Jump to content

Another SL Game Off


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, RP London said:

Dont know if you have noticed but your points difference at the moment averages at just under -23 a game... just saying 😄 

I'm not saying Leigh should call a game off ( despite struggling to find enough players ourselves on several occasions ) , I'm asking why has nobody else cancelled on Leigh ? , It seems they ( whoever a particular club might be ) only cancel on clubs , well let's say ' above ' themselves 🤔 , very convenient 😉

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Presumably most players will have had or will be about to have their second jab so from the middle of August isolation won’t be an issue. This assumes that the everyday criteria applies to sports teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/07/2021 at 11:36, gittinsfan said:

Does anyone have any thoughts why many more games in SL are called off as opposed to the Championship.

I’m guessing there’s a lot more testing going on in SL than in the lower leagues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bobbruce said:

I’m guessing there’s a lot more testing going on in SL than in the lower leagues. 

Someone may correct me on this,but i'm sure I read somewhere that PT players are tested at least twice per week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

I'm not saying Leigh should call a game off ( despite struggling to find enough players ourselves on several occasions ) , I'm asking why has nobody else cancelled on Leigh ? , It seems they ( whoever a particular club might be ) only cancel on clubs , well let's say ' above ' themselves 🤔 , very convenient 😉

I'm not getting into a Leigh conspiracy,but I agree some cancellations do seem somewhat convenient.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LeeF said:

Presumably most players will have had or will be about to have their second jab so from the middle of August isolation won’t be an issue. This assumes that the everyday criteria applies to sports teams

Hi Lee, so you are saying being "double jabbed" constitutes full immunity, medical evidence contradicts that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Lee, so you are saying being "double jabbed" constitutes full immunity, medical evidence contradicts that.

I assume lee is referring to the new rule proposed by Boris yesterday: from August 19th if you are double jabbed you dont need to isolate but test everyday... not that they are immune but that you dont have to remove perfectly healthy people from circulation just because they spent 15 minutes in the same space as someone with a positive test. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Hi Lee, so you are saying being "double jabbed" constitutes full immunity, medical evidence contradicts that.

Not at all. A second jab will remove the need for isolation for close contacts from mid August* so the domino effect of 1 positive test should be removed if applied to sports teams/ bubbles

 

*if I have understood the info issued over the last couple of days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, johnh1 said:

What has the law of averages got to do with this? If what you suspect, (although you admit that you could be off the mark and that you could be wrong) is true, then I agree with you. But to criticise a club when you do not have the facts is also a disgrace, don't you think?

No its not a disgrace Salford have a 30 man SL Squad declared but cannot get 17 on the pitch by my maths that's 13 that could be out bearing in mind they took a player on loan from Warrington they could afford to have 12 out and have a 19 man squad. I don't think its a bad assumption, mathematically it does not add up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Forever Trinity said:

No its not a disgrace Salford have a 30 man SL Squad declared but cannot get 17 on the pitch by my maths that's 13 that could be out bearing in mind they took a player on loan from Warrington they could afford to have 12 out and have a 19 man squad. I don't think its a bad assumption, mathematically it does not add up.

So why are you picking on Salford? Why don't you have a go at Huddersfield, or Saints, or Castleford or Leeds, all of whom I think, have all called games off and who have a much bigger financial clout than Salford?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Forever Trinity said:

No its not a disgrace Salford have a 30 man SL Squad declared but cannot get 17 on the pitch by my maths that's 13 that could be out bearing in mind they took a player on loan from Warrington they could afford to have 12 out and have a 19 man squad. I don't think its a bad assumption, mathematically it does not add up.

