48-0 ??!!

[thebrewxi]

27 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

No, because you couldn't keep that a secret even if you wanted to. I also doubt any club medical staff or doctor would want to put their professional careers at risk either.

I don't agree. I think there will be a few that will take the chance this season you watch. And we'll only know about the ones we know about.

Be interesting what SL will do if they find this out. The punishment will surely need to be much much greater than a 48 - 0 forfeit. 

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

how can you punish clubs because of covid like this

Because the governing body/ies don't have a pot to wee in and so can't do anything positive in this area, as a result, all risk and punishment will be transferred over to the clubs who also don't have any money and can't do anything to stop players leading their lives which include shopping and taking the kids to school.

[Chris22]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this but does it suggest that the RFL thought that on occasions over the last two years that clubs were calling off matches that could have been played? Or is it to put pressure on the unvaccinated 15% of players when their choice not to accept a vaccine may directly harm their club?

[arcticchris]

There has certainly been a clear feel that clubs took some tactical cancellations in the past 2 seasons and that a stiffer deterrent needed to be considered.

We need to see what the testing regimes will be before we can make a full judgement on what the penalty should be for non fulfilment of a fixture.

The biggest thing for me is that we must ensure that the French clubs don’t get punished purely as a result of any measures taken by their government that restricts travel.

[HawkMan]

34 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Because the governing body/ies don't have a pot to wee in and so can't do anything positive in this area, as a result, all risk and punishment will be transferred over to the clubs who also don't have any money and can't do anything to stop players leading their lives which include shopping and taking the kids to school.

You watch a lot of non league football,  do they do something similar there, no of course not, lack of money isn't an excuse. 

[Pie tries]

3 hours ago, HawkMan said:

This has to be a joke, how can you punish clubs because of covid like this. Punishment should only be if the club in question is careless and disregarded covid protocols. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/59884125

Completely disagree.

Get your squads 100% vaxxed

Get games on

Move on - well done RFL for doing this 

[Niels]

There was an article in the Guardian today about forthcoming French rugby union clubs Champions Cup games.

It said nobody unvaccinated from abroad is even allowed in the stadiums, regardless of tests. Presumably it applies for all sports?

Did anyone else see this? 

 

[JohnM]

1.The Rugby Football League will consult clubs about the change over the next two weeks before making a decision.

2. We all know how it spreads.

2.1 Get vaccinated

2.2 Test, test,  test.

Etc, etc, etc.

Its about time players, managers, clubs, staff etc took personal responsibility without having to rely on legalities to make them do the right thing.  Its a minor inconvenience  compared with the possible consequences.  

[Tonka]

As vaccinated people can still get covid and with cases up to 200k a day, I’m not sure about this at all.  And 48-0 seems high.

[David Dockhouse Host]

With reserve grades and academies teams should have ample players to put out a full team. If some of their top players have covid some younger players will get a game.

There will be people unhappy either way the RFL/SL play it, for me I like this solution. Don't play positive players, use your full squad, complete all games. If not rather than postpone, which will impact end of year plans for the World Cup, either out your best team or forfeit.

Clubs in the past I suspect have postponed due to covid when they would have put out a team just not their strongest.

The 48-0 is probably to discourage called off games, if 24-0 teams may accept the loss tactically 

[Dave T]

11 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Because the governing body/ies don't have a pot to wee in and so can't do anything positive in this area, as a result, all risk and punishment will be transferred over to the clubs who also don't have any money and can't do anything to stop players leading their lives which include shopping and taking the kids to school.

I think I am OK with this, haven't thought it through fully, so we'll see how it goes, but I'm OK with the principle. 

What clubs can do is make sure that at their workplace they are social distancing. I'm not allowed near my work colleagues. Obviously it is different in a team sport, but working outside, with strong measures in place is a strong mitigant. 

It has been quite clear over the last year or so that some clubs have been more able/willing to get the games on, even with some issues 

But when we see clubs behave like Saints did after winning the Cup, or Fev having drinks in a bar, or Steve Price campaigning for the important thing like hugging to celebrate a try etc. I think it is ok to put the onus on clubs to do much better. 

And part of that means you should have academies and reserves that can be called upon. 

I think there was a relaxation of loan rules last year, whether this needs to go further we will see. 

[whatmichaelsays]

In principle I'm OK with this but what isn't clear yet is what the wider protocols will be when it comes to COVID infections as and when they happen. 

For example, what will the isolation policies be? Will those isolation policies differ for vaccinated and unvaccinated players? How many case will be required before a training ground is forced to close? How will cases be handed with players who move between clubs on dual registration arrangements (for example, how does an outbreak at Leeds impact Featherstone)? 

