2020 Challenge Cup

[marklaspalmas]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Because as it stands 1 of the quarter finals is a bye, not wanting that scenario, reinstating the most recent opponent of the team that pulled out is fairly common practice, in albeit a very uncommon circumstance.

You will have to define the words "fairly common" for me.

There are 10 SL clubs left. Huddersfield won't be back. A redraw with the remaining clubs seems the only solution if/when the Ch/L1 clubs are excluded.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

You will have to define the words "fairly common" for me.

There are 10 SL clubs left. Huddersfield won't be back. A redraw with the remaining clubs seems the only solution if/when the Ch/L1 clubs are excluded.

Fairly common as in, "standard practice".

How can you have a redraw for a round of 16 with 10 clubs?

[marklaspalmas]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Fairly common as in, "standard practice".

How can you have a redraw for a round of 16 with 10 clubs?

simple 4 clubs play off for 2 spots, 6 byes. Off they go.

Im no memory man, but please fill me on on this fairly common standard practise in the Challenge Cup over the past say 50 years?

 

[Tommygilf]

21 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

simple 4 clubs play off for 2 spots, 6 byes. Off they go.

Im no memory man, but please fill me on on this fairly common standard practise in the Challenge Cup over the past say 50 years?

 

How many times has it had to be used in the challenge cup? I genuinely don't know, it seems fairly obvious logic à la Denmark in Euro '92.

I take it then you want a total redraw then? And good luck persuading 4 teams they need an extra game whilst 6 of their rivals get a week off in this climate.

[marklaspalmas]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

How many times has it had to be used in the challenge cup? I genuinely don't know, it seems fairly obvious logic à la Denmark in Euro '92.

I take it then you want a total redraw then? And good luck persuading 4 teams they need an extra game whilst 6 of their rivals get a week off in this climate.

It's nowt to do with me mate. I want it playing with my club still in it, but I can't make that happen. I don't have to persuade anyone of anything, but an open draw is an open draw. The re-draw is far from ideal, but is the realistic solution if 6 clubs drop out/are excluded.

Euro 92 soccer comp was not and is not fairly common rugby league standard practise.

In the last 50 years there have been 3,221 Challenge Cup ties at professional level, not counting amateur level preliminaries. How many beaten clubs have been reinstated?

 

 

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

1 hour ago, marklaspalmas said:

I'm aware of the draw and I repeat Why would readmitting the Giants be necessary in any scenario?

Shudds have previous for being admitted to a competition by moving the goalposts after they failed during normal rules.  

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

It's nowt to do with me mate. I want it playing with my club still in it, but I can't make that happen. I don't have to persuade anyone of anything, but an open draw is an open draw. The re-draw is far from ideal, but is the realistic solution if 6 clubs drop out/are excluded.

Euro 92 soccer comp was not and is not fairly common rugby league standard practise.

In the last 50 years there have been 3,221 Challenge Cup ties at professional level, not counting amateur level preliminaries. How many beaten clubs have been reinstated?

 

 

I have no idea, in the last 50 years there hasn't been a global pandemic causing the vast majority of the sport to be mothballed mid season either so I doubt it.

I've repeatedly said its a highly uncommon occurrence (having 2 clubs from the same tie withdraw), it seems logical to work back to the previous round - as has happened in other sports. Consider it like finishing 4th in a race only to be moved up to 3rd because the racer in front of you was later disqualified. In such uncommon situations, we cannot look to just RL for answers and solutions. 

To flip this back on you, when has there ever been a redraw of the cup round of 16?

[marklaspalmas]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

To flip this back on you, when has there ever been a redraw of the cup round of 16?

Never**, I imagine. Hence I would never use a phrase like "fairly common standard practise" to back up my opinion.

 

** Apart from some RFL special draws live on TV where they royally effed it up by having wrong balls in the bag and all sorts of nonsense. That was a re-draw, hours later, not on TV

[Tommygilf]

Just now, marklaspalmas said:

Never**, I imagine. Hence I would never use a phrase like "fairly common standard practise" to back up my opinion.

 

** Apart from some RFL special draws live on TV where they royally effed it up by having wrong balls in the bag and all sorts of nonsense. That was a re-draw, hours later, not on TV

Well in the uncommon circumstances that this is, (a team withdrawing from a tie before it is played), it is fairly common standard practice throughout sport, are you happy now?

[marklaspalmas]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

Well in the uncommon circumstances that this is, (a team withdrawing from a tie before it is played), it is fairly common standard practice throughout sport, are you happy now?

Im always happy but baffled by what you've just typed. Gibberish.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, marklaspalmas said:

Im always happy but baffled by what you've just typed. Gibberish.

Oh of course. I'll put it in simple terms for you.

A team dropping out doesn't happen very often. When it does happen, this solution happens often as a standard practice. HTH.

As an extension, this decision will be further complicated by the fact Newcastle will likely pull out too. Seeing as though their previous opponents (Dewsbury) are shut down also, of the 4 teams that initially competed to contest this tie only Huddersfield Giants currently have any intention of playing rugby this year.

