DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51388--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sale/Worcester match officially off
DIR By: DOK
Date: October 8, 2020, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The Sharks have insisted they have not been in breach of the
strict Covid protocols. “Throughout the last six months we have
followed the official guidelines and protocols given to us by
the RFU and Premiership Rugby, with rigorous testing regimes and
safety measures in place to protect everyone connected to the
game,” read a club statement. “Sale Sharks is confident the
audit carried out by the RFU over the past few days will confirm
this absolutely.”
--- End Quote ---
but am I right that no other team has come down with so many
cases? If so, there must be something odd about what they're
doing.
#Post#: 51390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sale/Worcester match officially off
DIR By: ah306
Date: October 8, 2020, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PRL cetainly not looking great. Not sure about Sale. At the
moment there's not much in the way of definite facts about the
whole thing in the public domain. Rumours of student parties are
unsubstatiated and looking increasing doubtful the longer we go
without any evidence. Steve Diamonds belligerent manner will
inevitably irritate and invite suspision from many but it
doesn't prove, or even imply, that Sale did anything wrong. From
what i've read (although I make no claim to be an expert) the
single false negative and several day delay before being
notified of it could be enough to explain the subsequent 16
positive tests. Sale can't be blamed for trusting test results
that later turn out to be incorrect but it does seem odd that
having been notifed of a false negative they apparently didn't
re-test everyone immediately. This could have nipped the
outbreak in the bud and prevented Northampton players being
exposed as well. If it's not a requirement you can sort of
understand some reluctance from Sale to spend however many
thousand pounds on re-tests for everyone but morally it seems
pretty obvious they should have done. It also seems fairly
obvious the regulations should have required it but maybe nobody
anticipated false positives when the regulations were written. I
don't know enough about testing reliabilty it to say if that was
a reasonable omission or a negligent oversight.
Most people seem to agree that postponing the game was a bad
idea but under the regulations Sale apparently had a team so it
would have been Worcester forfeiting and Sale cruising into the
play-offs with a weeks rest. The trouble is Sale had more
positive cases this week which vindicates Worcester refusing to
play on Sunday. I can only imagine the can of worms if Worcester
had been compelled to play and some of their players
subsequently tested positive. It also seems odd that Sale
believed they were able to field players who had appeared in the
Northampton game. To be honest I would have expected any player
on the pitch in that game to have to self-isolate but it seems
that's not what the regulations say. I'm not sure how
Northampton identified players who had to self isolate due to
contat with a Sale player with a positive test but Sale didn't.
Maybe it's just a question of transparency. It's possible that
players were identified and told to isolate and then all turned
out to be among the 16 positive tests. If so it might have
helped Sale from a PR point of view to communicate that, but
open and transparent communication doesn't seem to be
Sales/Steve Diamonds modus operandi.
So the question is did Sale follow the regulations properly,
including reviewing all their players close contacts before
selecting their team for the Worcester game? If not then they
should be severely punished for what would basically be lying in
order to get a team out and in doing so endangering their wider
squad/workforce and their opposition (and arguably public health
in general). If they did follow the rules, those rules clearly
don't work. If the game had gone ahead it seems highly likely
that the outbreak would have spread to Worcester. In a way it's
lucky this happened when it did (although abviously not for
Sale). If something similar happens in the first few weeks of
the new Premiership season it has the potential to ruin the
whole competition. Given that this season was severely
compromised and the preceding five seasons (at least) have an
asterisk next to them that's the last thing anyone English rugby
needs.
Hopefully the relevant parties are investigating and will take
the necessary actions in due course (although i'm not holding my
breath). Maybe this will at least put an end to anyone
complaining about the testing. I'm normally a fan of Rob Baxter
but his comments a little while ago about ending testing seemed
pretty stupid, even at the time. To me this epsiode with Sale
proves how reliant the Premiership is on regular testing and how
quickly the virus can spread if cases are missed, even if it's
just for a few days.
Sorry for the long post. Balanced, reasoned, concise. At best I
can do two (although that's probably up for debate). All three
seems to be beyond me which is why I don't contribute to
Twitter.
