Sun 27 Jun: SL: Salford Red Devils v Leeds Rhinos KO 13:00

[John Drake]

Discuss Salford Red Devils v Leeds Rhinos here.

[Oxford]

Is it still on?

And I only voted so SRD would be 100% a bit longer.

[John Drake]

We've just been advised the game has been moved from Friday 7.30pm to Sunday at 1pm. Thread title has been adjusted accordingly.

[M j M]

Well I'm sure all this switching around has messed up some people's plans but the move to Sunday means I can go whereas I couldn't make the Friday game. After being away for the Cas vs Leeds match, not being selected for tickets for the Leeds vs Hull one and having tickets for Leeds vs Saints but it being cancelled I'm buzzing to see my first live game in 15 months Even the AJ Bell isn't enough to dampen my spirits

[The Future is League]

The Red Devils just need to more wins to secure their Super League future, but this is unlikely to be one of them

[Barley Mow]

Leeds by 8.

[Rupert Prince]

They both play Sunday and then Thursday.

It a not clear to me how Leeds are allowed to change this date and at such short notice.  

 

[Oxford]

6 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

They both play Sunday and then Thursday.

It a not clear to me how Leeds are allowed to change this date and at such short notice.  

 

I think it's very clear to you and everyone else, Rupert.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

34 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

They both play Sunday and then Thursday.

It a not clear to me how Leeds are allowed to change this date and at such short notice.  

 

It was Salford’s decision to change the date, although they had the choice of changing the date or cancelling the game, as Leeds would of had players isolating on Friday.

[M j M]

36 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

They both play Sunday and then Thursday.

It a not clear to me how Leeds are allowed to change this date and at such short notice.  

 

Leeds had the right to postpone the game due to the number of players missing.

They offered instead to play on Sunday. Salford reluctantly agreed.

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

It was Salford’s decision to change the date, although they had the choice of changing the date or cancelling the game, as Leeds would of had players isolating on Friday.

The BBC say Leeds changed the date.

"Rhinos requested it be delayed"

Should I not believe the BBC?

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

Leeds had the right to postpone the game due to the number of players missing.

They offered instead to play on Sunday. Salford reluctantly agreed.

Reluctantly agreed because that would have meant playing 7 games in 28 days.    And people are wondering why it would be ok to be fair to carry on with relegation.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

10 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

The BBC say Leeds changed the date.

"Rhinos requested it be delayed"

Should I not believe the BBC?

Rhinos “Requested”

Salford made the decision 

[M j M]

50 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Reluctantly agreed because that would have meant playing 7 games in 28 days.    And people are wondering why it would be ok to be fair to carry on with relegation.

The rules set out when clubs have the right to postpone. It was up to Salford whether it went ahead on Sunday or at some later date, or potentially not at all.

On this the rules are pretty clear, but you feel free to pretend there is some conspiracy involved if it makes you feel better.

[Rupert Prince]

38 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Rhinos “Requested”

Salford made the decision 

No.  Salford wanted to play Friday they had tickets sold but say, "unfortunately that was removed as an option from us".

Their option was 3 games in 8 days or 7 in 28.

You gave strange definitions of "request" and "decision".

[Rupert Prince]

2 minutes ago, M j M said:

The rules set out when clubs have the right to postpone. It was up to Salford whether it went ahead on Sunday or at some later date, or potentially not at all.

On this the rules are pretty clear, but you feel free to pretend there is some conspiracy involved if it makes you feel better.

Who said conspiracy? Why should Salford be inconvenienced because Leeds make a change at short notice?

What we have is prejudice. 

What we have is the RFL and SL running themselves in a totally amateurish manner.  Weak, vacillating and destitute.

[M j M]

57 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Who said conspiracy? Why should Salford be inconvenienced because Leeds make a change at short notice?

What we have is prejudice. 

What we have is the RFL and SL running themselves in a totally amateurish manner.  Weak, vacillating and destitute.

What on earth are you blathering about? What prejudice?

And re timing Leeds have been highlighting this issue all week to Salford since it became clear the numbers of players unavailable was enough for them to get it postponed.

[DimmestStar]

Leeds couldn't play Friday but said they could do Sunday if Salford agreed.

Although not ideal, Salford decided to accept the offer, they didn't have to.

That's all there is to it

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

30 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

Leeds couldn't play Friday but said they could do Sunday if Salford agreed.

Although not ideal, Salford decided to accept the offer, they didn't have to.

That's all there is to it

It’s ready simple to understand, I’m not sure what @Rupert Prince is struggling with 

[Oxford]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

No.  Salford wanted to play Friday they had tickets sold but say, "unfortunately that was removed as an option from us".

Their option was 3 games in 8 days or 7 in 28.

You gave strange definitions of "request" and "decision".

Who benefitted most?

Who is looking after players welfare?

Isn't it bound to bring up questions about what happened last season?

By the way I'm not asking any of these because it's pointless and the answers are obvious.

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, DimmestStar said:

Leeds couldn't play Friday but said they could do Sunday if Salford agreed.

Although not ideal, Salford decided to accept the offer, they didn't have to.

That's all there is to it

Salford were forced to chose between options, Sunday and at 3 games in 8 days or play 7 games in 28 days if the game is rescheduled.  Leeds should have been told to play the scheduled game or concede the game.  Salford had done nothing but be threatened.

[M j M]

20 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Salford were forced to chose between options, Sunday and at 3 games in 8 days or play 7 games in 28 days if the game is rescheduled.  Leeds should have been told to play the scheduled game or concede the game.  Salford had done nothing but be threatened.

So you're saying, despite the rules being very clear about when clubs can request a postponement, you think they should have chucked them out and told Leeds to play or forfeit? And yet you're busycomplaining that the game is run in an "amateurish manner". Utterly bonkers.

[Rupert Prince]

17 minutes ago, M j M said:

So you're saying, despite the rules being very clear about when clubs can request a postponement, you think they should have chucked them out and told Leeds to play or forfeit? And yet you're busycomplaining that the game is run in an "amateurish manner". Utterly bonkers.

Why should Salford be disadvantaged for doing nothing wrong.  

[M j M]

1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

Why should Salford be disadvantaged for doing nothing wrong.  

Because those are the rules all the clubs agreed to before the competition started.

When agreed rules are applied, it's not "amateurish".

"Amateurish" would be not setting any rules in the first place or, as you are advocating, disregarding those rules because it'll upset one of the parties involved.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

Salford by 6.