[Wanderer]

just sounds like more loopy fixtures for me with the 10 remaining SL clubs re-drawn

[wiganermike]

11 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

It's nowt to do with me mate. I want it playing with my club still in it, but I can't make that happen. I don't have to persuade anyone of anything, but an open draw is an open draw. The re-draw is far from ideal, but is the realistic solution if 6 clubs drop out/are excluded.

Euro 92 soccer comp was not and is not fairly common rugby league standard practise.

In the last 50 years there have been 3,221 Challenge Cup ties at professional level, not counting amateur level preliminaries. How many beaten clubs have been reinstated?

 

 

The rule is a fairly recent change brought in after a club (my memory says it was Rochdale but it may not have been them) was disqualified after fielding an ineligible player (previously cup-tied after playing for another club). There was no specified procedure and after deliberating the next scheduled opponent was given a bye. The rule was then created to account for disqualified teams and to reinstate the last opponent they beat. Its in the Operational Rules B3:11 and relates specifically to ineligible players but is the only reference to disqualification of a team. The rules for failure to fulfil a fixture state the game is forfeited but as their opponent Newcastle are likely to also withdraw that rule can't be applied. This makes treatment of TWP as disqualification possible and in that case the procedure would be to reinstate Huddersfield. It could be argued that Newcastle's previous opponent could also be reinstated but as Dewsbury are likely to turn down such an offer they would as per the rules forfeit to Huddersfield.

I don't think such an approach is likely but it is a left-field possibility as the rules could allow it. I think a re-draw is more likely so that byes are only awarded in a single round.

[marklaspalmas]

4 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

The rule is a fairly recent change brought in after a club (my memory says it was Rochdale but it may not have been them) was disqualified after fielding an ineligible player (previously cup-tied after playing for another club). There was no specified procedure and after deliberating the next scheduled opponent was given a bye. The rule was then created to account for disqualified teams and to reinstate the last opponent they beat. Its in the Operational Rules B3:11 and relates specifically to ineligible players but is the only reference to disqualification of a team. The rules for failure to fulfil a fixture state the game is forfeited but as their opponent Newcastle are likely to also withdraw that rule can't be applied. This makes treatment of TWP as disqualification possible and in that case the procedure would be to reinstate Huddersfield. It could be argued that Newcastle's previous opponent could also be reinstated but as Dewsbury are likely to turn down such an offer they would as per the rules forfeit to Huddersfield.

I don't think such an approach is likely but it is a left-field possibility as the rules could allow it. I think a re-draw is more likely so that byes are only awarded in a single round.

I think you have cogently argued yourself that disqualification for fielding ineligable players and what's happening here are two different things.

[marklaspalmas]

13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Oh of course. I'll put it in simple terms for you.

A team dropping out doesn't happen very often. When it does happen, this solution happens often as a standard practice. HTH.

As an extension, this decision will be further complicated by the fact Newcastle will likely pull out too. Seeing as though their previous opponents (Dewsbury) are shut down also, of the 4 teams that initially competed to contest this tie only Huddersfield Giants currently have any intention of playing rugby this year.

Stop digging mate.   Please.

I admire your attempt to use simple terms because anything beyond that brings confusion to anyone trying to undertstand you.

Simply put, how come something that has never happened by "fairly common"?

Simply put, there is no "standard practise" here because we've never been here before.

Simply put, why do you want Huddersfield back in the Cup?

[Derwent]

The nearest precedent I can recall to reinstating a club that’s been knocked out was a few years ago Wasps were kicked out of RU’s cup competition for fielding an ineligible player and the team they beat were reinstated. Think it happened with Bury in the FA Cup as well.

[marklaspalmas]

1 minute ago, Derwent said:

The nearest precedent I can recall to reinstating a club that’s been knocked out was a few years ago Wasps were kicked out of RU’s cup competition for fielding an ineligible player and the team they beat were reinstated. Think it happened with Bury in the FA Cup as well.

Yes, as mike has pointed out, not really the same thing here is it? DO we have any RL examples?

[ELBOWSEYE]

2 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

They should redraw the 6 clubs who drew all SL ties. The 2 who get drawn last have a bye.

This has nothing to do with Hull FC getting a Championship club...

No matter how many times they redraw it Warrington and Wigan will pulled out of the bag together for the umpteenth time. 

[wiganermike]

2 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

I think you have cogently argued yourself that disqualification for fielding ineligable players and what's happening here are two different things.

Yes they are two different reasons for the removal of a club from the Challenge Cup. The removal of a team in this fashion could be treated as failure to fulfil a fixture but the rule concerning that cannot be applied as the opponent is also expected to withdraw (and so also forfeit the tie). This leaves a conundrum as to which team can be treated as continuing in the competition in place of those pulling out. Given that the procedure for instances where a team is disqualified is written into the competition rules and provides an opportunity to work around it the RFL could adjudicate that TWP having withdrawn from SL despite it as a competition having continued could be disqualified from the cup on those grounds. Disqualifying TWP could allow them to reinstate TWP's previous opponent to provide a team in order to add an 8th team to the other 7 at the QF stage. Huddersfield would be reinstated to round 6 to replace the disqualified TWP and their round 6 opponents Newcastle would forfeit after withdrawing due to League 1 being canned. Result being Huddersfield join the other 7 teams in the last 8.

