Players breaching C-19 protocols (Merged Threads)

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

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...

No. Salford did not suffer, as they were not in breach of anything. The 14 days was simply the inevitable gap that all clubs sign up to that flowed from infection. The Wigan player was fined for his breach, which (seemingly) has not lead to any infection. 

[redjonn]

6 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

No. Salford did not suffer, as they were not in breach of anything. The 14 days was simply the inevitable gap that all clubs sign up to that flowed from infection. The Wigan player was fined for his breach, which (seemingly) has not lead to any infection. 

yep, understand that but one through no breach and unfortunate get 14 days...

The other breach protocol rules and get the same... all be it not identified as being in close contact to a positive covid case - that's an unknown... but the whole point of the protocol is to minimise risk of being in close contact.

Neither Salford players or these players seemingly has  led to infection.

The punishment to me isn't a punishment for taking the risk they did, considering the impact on the sport/clubs.

Edited August 24, 2020 by redjonn

[Lowdesert]

Just shows how far wide of the mark some assumptions have been.  

An instance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or innocuously touching an infected surface can then lead to the virus multiplying infection rapidly.  

How is it possible the authorities can justify such a ###### weak system and then come up with such a ###### weak deterrent in one swoop.

[Rupert Prince]

Why is this centered on a Wigan player.  3 players from 3 other clubs are involved. Wolves and Giants. The other is coy.

This shows the difficulties of sticking to the rules. In all 4 cases it was probably carelessness, it must be a difficult routine. But this is peoples livelihoods we are talking about.  Lets hope everyone learns the lesson.  Its not just Salford missing a game, an other team was affected as well with the switch around.

 

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Why is this centered on a Wigan player.  3 players from 3 other clubs are involved. Wolves and Giants. The other is coy.

This shows the difficulties of sticking to the rules. In all 4 cases it was probably carelessness, it must be a difficult routine. But this is peoples livelihoods we are talking about.  Lets hope everyone learns the lesson.  Its not just Salford missing a game, an other team was affected as well with the switch around.

 

Because the Wigan player played during the period he was banned. 

[Wolford6]

I hope its not any of our players.

Most of Kear's signings are old enough to be in the "At Risk" category.

[Moove]

1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

ban the club

Now we're talking. Although would that be a retrospective ban served last season?

Edited August 24, 2020 by Moove

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Moove said:

Now we're talking. Although would that be a retrospective ban served last season?

The mere suggestion is enough to get the WDL out of furlough. 

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

Because the Wigan player played during the period he was banned. 

He was banned after playing 2 games. He did not play after being banned. The breach in protocol took place12 days before he was suspended.

Gavet's suspension runs out on 27th. Today is 24th, so his suspension runs out in 3 days.  So he was available for selection 11 days before his suspension was announced.

I am not sure why Wigan is different to Huddersfield. 

I don't comment on these rules, as long as everyone is treated the same.

[Ullman]

3 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

Just shows how far wide of the mark some assumptions have been.  

An instance of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or innocuously touching an infected surface can then lead to the virus multiplying infection rapidly.  

How is it possible the authorities can justify such a ###### weak system and then come up with such a ###### weak deterrent in one swoop.

Indeed, mate.

Always entertaining to read the conclusions people have jumped to with no evidence whatsoever to back them up.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

He was banned after playing 2 games. He did not play after being banned. The breach in protocol took place12 days before he was suspended.

Gavet's suspension runs out on 27th. Today is 24th, so his suspension runs out in 3 days.  So he was available for selection 11 days before his suspension was announced.

I am not sure why Wigan is different to Huddersfield. 

I don't comment on these rules, as long as everyone is treated the same.

And that is whybthe criticism has been of the bizarre ban, I haven't read criticism of Wigan on here, but I may have missed it. I'm not sure what you are bothered about. 

But the current process is that if you get caught at the time you will serve a ban and miss games, if you get caught after 2 weeks you will avoid punishment. I'm not sure even the most hardcore Wigan fan would see that as normal. 

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, Scubby said:

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.

 

 

I think the requirements seem pretty fair. From what we have seen you pretty much just have to follow the government guidelines, and then some more specific workplace guidelines. 

I don't think the asks are too onerous. 

[Scubby]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I think the requirements seem pretty fair. From what we have seen you pretty much just have to follow the government guidelines, and then some more specific workplace guidelines. 

I don't think the asks are too onerous. 

TBF Wakefield players appeared to be fully complying with social distancing on Saturday.

[EagleEyePie]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

And that is whybthe criticism has been of the bizarre ban, I haven't read criticism of Wigan on here, but I may have missed it. I'm not sure what you are bothered about. 

But the current process is that if you get caught at the time you will serve a ban and miss games, if you get caught after 2 weeks you will avoid punishment. I'm not sure even the most hardcore Wigan fan would see that as normal. 

Presumably the 'ban' isn't actually part of the punishment but a 14 day quarantine period mandated by the protocol. In other words the punishment is the fine the players received, whereas not playing or training is something the players have to do for 14 days after any breach rather than punishment.

It doesn't seem right that someone can get away without missing games because no one noticed the breach at the time though. Surely a 14 day suspension from when the offence came to light would be a bigger deterrent. 

[Rupert Prince]

50 minutes ago, Dave T said:

And that is whybthe criticism has been of the bizarre ban, I haven't read criticism of Wigan on here, but I may have missed it. I'm not sure what you are bothered about. 

But the current process is that if you get caught at the time you will serve a ban and miss games, if you get caught after 2 weeks you will avoid punishment. I'm not sure even the most hardcore Wigan fan would see that as normal. 

Yes.  As I said I was not commentating on the rules (good or silly), just why the interest in Hastings and not the others.  But the normal fact is that when a player is sent off then any suspension starts from the event. This new one does seem odd, but for all we know others have been "forgetful" and not even been seen.

 

[Red Willow]

Jackson Hastings infringement relates to the boots he had painted and presented to a ill child ( a Salford fan) Whether he visited her to present them  I don't recall.

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes.  As I said I was not commentating on the rules (good or silly), just why the interest in Hastings and not the others.  But the normal fact is that when a player is sent off then any suspension starts from the event. This new one does seem odd, but for all we know others have been "forgetful" and not even been seen.

 

I don't know whether the others played, the Wire lad didn't, hence the interest in Hastings, who played two games. 

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, Red Willow said:

Jackson Hastings infringement relates to the boots he had painted and presented to a ill child ( a Salford fan) Whether he visited her to present them  I don't recall.

It's irrelevant whether he did or good deed or not though, if he broke the rules, he broke the rules.

[Tommygilf]

To bighten the mood a little it could always be worse

53 positive tests across several clubs including players and staff

[latchford albion]

33 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

To bighten the mood a little it could always be worse

53 positive tests across several clubs including players and staff

And they've got a vaccine 

[Tommygilf]

30 minutes ago, latchford albion said:

And they've got a vaccine 

Coming soon!