Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hela Wigmen

Players breaching C-19 protocols (Merged Threads)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

Big question has to be who?

Half a story, especially when we know one club has had multiple failures, was it to do with them, or someone else? When everyone is making sacrifices, why aren't we naming those putting us in danger?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should be publicly named just the same as on-field disciplinary actions are.

 

It’s different to a Covid positive test as you can follow the rules and still catch the virus but breaking the rules is a different matter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would appear to be a natural assumption about which club, but that doesn't mean it is correct obviously. But it coincides with an outbreak which will have led to contact tracing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well presumably at least 2 of the players would be from Hull FC or Salford given they've apparently already served a 14-day ban. Not naming them doesn't do anyone except the guilty any favours - now anyone missing this weekend will be subject to suspicion and rumour. All other sports seem to be naming those who breach protocols but for some reason this is kept hushed by the RFL.

Share this post


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

 

And to be fair, this is exactly the reason they won't be named. 

I think the RFL need to do more than what is effectively the standard 14 day quarantine period (if it was Hull players then they haven't missed a game), but I am OK on balance with it being kept anonymous. 

But, I ask, what exactly is the punishment here?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dave T said:

And to be fair, this is exactly the reason they won't be named. 

I think the RFL need to do more than what is effectively the standard 14 day quarantine period (if it was Hull players then they haven't missed a game), but I am OK on balance with it being kept anonymous. 

But, I ask, what exactly is the punishment here?

I presume the RFL 14 day bans are dated from the decision?  Otherwise the 'penalty' is just 4 days.

IMO the protocols are far too weak.  We are trying to get the game going on a shoestring budget and trust to human error.  It is not a good plan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This explains why Pearson was repeatedly pushing his agenda that the Hull FC players became infected from a hospital visit, rather than from them going to the pub, he’s looking to avoid any fines for his club. I didn’t realise we had these rules in place. 
 

• If an individual is not appropriately socially distanced from someone from outside their own household, e.g. going on a date for an extended length of time or drinks with multiple people;
• 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

He played two games in that time and by the time The RFL told Wigan, he had one day left to serve as a suspension. That’s beyond weird. 

Indeed. It should just be a two match ban (and training outside that). 

It is possible to only find out about a transgression 3 weeks later and therefore avoid a ban completely. 

It's a bizarre system. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

He played two games in that time and by the time The RFL told Wigan, he had one day left to serve as a suspension. That’s beyond weird. 

This is my favourite kind of suspension. The one where it makes not a blind bit of difference.

Like counting bans in time and then running them during the off-season.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

This is my favourite kind of suspension. The one where it makes not a blind bit of difference.

Like counting bans in time and then running them during the off-season.

The RFL don't help themselves sometimes 🤦‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the RFL website

Quote

Bans will begin from the date of the transgression, irrespective of when the sanction is imposed.

That only makes sense if the RFL are going to move at some haste and get bans imposed a lot quicker

Waiting two weeks to impose a 14-day 'suspension' makes absolutely zero sense

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not condoning this as it is hurting the game.

But also remember, many of these players are on very modest salaries. They have families, they have childcare and domestic pressures and financial commitments, so they are under pressure to push the rules all the time. These are not NBA multi-millionaire bubbled players. They have probably taken a pay hit to save the club and are trying to get by. Frankly, I'm amazed there haven't been more breaches.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is bonkers. I am a Wigan fan and would like to see the club step up and set an example by standing  him down for the next two games so the ‘punishment’ actually has some meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Moove said:

They could always punish Wigan for fielding a retrospectively ineligible player 🤪

Yes, I agree this is the best way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I got this correct...

Salford players through no fault if their own have to isolate for 14 days as per Covid isolation rules. Key being as per normal and no fault.

The current players (Wigan) broke protocol rules and they get... 14 days isolation.  

Exactly the same... so no punishment then.

Am I missing something obvious...

Edited by redjonn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe burn him and ban the club? We have more than enough evidence of the rules, what they are meant to cover, and the severity of the breach. 🙂 

Did I miss the thread with calls to ban the FC players? 
 

EDIT AFTER READING WIGAN PRESS: so, the breach came about because of a photo a few weeks ago. The rule seems to relate to the date of breach rather than the date it is spotted, hence there was only one day left by the time Wigan were notified. Which makes little sense to me, unless the point is that he must have been fine in reality because he and everyone else has passed all the tests on the interim. 

Edited by Exiled Wiganer

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...