My initial impression is that this an opening shot across the bows by the RFL as part of a a message to the clubs and players to get a vaccine and stop believing what they read on Facebook (and no, I'm not interested in discussing the merits of anti-vax positions). I'm perfectly OK with the RFL putting the onus on the clubs to take this seriously. 

The real test of this policy is in the finer details and protocols. The fact is that our players aren't like Premier League footballers, living in privileged bubbles. They live in their communities, their kids go to public schools and most can't afford to have a partner that doesn't work - COVID cases will happen and it's what the policies say needs to happen when they do that will determine how fair these sanctions are in my view. 

[gingerjon]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think I am OK with this, haven't thought it through fully, so we'll see how it goes, but I'm OK with the principle. 

What clubs can do is make sure that at their workplace they are social distancing. I'm not allowed near my work colleagues. Obviously it is different in a team sport, but working outside, with strong measures in place is a strong mitigant. 

It has been quite clear over the last year or so that some clubs have been more able/willing to get the games on, even with some issues 

But when we see clubs behave like Saints did after winning the Cup, or Fev having drinks in a bar, or Steve Price campaigning for the important thing like hugging to celebrate a try etc. I think it is ok to put the onus on clubs to do much better. 

And part of that means you should have academies and reserves that can be called upon. 

I think there was a relaxation of loan rules last year, whether this needs to go further we will see. 

Aye, that’s all fair

[Archie Gordon]

Deleted. Move right on by.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

This is great news, Super League clubs must fulfill all Super League games, I’m not sure how some are outraged by that, this isn’t an under 10’s competition. If a handful of players have Covid play some reserves in their place, if the whole squad has Covid postpone the game and play it at a later date, you only need to isolate for 7 days now and young fit vaccinated people will only likely have mild symptoms if any at all. 

Hull kr played only 20 Super League games last year, giving themselves a full weeks break before going up against teams that were playing twice a week to play previously postponed games, that’s not right. We need a level playing field or at least as close as we can get.

[RP London]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think I am OK with this, haven't thought it through fully, so we'll see how it goes, but I'm OK with the principle. 

What clubs can do is make sure that at their workplace they are social distancing. I'm not allowed near my work colleagues. Obviously it is different in a team sport, but working outside, with strong measures in place is a strong mitigant. 

It has been quite clear over the last year or so that some clubs have been more able/willing to get the games on, even with some issues 

But when we see clubs behave like Saints did after winning the Cup, or Fev having drinks in a bar, or Steve Price campaigning for the important thing like hugging to celebrate a try etc. I think it is ok to put the onus on clubs to do much better. 

And part of that means you should have academies and reserves that can be called upon. 

I think there was a relaxation of loan rules last year, whether this needs to go further we will see. 

Agree with you on this. 

I also think an additional factor is that the rules on how long you have to isolate for are coming down and also the "close contact" isolation rules are/have disappeared. I'll knock the RFL at any given opportunity but perhaps they have had a look at the data from last year and seen that much of the cause was, perhaps (I dont have the data), down to "close contact isolation" and then for 10 days rather than from having it. 

There were also times last season that clubs were seemingly not wanting to go too deep into their academy which I dont think is right. We bemoan talent not coming through but then when we get reasons to give them a chance we dont take it.

Resting players to give younger kids a chance is seen as a bad thing, having internationals which might mean a player sitting a round of matches out is seen as a bad thing but gives a kid a chance to be seen etc. Treat Covid as a 1 week injury crisis IMHO.. 

If the entire team has it then I am sure there will be some leeway, as there would if an entire team came down with food poisoning etc I am sure there will be some wriggle room in a rule like this, but it is basically saying to teams "dont get sloppy and dont get complacent".. there will NOT be multiple call offs like last year. As was said on here a number of times there were some clubs that seemed to be being called off on quite often and others where you were happy to struggle to get a team out on.. 

 

[Saint Toppy]

1 hour ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

With reserve grades and academies teams should have ample players to put out a full team. If some of their top players have covid some younger players will get a game.

There will be people unhappy either way the RFL/SL play it, for me I like this solution. Don't play positive players, use your full squad, complete all games. If not rather than postpone, which will impact end of year plans for the World Cup, either out your best team or forfeit.

Clubs in the past I suspect have postponed due to covid when they would have put out a team just not their strongest.

The 48-0 is probably to discourage called off games, if 24-0 teams may accept the loss tactically 

I agree, the reintroduction of reserves means teams should have a larger player pool to select from so the absence of players due to Covid poses a lower risk than is has. Having said that the clubs with the smallest squads could be much more at risk along with those with poor Academies.

The knock-on effect could be with Championship clubs who have DR agreements with SL clubs and may rely heavily on those DR players

[The Daddy]

This is a great move. Toulouse v London last year is a great example. London decided that it would be easier to cancel the match to make some political point or protest . Toulouse were awarded a 24-0 victory, when in reality and going on the game I saw that they played in London, London could've lost by an 80 point margin, the points difference was a major factor in the Championship table between London and Whitehaven and could have prevented Whitehaven from reaching the play offs. 