As I said I don't think it will happen but it could within the rules. Remember, the RFL love a convoluted, hard to explain, unnecessary mess so we can't rule it out. I think a redraw to give 2 round 6 ties and 6 byes from the 10 remaining teams is more likely though.

[marklaspalmas]

1 minute ago, wiganermike said:

Yes they are two different reasons for the removal of a club from the Challenge Cup. The removal of a team in this fashion could be treated as failure to fulfil a fixture but the rule concerning that cannot be applied as the opponent is also expected to withdraw (and so also forfeit the tie). This leaves a conundrum as to which team can be treated as continuing in the competition in place of those pulling out. Given that the procedure for instances where a team is disqualified is written into the competition rules and provides an opportunity to work around it the RFL could adjudicate that TWP having withdrawn from SL despite it as a competition having continued could be disqualified from the cup on those grounds. Disqualifying TWP could allow them to reinstate TWP's previous opponent to provide a team in order to add an 8th team to the other 7 at the QF stage. Huddersfield would be reinstated to round 6 to replace the disqualified TWP and their round 6 opponents Newcastle would forfeit after withdrawing due to League 1 being canned. Result being Huddersfield join the other 7 teams in the last 8.

As I said I don't think it will happen but it could within the rules. Remember, the RFL love a convoluted, hard to explain, unnecessary mess so we can't rule it out. I think a redraw to give 2 round 6 ties and 6 byes from the 10 remaining teams is more likely though.

I accept this line of reasoning, impressively byzantine though it is. I still feel that, given the need to factor in five other clubs' no shows (through no fault of their own) that a 10 team redraw will shortly be announced by the RFL after they've finished reading this thread.

[wiganermike]

Just now, marklaspalmas said:

I accept this line of reasoning, impressively byzantine though it is. I still feel that, given the need to factor in five other clubs' no shows (through no fault of their own) that a 10 team redraw will shortly be announced by the RFL after they've finished reading this thread.

I agree with you about the 10 team re-draw though there is a worry that someone at the RFL will see what I posted and think "that will do let's go with that".

[marklaspalmas]

Just now, wiganermike said:

I agree with you about the 10 team re-draw though there is a worry that someone at the RFL will see what I posted and think "that will do let's go with that".

Who dares to dream what Red Hall will make of this?

[Tommygilf]

37 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Stop digging mate.   Please.

I admire your attempt to use simple terms because anything beyond that brings confusion to anyone trying to undertstand you.

Simply put, how come something that has never happened by "fairly com  mon"?

Simply put, there is no "standard practise" here because we've never been here before.

Simply put, why do you want Huddersfield back in the Cup?

You're not going to get many RL examples off the top of peoples heads mate so you'll never be satisfied on that front - Rochdale is one. I and others have given you other examples from other sports to show how its a fairly common response to a fairly uncommon circumstance.

Huddersfield being in the cup means nothing to me. I'm just sensible enough to see that as the most sensible, if quirky, response to this.

As for my communication skills, my entire academic and professional life has been based around being understood in some way. I'm rather good at it so I think you may be the problem on that front.

[marklaspalmas]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

You're not going to get many RL examples off the top of peoples heads mate so you'll never be satisfied on that front - Rochdale is one. I and others have given you other examples from other sports to show how its a fairly common response to a fairly uncommon circumstance.

Huddersfield being in the cup means nothing to me. I'm just sensible enough to see that as the most sensible, if quirky, response to this.

As for my communication skills, my entire academic and professional life has been based around being understood in some way. I'm rather good at it so I think you may be the problem on that front.

Again, your imprecise use of language belies your claims to academic and professional communication skills. To call this circumstance fairly uncommon is patently absurd. It's never happened before. No response to such a rarity could possibly be fairly common or standard practise.

We will have to agree to disagree on what's "sensible" in this case. It makes no sense to me at all.

Your last two sentences are pompous. Was that what you were trying to communicate?

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, marklaspalmas said:

Again, your imprecise use of language belies your claims to academic and professional communication skills. To call this circumstance fairly uncommon is patently absurd. It's never happened before. No response to such a rarity could possibly be fairly common or standard practise.

We will have to agree to disagree on what's "sensible" in this case. It makes no sense to me at all.

Your last two sentences are pompous. Was that what you were trying to communicate?

Its not imprecise at all. It's a lot of big words that sound similar I'll give you that, but it is actually very precise. I think you've mistyped "(un)common" in your response btw. If you can't get your head around it thats fine I'll leave it there.

Thats fair enough. I can see it happening, its been mentioned on a fair few podcasts/radio shows I've listened to. I wouldn't be that bothered if it did, just another weirdness of 2020 to me.

Mate, on this thread you've described my writing as "gibberish", "confusing" and also pontificated weirdly about how you don't even care because you can't do anything about it for your club. If anyone is being pompous...