Salford have a squad of 29 (Elliot Kear was released a month or so ago so he could play part-time with Bradford while he trained for his post Rugby League career as a fireman). The signing of Ellis Robson takes it back up to 30, albeit temporarily. Of those 30, 4 are currently suspended and at least another 4 are injured, 2 of them long term. This gives the coach 22 players to choose from, and that's what he did, naming a 21 man squad for the Wakefield game. Then 1 player returned a positive PCR test, resulting in 6 other players having to isolate. The 'law of averages' you're fond of citing, then, tells us that with 8 players missing through injury or suspension, there's an 8/30 chance that it was one of those players who tested positive and an 8/30 chance that any of those players is one of the six to be isolating. Concommitantly, this means there's a 22/30 chance that it was one of the available players who tested positive, and a 22/30 chance that any of those players is one of the six to be isolating. That's approximately a 25/75 split (and I'm being a bit generous there, because, given the seriousness of their injuries, I think it unlikely that either Kallum Watkins or Kevin Brown is training with the rest of the squad at the moment). This suggests it is likely that the Covid outbreak meant they wouldn't be able to name a 17 man squad, and so exercised their right to have the match postponed. Does this add up for you?

So, given your 'law of averages', what sounds most likely to you? That the club are grifting, or that they've not been able to name a squad because of Covid? Even if we go with your completely made up idea that Salford are pulling a fast one, what has it got them? The fixture has been rearranged for 17th July, by which time just one of the suspended players will be available, and it's unlikely that at least 2 of the injured players will be available (and that's assuming they pick up no more injuries or suspensions during Sunday's game at Castleford). And for this rearranged fixture, it looks like they will have to forfeit home advantage as the stadium is scheduled to be unavailable that week. In addition, they will go into the Castleford match without having had a full training session until Friday because of players isolating. Does it really sound likely that they're grifting here?

Sometimes, just sometimes, there isn't some hidden truth behind the headline, and what people say happened is actually what did happen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teams only cancel games the think they might or expect to lose , that's the bottom line , it would not surprise me if a couple of games against Leigh do get cancelled when the result will have no bearing on either relegation or play off finishing position , be interesting to see 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Teams only cancel games the think they might or expect to lose , that's the bottom line , it would not surprise me if a couple of games against Leigh do get cancelled when the result will have no bearing on either relegation or play off finishing position , be interesting to see 😉

Haven't we only had 3 games 'cancelled' by clubs over the 2 seasons now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hammerless Nail said:

Salford have a squad of 29 (Elliot Kear was released a month or so ago so he could play part-time with Bradford while he trained for his post Rugby League career as a fireman). The signing of Ellis Robson takes it back up to 30, albeit temporarily. Of those 30, 4 are currently suspended and at least another 4 are injured, 2 of them long term. This gives the coach 22 players to choose from, and that's what he did, naming a 21 man squad for the Wakefield game. Then 1 player returned a positive PCR test, resulting in 6 other players having to isolate. The 'law of averages' you're fond of citing, then, tells us that with 8 players missing through injury or suspension, there's an 8/30 chance that it was one of those players who tested positive and an 8/30 chance that any of those players is one of the six to be isolating. Concommitantly, this means there's a 22/30 chance that it was one of the available players who tested positive, and a 22/30 chance that any of those players is one of the six to be isolating. That's approximately a 25/75 split (and I'm being a bit generous there, because, given the seriousness of their injuries, I think it unlikely that either Kallum Watkins or Kevin Brown is training with the rest of the squad at the moment). This suggests it is likely that the Covid outbreak meant they wouldn't be able to name a 17 man squad, and so exercised their right to have the match postponed. Does this add up for you?

So, given your 'law of averages', what sounds most likely to you? That the club are grifting, or that they've not been able to name a squad because of Covid? Even if we go with your completely made up idea that Salford are pulling a fast one, what has it got them? The fixture has been rearranged for 17th July, by which time just one of the suspended players will be available, and it's unlikely that at least 2 of the injured players will be available (and that's assuming they pick up no more injuries or suspensions during Sunday's game at Castleford). And for this rearranged fixture, it looks like they will have to forfeit home advantage as the stadium is scheduled to be unavailable that week. In addition, they will go into the Castleford match without having had a full training session until Friday because of players isolating. Does it really sound likely that they're grifting here?

