RugbyRebels

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.

See, I'd rather have a 1-stop shop, at least for scores, tracking the 3 big ones.

We'll still have 72 hours to lay into Sale after 5.00

Which Tyler wrote:

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.

See, I'd rather have a 1-stop shop, at least for scores, tracking the 3 big ones.

We'll still have 72 hours to lay into Sale after 5.00

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.

Chiefs have 2 cases of Covid 19, Vermuelen and Kirsten.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:Chiefs have 2 cases of Covid 19, Vermuelen and Kirsten.

Where did you hear this?

twitchy wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:Chiefs have 2 cases of Covid 19, Vermuelen and Kirsten.

Where sis you hear this?

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)?

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:Chiefs have 2 cases of Covid 19, Vermuelen and Kirsten.

Where sis you hear this?

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)?

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?

twitchy wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Where sis you hear this?

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)?

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?

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.

Stom wrote:

twitchy wrote:

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)?

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?

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.

Cheers.

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?

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?

I sort of thought it would have unavoidable if they were in full training and playing matches. I'm not exactly sure though.

If Exeter have cases it goes some way to explaining the decisions on Sale

twitchy wrote:

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?

I sort of thought it would have unavoidable if they were in full training and playing matches. I'm not exactly sure though.

That's what I thought too - but also share the confusion!

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!

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.

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!

Wasn't the thing that Saints and Gloucester agreed to just call it off?

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.

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.

Same here. I’m genuinely amazed this is going ahead.

Tigersman wrote:

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!

Wasn't the thing that Saints and Gloucester agreed to just call it off?

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.

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.

Winstanley, who just happened to play with Dimes, seems to have allowed Sale to delay the match, not isolate Harrison (and others from the pack I believe), as well as (I think) bring in other players. Whilst also saying Saints were told they could bring in others.

This is just a bad, bad look.

Looks like a pretty strong side for a club who had 19 positive tests. Who the hell were the 19?!

This is a fun caveat on their website:

*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.

Puja

So 11 players from the Saints game:

L. JamesVan Rensburg, S James, Tuilagi, Hammersley; R Du Preez, De Klerk; Harrison, Langdon, Oosthuizen; Wiese, JL Du Preez, Ross (capt), T Curry, D Du Preez.
Van Der Merwe, Morozov, Cooper-Woolley, Phillips, Neild, Cliff, MacGinty, Yarde.

Not sure why those in bold don't have to isolate but Saints do....

Thats what i'm wondering???

Just end this league, already bored before the new starts!

Simon Orange on the rugby pod said on they back their small squad, as they pick players with a good injury records and take good care of them so are happy with a squad of 30-32, yet still have a load of quality players after deducting 16 from 32?

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?

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?

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?

They shouldn't be playing this. It's irresponsible.