zorquif Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Manfred Mann said: This news indicates very irresponsible and reckless behavior by at least one Hull FC player, if not more. Whoever it was has put the whole competition, and the livelihoods of several hundred players and several hundred more staff members, at risk. It has also put the future of several clubs at risk. There has to be a serious investigation to determine who the culprit(s) is/are. Severe punishment has to be imposed. I'm not sure that's fair. Of course in some cases it would be due to irresponsible or reckless behaviour. But I'm sure there's situations were that isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDuke Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/rugby-league-news/breaking-hull-fc-coronavirus-postive-4416616 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Browny Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Brings a new meaning to 'we'll take the positives out of this game and move on'. I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 8 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said: Aaron Bower suggesting that twice weekly testing should be the way forward. That’s all well and good but can the sport actually afford that? Affordability should not come into it. Certainly needs to be as close to game time as possible for the results and immediately after the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsy4HullFC Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 6 hours ago, arcticchris said: It can take up to 14 days for the virus to present itself in a test so 1 negative test after 2 days does not definitively mean they have not been infected. Surely that's not true? What would be the point in having a test if its result can change? It essentially tells you absolutely nothing. I thought the test was to see if you have it, regardless of symptoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellsy4HullFC Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 6 hours ago, SL17 said: Well there you have it Weekly. Salford still waiting for results. What on earth or you going on about? There you have what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleD Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Let’s not jump to conclusions on so called reckless behaviour by Hull FC players please. This is a highly contagious virus, which could have been picked up by one of their family members when they went shopping or to their place of work, and then transmitted to their partner. Once one player catches it, others in the squad naturally will through the close contact nature of training/playing. Whilst naturally disappointing, after such an encouraging restart, it can’t be wholly surprising and I’d expect SL would have factored this into their possible outcomes. That may mean more midweek matches for Hull FC, or they maybe able to utilise the Challenge Cup later rounds, or the season be extended. Hopefully Salford haven’t also caught the virus and it can be contained to 1 club. This isn’t a unique situation, other sports have experienced this all over the world. In face when German football restarted this happened to 2-3 clubs but the season went on. Let’s not have knee jerk reactions here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hela Wigmen Posted August 12, 2020 Author Share Posted August 12, 2020 24 minutes ago, Lowdesert said: Affordability should not come into it. Certainly needs to be as close to game time as possible for the results and immediately after the game. But it does. If there is no/not enough capital, test cannot be bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 6 hours ago, Tonka said: Sure but you can be tested irrespective of symptoms. I believe you need to buy that test as it’s only free on the NHS if you have symptoms, hence the 14 day isolation for incubation. You can be tested without symptoms but this disease can spread without those infected showing symptoms. It's not the showing of symptoms that's the key here, it's the period that the disease takes to register in a person in the first place, whether that person shows symptoms or not. The incubation period is believed to be anything up to 14 days (but on average is five days). A test will not pick up a positive person during that incubation period. That's why the government don't want to test people at airports in order to get rid of the need to isolate on arrival. A test in those circumstances may show negative but actually a person has the virus but it is still in its incubation period, not showing up in the system in a way that a test can recognise. I'm not a scientist and so I don't understand how that happens but the scientists have been consistently clear about this: a person can have Covid but not register a positive test as they are still incubating the virus. Hence the 14 day self isolation when people come into contact with a positive case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLANTISMAN Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 15 minutes ago, DoubleD said: Let’s not jump to conclusions on so called reckless behaviour by Hull FC players please. This is a highly contagious virus, which could have been picked up by one of their family members when they went shopping or to their place of work, and then transmitted to their partner. Once one player catches it, others in the squad naturally will through the close contact nature of training/playing. Whilst naturally disappointing, after such an encouraging restart, it can’t be wholly surprising and I’d expect SL would have factored this into their possible outcomes. That may mean more midweek matches for Hull FC, or they maybe able to utilise the Challenge Cup later rounds, or the season be extended. Hopefully Salford haven’t also caught the virus and it can be contained to 1 club. This isn’t a unique situation, other sports have experienced this all over the world. In face when German football restarted this happened to 2-3 clubs but the season went on. Let’s not have knee jerk reactions here Totally sensible post lets just see how it pans out no knee jerk reactions please. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Plow Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Have Featherstone put out a statement saying they’re looking into taking Hull FC place in SL yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 What kind of agreements do the players and families have in place for the season? Not blaming these players, as had been highlighted it could have been something like a shopping trip, but we see the NRL players in quite tight bubbles, and following Scottish football there have been instances of rule breaking by going to bars. Are our players prohibited from socialising? