Jump to content

3 SL Clubs Fined for Covid Breaches


Recommended Posts

Just now, DimmestStar said:

Which is was .

You're right.   But what matters is not what it is now but what it ends up as and I already edited my reply to reflect that.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


42 minutes ago, Fevrover said:

Why is so much of the fine suspended? Asking for a friend.

As well as gazza's reply, this probably added to the reasons why a fine handed out a few weeks ago wasn't suspended

The fine reflects the club’s failure to properly comply with the law, Operational Rules and the RFL investigation. The club deliberately withheld information from the investigator, in order to avoid players being stood down. The actions of individual club members led to an unnecessarily protracted, expensive and extremely time-consuming process. 

Points deduction and fine for Featherstone Rovers (rugby-league.com)

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, M j M said:

Good grief, how much of a chip on your shoulder have you got?

As far as I'm aware the clubs fined here didn't engage in a conspiracy to cover up what happened or actually go ahead and play a game when a bunch of players should have been isolating.

No chip on my shoulder I can assure you. So who's negligent in the 3 clubs cases. Is it the clubs for not abiding by the protocols set out or is it the S/L or RFL that's at blame, for knowingly letting these clubs get away with their infringements at the time, or have they just discovered the failure of the clubs to follow covid protocols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, M j M said:

Good grief, how much of a chip on your shoulder have you got?

As far as I'm aware the clubs fined here didn't engage in a conspiracy to cover up what happened or actually go ahead and play a game when a bunch of players should have been isolating.

No chip on my shoulder I can assure you. So who's negligent in the 3 clubs cases. Is it the clubs for not abiding by the protocols set out or is it the S/L or RFL that's at blame, for knowingly letting these clubs get away with their infringements at the time, or have they just discovered the failure of the clubs to follow covid protocols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wasginger said:

No chip on my shoulder I can assure you. So who's negligent in the 3 clubs cases. Is it the clubs for not abiding by the protocols set out or is it the S/L or RFL that's at blame, for knowingly letting these clubs get away with their infringements at the time, or have they just discovered the failure of the clubs to follow covid protocols.

None of the above, it's obviously Wigan's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, wasginger said:

No chip on my shoulder I can assure you. So who's negligent in the 3 clubs cases. Is it the clubs for not abiding by the protocols set out or is it the S/L or RFL that's at blame, for knowingly letting these clubs get away with their infringements at the time, or have they just discovered the failure of the clubs to follow covid protocols.

They haven't 'got away' with ignoring the protocols though. And investigations actually take time to carry out. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, M j M said:

If you've not got enough Covid cases or contacts you can't just not play. Injuries are a regular part of the game. Covid isn't.

Do you believe that the duty of care requirements for all clubs should be taken into account in such cases or should they simply be required to throw any players into a SL game, no matter what their preparation?

I think that it is a bit too easy to be judgemental in these times.

  • Like 1

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Do you believe that the duty of care requirements for all clubs should be taken into account in such cases or should they simply be required to throw any players into a SL game, no matter what their preparation?

I think that it is a bit too easy to be judgemental in these times.

I'm not making any judgements at all. 

But Huddersfield can't just make up their own rules or dispute the specified sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, wasginger said:

No chip on my shoulder I can assure you. So who's negligent in the 3 clubs cases. Is it the clubs for not abiding by the protocols set out or is it the S/L or RFL that's at blame, for knowingly letting these clubs get away with their infringements at the time, or have they just discovered the failure of the clubs to follow covid protocols.

Sorry but you aren't making any sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, M j M said:

Are there any clubs out there who don't have a paranoid fringe (ok possibly a paranoid majority) that the RFL are out to get them

Even Rimmer is convinced the RFL is out to get him

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Did you miss Cas and Huddersfield getting (bigger) fines too? 

Not missed those, but most clubs have postponed games, yet Salford break training ground protocols?  They didn't wait until a few hours before kick off to call off a game, be interesting to see what other punishments are handed down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OMEGA said:

Harsh on Huddersfield in my opinion, they had 11 senior players out through injury (not Covid) all of whom had surgery for the injury. They had 5 players pulled from their remaining squad to play in the Mid Season England v All Stars match and then had 5 Covid isolations. 