Sometimes, just sometimes, there isn't some hidden truth behind the headline, and what people say happened is actually what did happen.

Don’t do logic and truths on here HN. It isn’t the forum for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/07/2021 at 11:36, gittinsfan said:

Does anyone have any thoughts why many more games in SL are called off as opposed to the Championship.

Workington v Coventry is off

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/35701/betfred-league-1-update---july-8

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gittinsfan said:

That's still only 2 as far as I am aware.

I think you're right.

  • 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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/07/2021 at 13:29, johnh1 said:

So why are you picking on Salford? Why don't you have a go at Huddersfield, or Saints, or Castleford or Leeds, all of whom I think, have all called games off and who have a much bigger financial clout than Salford?

Saints haven't cancelled any games, it was the other clubs like Leeds cancelling on them.

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Saints haven't cancelled any games, it was the other clubs like Leeds cancelling on them.

As I said , clubs only cancel on somebody they expect to lose to 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

As I said , clubs only cancel on somebody they expect to lose to 

If that was true, Salford would currently be on Played 1, Won 1 and they wouldn't have so many players injured or suspended.

Edited by Hammerless Nail
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Liam Watts wading in

 

Not sure I agree until we have any analysis of where the covid is being picked up... as for the rest of society opening up not sure that makes any difference as to current limited restrictions - I mean they wouldn't be going to night clubs nor would one expect them to stop wearing masks. I can understand that the likelihood of catching covid is higher.

Anyway an analysis of where the initial covid into the camp is picked up would help ascertain were to tighten up if possible.   If its family then not much can do but it may be something that could be better controlled.  

to add - what clubs are doing more postponing and which not. Whats the difference between how they are able to better handle the situation.

Edited by redjonn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Liam Watts wading in

 

I don't really buy the whole thing about clubs gaming the situation, but Watts does raise a wider point that I hope the sport is thinking carefully about.

Whatever one thinks about the decision, even the government has acknowledged that cases will shoot up over the next month. So if RL clubs persist in proactively testing twice a week, then inevitabley they are going to turn up lots of cases which could really hit the climax of the season if increasing numbers of games are cancelled. 

My employer won't we testing me twice a week from July 19 when we go back to the office, so why should rugby clubs do that any longer?  Obviously players will have to follow any future rules on contact tracing etc, but perhaps we shouldn't be making the situation any harder than it is.

The RFL/SL planned the season on the basis that things would gradually improve. But -  and I'm not seeking to open a debate here - the govt has chosen a path in which in terms of positive tests things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. We will need to adjust how we operate, and that may mean dropping proactive testing from July 19 and just testing when pinged, like anyone else.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Toby Chopra said:

I don't really buy the whole thing about clubs gaming the situation, but Watts does raise a wider point that I hope the sport is thinking carefully about.

Whatever one thinks about the decision, even the government has acknowledged that cases will shoot up over the next month. So if RL clubs persist in proactively testing twice a week, then inevitabley they are going to turn up lots of cases which could really hit the climax of the season if increasing numbers of games are cancelled. 

My employer won't we testing me twice a week from July 19 when we go back to the office, so why should rugby clubs do that any longer?  Obviously players will have to follow any future rules on contact tracing etc, but perhaps we shouldn't be making the situation any harder than it is.

The RFL/SL planned the season on the basis that things would gradually improve. But -  and I'm not seeking to open a debate here - the govt has chosen a path in which in terms of positive tests things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. We will need to adjust how we operate, and that may mean dropping proactive testing from July 19 and just testing when pinged, like anyone else.   

The gov processes will be to isolate if you test positive, but contacts don't need to isolate. So I would argue testing will become more important, then isolate positive cases outside of the camp. 

The issues around postponements tend to be from contacts having to isolate from what we are hearing. If that goes away as a requirement things should get better. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...