things more complex, but I would be surprised to see a pre-September return. Especially given the frequency of heavy contact, wrestling and as grim as it is, the fact that sweat, saliva and blood from one player will often contact another.

  • Like 4

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: Sydney Roosters - Building a Dynasty? LINK: https://thetryline.blogspot.com/2020/06/spotlight-on-sydney-roosters-vs.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DoubleD said:

It's deja vu, but how's it any different than a return to open plan offices, commuting on trains/tube/planes, shopping in malls etc etc. Social distancing is incompatable in all these cases. If we're going to return to some form of normality, then we're going to have to accept some risk

Would you accept the risk of playing in the front or second row and packing down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would you accept the risk of playing in the front or second row and packing down?

Yes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Yes

To pack down in a scrum heads interlocked while this virus is still prevalent would that be Brave or Stupid?

It would be interesting to hear how others would view that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Fartownfrontrow said:

Will be very interesting to see what happens in the NRL when they start playing again on 28th MAY ? 

One case where transmission could be tracked and god forbid a fatality because of the interaction of player's and then it stops.

And any player who would willingly put his wife, kids, partner, parents etc at risk needs to give his head a good wobble.

Edited by Harry Stottle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

To pack down in a scrum heads interlocked while this virus is still prevalent would that be Brave or Stupid?

It would be interesting to hear how others would view that?

Not really, it depends on your view of risk. Plenty of people have had the virus and not shown any symptoms and able bodied athletes, whilst not necessarily immune, are certainly not a high risk category 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you will not make the same mistake again as at the beginning of the epidemic by continuing to play in front of crowds ... It is certain that this stupidity has cost the life of some of your supporters ... Dead for going to see a rugby match ....

  • Like 1

www.fcl13.fr FCL XIII - Lezignan Corbieres Rugby League

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DoubleD said:

Not really, it depends on your view of risk. Plenty of people have had the virus and not shown any symptoms and able bodied athletes, whilst not necessarily immune, are certainly not a high risk category 

As I said in the next answer DD, just one.

You seem to think that it is just the player's at risk, it ain't it is everyone who comes into contact with the players also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

To pack down in a scrum heads interlocked while this virus is still prevalent would that be Brave or Stupid?

It would be interesting to hear how others would view that?

Only the same as actually playing the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tommygilf said:

Only the same as actually playing the game

Off course, but in a packing situation where heads are in contact very noticeably on a good number of occasions it was the best example I could think of to highlight the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

To pack down in a scrum heads interlocked while this virus is still prevalent would that be Brave or Stupid?

It would be interesting to hear how others would view that?

The question for me is: will players be given the choice?

Infection rates are falling rapidly so by July, combined with increased testing if available, you can see a pathway for this to work. Not eliminating all risk, that's impossible, but enough that many would probably be wiling to risk it for continued employment. Millions of people - and our governments - are going to have to make those decisions and there's no simple answers. 

On the other hand, even small risk is a problem for some. For instance my wife has chronic asthma. I'm lucky enough to be one of those who've been able to keep working at home with little disruption,  and I've no intention to going back to riding crowded tubes and packing into a Canary Wharf office block until much further down the line, even if others are.

I'd be concerned if players were forced into a situation where they were compelled to play, because a majority felt safe, or desperate enough for the money. It should be a choice, but not one you're penalised for by losing your contract.         

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

One case where transmission could be tracked and god forbid a fatality because of the interaction of player's and then it stops.

And any player who would willingly put his wife, kids, partner, parents etc at risk needs to give his head a good wobble.

I do wonder what their plan is for this. Yes, the risk of contraction, and then serious complications, in Oz right now is very low, but it's not eliminated entirely. They could make make all this effort, but one cluster of cases in one team could derail it all.

I suppose the thing is not to see it in isolation -  if sports match the level of risk that society as a whole is willing to take, then any hiccups will be tolerated. But the sport that return first is going to take the worst of the complaints, so only the biggest ones can do that.  NRL/VFL in Oz, and Prem here. Once they've done it without major issues, then British rugby league can follow a few weeks later.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

As I said in the next answer DD, just one.

You seem to think that it is just the player's at risk, it ain't it is everyone who comes into contact with the players also.

Of course that’s the case, but there’s risk everywhere when we return to some form of normality whether it’s going on a train, kids returning to school, shopping etc etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Would you accept the risk of playing in the front or second row and packing down?

in this situation harry  make a temporary rule change and don't have scrums let the non offending team play the ball and carry on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I do wonder what their plan is for this. Yes, the risk of contraction, and then serious complications, in Oz right now is very low, but it's not eliminated entirely. They could make make all this effort, but one cluster of cases in one team could derail it all.

I suppose the thing is not to see it in isolation -  if sports match the level of risk that society as a whole is willing to take, then any hiccups will be tolerated. But the sport that return first is going to take the worst of the complaints, so only the biggest ones can do that.  NRL/VFL in Oz, and Prem here. Once they've done it without major issues, then British rugby league can follow a few weeks later.  

I think the game will follow football but not necessarily weeks later. When football decides to go ahead. RL will. No need to let them go first.

When people are going back work, shops are open etc it will start to look odd that sport hasnt restarted. 

Personally, I think that it is more political even now, rather than safety related. 

The fact is 15k people a day are coming in and not being tested, millions are still working, thousands are still packing out tubes etc.

You could realistically put on all the SL games in one stadium over three or four days with 6-700 people and most of them still being able to keep 2m distance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I do wonder what their plan is for this. Yes, the risk of contraction, and then serious complications, in Oz right now is very low, but it's not eliminated entirely. They could make make all this effort, but one cluster of cases in one team could derail it all.

I suppose the thing is not to see it in isolation -  if sports match the level of risk that society as a whole is willing to take, then any hiccups will be tolerated. But the sport that return first is going to take the worst of the complaints, so only the biggest ones can do that.  NRL/VFL in Oz, and Prem here. Once they've done it without major issues, then British rugby league can follow a few weeks later.  

If the risk in the UK is deemed to be of the same level and more importantly managed the same as in Aus, will that be the case though? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

You could realistically put on all the SL games in one stadium over three or four days with 6-700 people and most of them still being able to keep 2m distance

Why should any of the 6 - 700 keep two meters apart if 34 players and the officials, trainers, physio's etc of each game are not expected to comply, it wouldn't be for safety reason's would it Scotchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...