Add to that the financial loss to Toulouse, the London game was their only scheduled regular season fixture at home and had many service providers and different things organised for the match. If I remember correctly, London cancelled so late that it was impossible for Toulouse not to have to have to pay those vendors, it really was a farce. 

This is an example of where implementing this new directive is a good decision 

[Davo5]

11 hours ago, JohnM said:

1.The Rugby Football League will consult clubs about the change over the next two weeks before making a decision.

2. We all know how it spreads.

2.1 Get vaccinated

2.2 Test, test,  test.

Etc, etc, etc.

Its about time players, managers, clubs, staff etc took personal responsibility without having to rely on legalities to make them do the right thing.  Its a minor inconvenience  compared with the possible consequences.  

And if after doing all those things there is as is likely a covid outbreak at a club should they still be hit with the 48-0 penalty ?

[giasf]

16 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Are clubs going to lock their players away in solitary confinement between games,if not there is going to be a lot of 48-0 games this year given the national infection rate is 1 in 15, it will turn the comp into a farce.

It completely ignores the fact that Super League players are not in a position to live in a bubble. If I'm a Premier League footballer, my missus (or fella...) can afford not to work, and I can afford to pay whatever I need to do (or the club will do it for me) so that I don't really have to interact with the general population - drastically reducing the chance of catching COVID.

There are very few Super League players who can afford to not have their family work, or relatives assist with childcare or even in many cases not run their own business on the side. There will be outbreaks, in many instances that won't be the fault of the players and some teams are going to be very unjustly punished. Total nonsense IMO.

[Curly perm]

4 hours ago, Tonka said:

As vaccinated people can still get covid and with cases up to 200k a day, I’m not sure about this at all.  And 48-0 seems high.

Three doses provides some protection against infection with Omicron and provides  protection against severe illness.

Cases won’t remain at 200k per day. We’ve seen throughout the pandemic that a multitude of factors mean that rates increase and decrease, peak and trough. It’s going to get better than it is right now…we (fans, players, clubs) need to help that along by doing our bit and trying to stay as healthy as possible. 

[Just Browny]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think I am OK with this, haven't thought it through fully, so we'll see how it goes, but I'm OK with the principle. 

What clubs can do is make sure that at their workplace they are social distancing. I'm not allowed near my work colleagues. Obviously it is different in a team sport, but working outside, with strong measures in place is a strong mitigant. 

It has been quite clear over the last year or so that some clubs have been more able/willing to get the games on, even with some issues 

But when we see clubs behave like Saints did after winning the Cup, or Fev having drinks in a bar, or Steve Price campaigning for the important thing like hugging to celebrate a try etc. I think it is ok to put the onus on clubs to do much better. 

And part of that means you should have academies and reserves that can be called upon. 

I think there was a relaxation of loan rules last year, whether this needs to go further we will see. 

I don't have a problem with the governing body coming up with a set of rules/protocols that need to be followed and coming down like a tonne of bricks on those who don't comply. It's the idea of punishing teams for a Covid outbreak which might have come about by innocent/accidental means which I think will fall down, as even the best protocols in the world cannot guarantee zero transmission when this virus is all over the community.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I don't have a problem with the governing body coming up with a set of rules/protocols that need to be followed and coming down like a tonne of bricks on those who don't comply. It's the idea of punishing teams for a Covid outbreak which might have come about by innocent/accidental means which I think will fall down, as even the best protocols in the world cannot guarantee zero transmission when this virus is all over the community.

I do however think that clubs have the responsibility to be trying to manage outbreaks within their camps, and that is something that some teams clearly didn't do effectively last year. A players kid getting it at nursery shouldn't lead to 10 players from one squad being wiped out. There should be enough mitigants in place to create opportunities to break those chains.

I am surprised that we put 20 people in a small changing room at the same time for example.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

With reserve grades and academies teams should have ample players to put out a full team. If some of their top players have covid some younger players will get a game.

There will be people unhappy either way the RFL/SL play it, for me I like this solution. Don't play positive players, use your full squad, complete all games. If not rather than postpone, which will impact end of year plans for the World Cup, either out your best team or forfeit.

Clubs in the past I suspect have postponed due to covid when they would have put out a team just not their strongest.

The 48-0 is probably to discourage called off games, if 24-0 teams may accept the loss tactically 

Yes quite, totally agree and it may just make SL think twice about commuting to sending player's out on DR jaunts.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Davo5 said:

And if after doing all those things there is as is likely a covid outbreak at a club should they still be hit with the 48-0 penalty ?

Yes.