RugbyRebels

That's crazy. Neither Saints nor Glaws actually have anything else to do in the coming weeks. It's Sale with all the cases, and Saints and Wuss are the punished teams.

Maybe Saints weren’t interested in delaying the game and once it was established that they couldn’t put out a team for tomorrow just forfeited?

Lots of moaning about the Sale game, but I think some understanding and empathy wouldn’t go amiss in a tough predicament. Given what’s at stake I think it’s reasonable to give Sale a few days to get their team together- and satisfy Worcester that it’s safe. What’s the big deal really? There’s no big advantage, it’s just going to be different. And it’s not like they’ve engineered this situation.

And ultimately if there’s too much risk it’ll be cancelled anyway.

Saints sound livid in their statement.

Wuss now cannot qualify for Europe, and yet their game can be delayed.

The big deal with any delay is teams knowing what other teams have attained, but as above some integrity is going to be lost somewhere as there isn't an answer that meets all good aims

Raggs wrote:Saints sound livid in their statement.

And rightly so. Talk about being an innocent bystander.

So, who had "PRL will find a way to f*** it up" in the sweepstake?

Which Tyler wrote:So, who had "PRL will find a way to f*** it up" in the sweepstake?

Damn, I knew I should have picked that last September when I did my predictions.

Raggs wrote:Saints sound livid in their statement.

Linky?

ETA. Found it: https://www.northamptonsaints.co.uk/new ... p-round-22

They do sound annoyed. Frankly no idea why PRL aren't allowing them to loan in players to make a XXIII.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:Saints sound livid in their statement.

Linky?

ETA. Found it: https://www.northamptonsaints.co.uk/new ... p-round-22

They do sound annoyed. Frankly no idea why PRL aren't allowing them to loan in players to make a XXIII.

Puja

Like Sale are allowed to do? I agree. I fully understand the rules and the COVID rules and I get why the Saints match is cancelled and I think it’s the right thing to do. However, allowing Sale to register retired players to make a team doesn’t make it exactly fair and equal.

Rumour on Twitter the deal for the Sale postponement was agreed with a PRL member that was a former Sale player with Dimond...

And the Telegraph now running a story saying the Sale squad were drinking until the early hours after their prem cup win.. (behind paywall so can't read the details).

Does seem to be some double standards at play here.

But if I read that right; have Saints players tested positive, or are they all just asymptomatic? If they haven't tested postive, would testing negative on multiple occassions not be ok for them to play?

Peej wrote:Does seem to be some double standards at play here.

But if I read that right; have Saints players tested positive, or are they all just asymptomatic? If they haven't tested postive, would testing negative on multiple occassions not be ok for them to play?

Don't think they've even completed testing yet. Basically they've been exposed, so have to isolate at first, until enough time has passed for a test to give a true result.

jimKRFC wrote:Rumour on Twitter the deal for the Sale postponement was agreed with a PRL member that was a former Sale player with Dimond...

And the Telegraph now running a story saying the Sale squad were drinking until the early hours after their prem cup win.. (behind paywall so can't read the details).

Reportedly had a few post game beers at the training ground as a squad.

As I understand, Sale had a bunch of positives but even allowing for that were able and willing to put out a non-contaminated 23 for the Worcester game tomorrow. This did not involve registering new players. Worcester and the league were sceptical, so the compromise was to allow a few days to investigate and uncover any other potential new positives.

Saints on the other hand have no actual positives, but had to quarantine a bunch of players, which left them unable to field a team. Game forfeited.

Timbo wrote:As I understand, Sale had a bunch of positives but even allowing for that were able and willing to put out a non-contaminated 23 for the Worcester game tomorrow. This did not involve registering new players. Worcester and the league were sceptical, so the compromise was to allow a few days to investigate and uncover any other potential new positives.

Saints on the other hand have no actual positives, but had to quarantine a bunch of players, which left them unable to field a team. Game forfeited.

And yet postponing the Saints/Glaws game has no pressure on it whatsoever that wouldn't play out as the final weekend could anyway.

"However, the rescheduled match will only go ahead if Public Health England is satisfied after another round of tests at the club on Tuesday and that an investigation into the source of the outbreak finds Sale did not breach protocols"

Seems to me that Sale have to show they've acted in accordance with all the guidelines to get to the starting block on Wednesday. Any breaches and they will likely have to forfeit.
Are they sure that they are squeaky clean?

If people have to self isolate for 14 days and Wednesday is ok, then doesn't that point to Sale players either having, or suspected of having, CoVid for the Saints game? THe timings make it seem like somebody was aware that there (suspected) cases of CoVid at Sale and the played anyway.

If there were instances prior to the Saints game then surely they would have been picked up in the testing beforehand?

jimKRFC wrote:If people have to self isolate for 14 days and Wednesday is ok, then doesn't that point to Sale players either having, or suspected of having, CoVid for the Saints game? THe timings make it seem like somebody was aware that there (suspected) cases of CoVid at Sale and the played anyway.

Not necessarily. A positive test on Wednesday would still make Tuesday suspect as people are sometimes infectious before they show a positive test. And ordinary people have to self-isolate for 14 days to be on the safe side, but professional sports people with access to a metric butt-tonne of high-quality tests can probably prove they're not infected given a week's worth of testing.

Puja

So which game is the one to watch?

twitchy wrote:So which game is the one to watch?

I know what I'm watching, but as a neutral.... no idea. Bath Sarries perhaps. But I'd check at half time and go from there.

So apparently Sale have 19 positives, 16 players (where the number came from) and 3 backroom staff.

EDIT - Pat Lam despite being very political, seems rather annoyed with Sale too:

Raggs wrote:

twitchy wrote:So which game is the one to watch?

I know what I'm watching, but as a neutral.... no idea. Bath Sarries perhaps. But I'd check at half time and go from there.

Saracens v Bath should be the best match, but we won't really know u til it's too late. Wasps v Exeter could end up being brilliant nailbiting stuff. Leicester v Harlequins could throw caution to the wind and be a Baabaa.s variety of rugby...

Is this going to be the go-to thread to keep track of scores in all 4 matches?

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.

Why are Sale even pretending they could be in it if that's the case? It's done, take your Pram Cup win and move along to next season