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Tonks Sidestep Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said: Surely that's not true? What would be the point in having a test if its result can change? It essentially tells you absolutely nothing. I thought the test was to see if you have it, regardless of symptoms? There's also the fact that a negative test result means there's only a ca80% chance you don't have the virus (a positive test has ca99% chance of being correct). I'm surprised they are being allowed to play with only one test per week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 This should remind us how virulent is this virus. It's not over yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Saintslass said: You can be tested without symptoms but this disease can spread without those infected showing symptoms. It's not the showing of symptoms that's the key here, it's the period that the disease takes to register in a person in the first place, whether that person shows symptoms or not. The incubation period is believed to be anything up to 14 days (but on average is five days). A test will not pick up a positive person during that incubation period. That's why the government don't want to test people at airports in order to get rid of the need to isolate on arrival. A test in those circumstances may show negative but actually a person has the virus but it is still in its incubation period, not showing up in the system in a way that a test can recognise. I'm not a scientist and so I don't understand how that happens but the scientists have been consistently clear about this: a person can have Covid but not register a positive test as they are still incubating the virus. Hence the 14 day self isolation when people come into contact with a positive case. Yeah you’re right, I had the chance to look at this a bit more this morning; false negatives quite a high risk during incubation period. That’s a right ######. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Hela Wigmen said: But it does. If there is no/not enough capital, test cannot be bought. If a Club doesnt have the money to pay for the tests required by the RFL then they should not be allowed to compete. So affordability doesnt come into it. If they cannot afford it then then they cannot play - and they did, so must have been able to afford it. The RFL will have stipulated the requirements and are now reviewing these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MZH Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Given how dreadful we were on Sunday it's a blessing! They've probably faked the results to get out of having to play again this week Seriously though I wish everyone well who is involved. If it comes out that anyone acted irresponsibly then we can point fingers, but for now there is no indication of that at all. It could have happened anywhere. Hopefully this doesnt cause major disruption to the season again because if it does then its probably just time to call it a day and start again in 2021. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sentoffagain2 Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 5 hours ago, Manfred Mann said: This news indicates very irresponsible and reckless behavior by at least one Hull FC player, if not more. Whoever it was has put the whole competition, and the livelihoods of several hundred players and several hundred more staff members, at risk. It has also put the future of several clubs at risk. There has to be a serious investigation to determine who the culprit(s) is/are. Severe punishment has to be imposed. Why have Hull FC players contracted the virus,when all the other teams have not?.Someone has not been respecting the rules.Aberdeen players have let Scottish Football down by not following rules it only takes one or two to put the whole competion in danger.I think Hull FC should forfeit the points against teams they are not able to play against.Any player seen spitting on the field of play should be sent off and banned for 8 matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowdesert Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 August 7 2020. This is the last RFL media info from their website. Looks like testing once a week is all they require plus daily training checks. Screen4 being the testing partner. https://www.rugby-league.com/article/56966/betfred-super-league-covid--testing-update---august- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hela Wigmen Posted August 12, 2020 Author Share Posted August 12, 2020 11 minutes ago, Lowdesert said: If a Club doesnt have the money to pay for the tests required by the RFL then they should not be allowed to compete. So affordability doesnt come into it. If they cannot afford it then then they cannot play - and they did, so must have been able to afford it. The RFL will have stipulated the requirements and are now reviewing these. Of course affordability comes into it. You’ve said so yourself. Super League clubs struck a deal regarding testing and finances would have been a factor. It’s all well and could now, in hindsight, claiming we should have had more and more frequent testing but the clubs come up with a procedure that met the government guidelines, kept costs down and was agreed upon by all. Doubling the costs now presents a significant risk to clubs at a time when income is already incredibly low. I’d be surprised if all clubs could just double their outgoings on this without any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 This confirms Covid can cause eyesight problems because they sure as hell couldnt see those Salford players running at them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scubby Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 If Hull forfeit their next fixture 18-0 it could be seen as an improvement on recent form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MZH Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 20 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said: Why have Hull FC players contracted the virus,when all the other teams have not?.Someone has not been respecting the rules.Aberdeen players have let Scottish Football down by not following rules it only takes one or two to put the whole competion in danger.I think Hull FC should forfeit the points against teams they are not able to play against.Any player seen spitting on the field of play should be sent off and banned for 8 matches. If it turns out that one or more of our players have acted irresponsibly then I will fully support your points forfeiting suggestion. But for all you know one of the players wives might have picked it up shopping. Your first sentence is the same as blaming everyone who catches the disease and saying "well I havent got it, so why have you? Obviously you deserve to be ill." As for spitting, I honestly dont think k it's a big deal. These guys are in constant close contact with each other, all breathing heavily for 80 minutes. Spitting should be discouraged, but I dont think it's going to be the main cause of any transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sentoffagain2 Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, MZH said: If it turns out that one or more of our players have acted irresponsibly then I will fully support your points forfeiting suggestion. But for all you know one of the players wives might have picked it up shopping. Your first sentence is the same as blaming everyone who catches the disease and saying "well I havent got it, so why have you? Obviously you deserve to be ill." As for spitting, I honestly dont think k it's a big deal. These guys are in constant close contact with each other, all breathing heavily for 80 minutes. Spitting should be discouraged, but I dont think it's going to be the main cause of any transmission. Why have no other teams players wives or partners passed it on?.I know spitting is not going to pass on the virus but we are a televised sport and players must set an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 10 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said: Surely they can't have been out partying after that result? I knew things were bad but having a party because you only lost 54-18 really would be something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.