They tried to cancel their match due to being unable to field a squad of sufficient quality and yet are fined for breaching the integrity of the competition! The very thing they were trying to preserve by not fielding a substantially weakened team.

With the one exception of Wigan, no one has played more games than Huddersfield!

And we had players ,like our Captain and marquee player, who we would have liked to have played for us, come back injured from a game we didn't want them to play in.

We could have played the Castleford game with 7 fit senior squad players plus 10 academy players backing up after their game 2 days previously.

Player welfare??

It's beggars belief sometimes!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, meast said:

And we had players ,like our Captain and marquee player, who we would have liked to have played for us, come back injured from a game we didn't want them to play in.

We could have played the Castleford game with 7 fit senior squad players plus 10 academy players backing up after their game 2 days previously.

Player welfare??

It's beggars belief sometimes!

So what you're saying is you do think there should have been a special ruling just for Huddersfield?

And you think that not having such a ruling is the thing which beggars belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, M j M said:

So what you're saying is you do think there should have been a special ruling just for Huddersfield?

And you think that not having such a ruling is the thing which beggars belief?

What he’s saying is the RFLs own rules contributed heavily to Huddersfield being unable to field a team.

Youth players are not allowed to play 2 games inside of 72 hours, The Giants Academy had played 48 hours earlier which prevented Huddersfield from drawing on those players.

The RFL took 5 players from Huddersfield’s 1st team to play in the England v All Stars game 

The RFL states 7 Covid-19 cases warrant the postponement of a match, an arbitrary number chosen as a one size fits all circumstances amount. Huddersfield had 5 cases but their player shortage was far from normal and had been contributed to by the RFL itself

Added into that were 11 players who’s injury status was not in question as all 11 had undergone surgery for their individual injury. 2 of those were ruled out for the season.

So due to the RFLs own welfare rules, the RFLs one size fits all arbitrary number of Covid cases and the RFL taking 5 Giants players the Huddersfield club were left unable to field a team.

IMO it’s a bit rich for the RFL to place all the blame on the Giants when they were partly, possibly largely responsible for the situation the Giants were in.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, OMEGA said:

Harsh on Huddersfield in my opinion, they had 11 senior players out through injury (not Covid) all of whom had surgery for the injury. They had 5 players pulled from their remaining squad to play in the Mid Season England v All Stars match and then had 5 Covid isolations. 

They tried to cancel their match due to being unable to field a squad of sufficient quality and yet are fined for breaching the integrity of the competition! The very thing they were trying to preserve by not fielding a substantially weakened team.

With the one exception of Wigan, no one has played more games than Huddersfield!

Both Wakefield and Leeds have played more than Huddersfield in addition to Wigan

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

15 hours ago, M j M said:

So what you're saying is you do think there should have been a special ruling just for Huddersfield?

And you think that not having such a ruling is the thing which beggars belief?

I think that you are being perverse if you ignore the point being made, and it isn't specifically about Huddersfield but the RFL stance in general.

There has been much emphasis made within the game about duty of care towards the players; quite rightly in my view. To have relatively junior, unproven players thrown straight into a SL standard match in significant numbers is, I believe, ignoring the real hazards that exist in those circumstances. There is no doubt that the Covid regulations are quite specific and necessarily so, but to treat those circumstances in seeming ignorance of other criteria seems at odds, to me at least, with the stance on player welfare. No doubt there is much more that hasn't been revealed in the published judgements, but for forum members to be so simplistically black and white about the matter is disappointing to say the least.

  • Like 3

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whataboutery is rife in RL. Take the punishment and move on rather than worrying about what other clubs have done (and will likely be punished for). All this demonstrates to people is what a shambles super league is. No wonder the game is going down the pan with the behaviour of clubs at the top of the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at what has gone on previously is how you can interpret how the rules will be applied though.

Wasnt there a colossal furore last year when Leeds bailed on going to Catalan just before lockdown? 

No rules in place then but mitigating circumstances accounted for and no charge levelled at Leeds (rightly so imo)

Why not mitigation taken into account here? For the reasons already noted.

It seems, from here, that there has been a huge disparity on how the rules have been applied or how some clubs are treated. 

  • Like 2
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...