Moderator: Puja
See, I'd rather have a 1-stop shop, at least for scores, tracking the 3 big ones.Raggs wrote:I'd rather keep this one score free. Not because I'm worried aobut spoilers, just it's not a match thread, and I'd rather keep using it to bash Diamond and Sale, and feel sorry for Saints and Wuss.
Maybe setup another thread for just that? Clearly marked for those people who honestly believe they can watch one game now, and not have the commentary team constantly update on other scores.Which Tyler wrote:See, I'd rather have a 1-stop shop, at least for scores, tracking the 3 big ones.Raggs wrote:I'd rather keep this one score free. Not because I'm worried aobut spoilers, just it's not a match thread, and I'd rather keep using it to bash Diamond and Sale, and feel sorry for Saints and Wuss.
We'll still have 72 hours to lay into Sale after 5.00
Doorzetbornandbred wrote:Chiefs have 2 cases of Covid 19, Vermuelen and Kirsten.
From people with links to Chiefs. Did you not think it odd when Baxter said they were 'unavailable' not carrying (insert whatever niggle you want)?twitchy wrote:Doorzetbornandbred wrote:Chiefs have 2 cases of Covid 19, Vermuelen and Kirsten.
Where sis you hear this?
Don't they have to report this stuff though? How come the press haven't picked up on it? Wouldn't other players/staff have to quarantine also?Doorzetbornandbred wrote:From people with links to Chiefs. Did you not think it odd when Baxter said they were 'unavailable' not carrying (insert whatever niggle you want)?twitchy wrote:Doorzetbornandbred wrote:Chiefs have 2 cases of Covid 19, Vermuelen and Kirsten.
Where sis you hear this?
I assume the protocol is the same as in football. They must report it to the authorities, who will follow up with known contacts, but it is the players' choice if that information is made public or not.twitchy wrote:Don't they have to report this stuff though? How come the press haven't picked up on it? Wouldn't other players/staff have to quarantine also?Doorzetbornandbred wrote:From people with links to Chiefs. Did you not think it odd when Baxter said they were 'unavailable' not carrying (insert whatever niggle you want)?twitchy wrote:
Where sis you hear this?
Cheers.Stom wrote:I assume the protocol is the same as in football. They must report it to the authorities, who will follow up with known contacts, but it is the players' choice if that information is made public or not.twitchy wrote:Don't they have to report this stuff though? How come the press haven't picked up on it? Wouldn't other players/staff have to quarantine also?Doorzetbornandbred wrote:
From people with links to Chiefs. Did you not think it odd when Baxter said they were 'unavailable' not carrying (insert whatever niggle you want)?
I sort of thought it would have unavoidable if they were in full training and playing matches. I'm not exactly sure though.Peej wrote:If a squad is a bubble, should the entire squad not have to isolate if someone gets COVID? Or does testing get you out of that?
That's what I thought too - but also share the confusion!twitchy wrote:I sort of thought it would have unavoidable if they were in full training and playing matches. I'm not exactly sure though.Peej wrote:If a squad is a bubble, should the entire squad not have to isolate if someone gets COVID? Or does testing get you out of that?
Wasn't the thing that Saints and Gloucester agreed to just call it off?Raggs wrote:Sale announced a team. Sorry, but how the hell can Sale name players that were involved in the Saints match, yet Saints can't use those players???? Just because they tested negatively after that game, or even now, could just mean that it's not yet reached levels that are testable!
Same here. I’m genuinely amazed this is going ahead.fivepointer wrote:I find the whole thing very odd and frankly unsatisfactory.
I'm not clear why Saints had to withdraw certain players (front row primarily it seems) yet others were free to play.
I dont see how Castres were denied a chance to play in the ECC when they had 3 cases, yet Sale can play when 16 players have tested positive.
Saints didn't have enough front row, because they had to isolate after facing Sale. PRL wouldn't let them sign any cover. So they were deemed to forfeit, since they couldn't play the match as it was scheduled.Tigersman wrote:Wasn't the thing that Saints and Gloucester agreed to just call it off?Raggs wrote:Sale announced a team. Sorry, but how the hell can Sale name players that were involved in the Saints match, yet Saints can't use those players???? Just because they tested negatively after that game, or even now, could just mean that it's not yet reached levels that are testable!
IDK personally I think this game should've been called off but then again I could see Sale mounting a big legal challenge and the PRL prob thought nope.
Puja*Subject to Sale Sharks entire squad undergoing further COVID 19 testing on Tuesday 6th October, If the club feel it is not safe to play or receive one additional positive test, Sale Sharks will forfeit their Gallagher Premiership Round 22 match with Worcester Warriors in order to ensure the health and safety of all concerned.
Is it clear what the quarantine period is in pro rugby? I've seen various references to 7, 10 and 14 day periods. Football appears to be applying a 14 day rule but is that a mandatory govt thing or a FA guideline?Scrumhead wrote:I don’t think a Sale win is a given. Worcester are a better side than they generally get the credit for and with no real bench and a loosehead playing at tighthead, I think it could be close.
Even if Sale win, presumably they’ll have to play the same team in the semi-final if the rest of the squad are in quarantine?