#Post#: 51391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sale/Worcester match officially off
DIR By: Yareet
Date: October 8, 2020, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ah306 link ---
>
> PRL cetainly not looking great. Not sure about Sale. At the
moment there's not much in the way of definite facts about the
whole thing in the public domain. Rumours of student parties are
unsubstatiated and looking increasing doubtful the longer we go
without any evidence. Steve Diamonds belligerent manner will
inevitably irritate and invite suspision from many but it
doesn't prove, or even imply, that Sale did anything wrong. From
what i've read (although I make no claim to be an expert) the
single false negative and several day delay before being
notified of it could be enough to explain the subsequent 16
positive tests. Sale can't be blamed for trusting test results
that later turn out to be incorrect but it does seem odd that
having been notifed of a false negative they apparently didn't
re-test everyone immediately. This could have nipped the
outbreak in the bud and prevented Northampton players being
exposed as well. If it's not a requirement you can sort of
understand some reluctance from Sale to spend however many
thousand pounds on re-tests for everyone but morally it seems
pretty obvious they should have done. It also seems fairly
obvious the regulations should have required it but maybe nobody
anticipated false positives when the regulations were written. I
don't know enough about testing reliabilty it to say if that was
a reasonable omission or a negligent oversight.
>
> Most people seem to agree that postponing the game was a bad
idea but under the regulations Sale apparently had a team so it
would have been Worcester forfeiting and Sale cruising into the
play-offs with a weeks rest. The trouble is Sale had more
positive cases this week which vindicates Worcester refusing to
play on Sunday. I can only imagine the can of worms if Worcester
had been compelled to play and some of their players
subsequently tested positive. It also seems odd that Sale
believed they were able to field players who had appeared in the
Northampton game. To be honest I would have expected any player
on the pitch in that game to have to self-isolate but it seems
that's not what the regulations say. I'm not sure how
Northampton identified players who had to self isolate due to
contat with a Sale player with a positive test but Sale didn't.
Maybe it's just a question of transparency. It's possible that
players were identified and told to isolate and then all turned
out to be among the 16 positive tests. If so it might have
helped Sale from a PR point of view to communicate that, but
open and transparent communication doesn't seem to be
Sales/Steve Diamonds modus operandi.
>
> So the question is did Sale follow the regulations properly,
including reviewing all their players close contacts before
selecting their team for the Worcester game? If not then they
should be severely punished for what would basically be lying in
order to get a team out and in doing so endangering their wider
squad/workforce and their opposition (and arguably public health
in general). If they did follow the rules, those rules clearly
don't work. If the game had gone ahead it seems highly likely
that the outbreak would have spread to Worcester. In a way it's
lucky this happened when it did (although abviously not for
Sale). If something similar happens in the first few weeks of
the new Premiership season it has the potential to ruin the
whole competition. Given that this season was severely
compromised and the preceding five seasons (at least) have an
asterisk next to them that's the last thing anyone English rugby
needs.
>
> Hopefully the relevant parties are investigating and will take
the necessary actions in due course (although i'm not holding my
breath). Maybe this will at least put an end to anyone
complaining about the testing. I'm normally a fan of Rob Baxter
but his comments a little while ago about ending testing seemed
pretty stupid, even at the time. To me this epsiode with Sale
proves how reliant the Premiership is on regular testing and how
quickly the virus can spread if cases are missed, even if it's
just for a few days.
>
> Sorry for the long post. Balanced, reasoned, concise. At best
I can do two (although that's probably up for debate). All three
seems to be beyond me which is why I don't contribute to
Twitter.
>
--- End Quote ---
Agree with pretty much everything you said except to add that
our processes *are* being investigated. By both PRL (I believe
with PHE) and the RFU. If we've been lax (whether as a group or
individuals), we deserve to have the book thrown at us but as
you say there is zero evidence (despite what Ugo, Solomans and
others may strongly imply) that we've deliberately flouted the
rules.
#Post#: 51392--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sale/Worcester match officially off
DIR By: RocQuin
Date: October 8, 2020, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I guess I will have to write off the cost of three tickets to
Prem Cup Final, plus car parking ticket. A refund was requested
several weeks ago, but no sign of it as yet. I suppose if they
are skint, then can renege on the promises and not worry too
much about the consequences.
#Post#: 51394--------------------------------------------------
Re: Sale/Worcester match officially off
DIR By: Chipstead Quin
Date: October 8, 2020, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RocQuin link ---
>
> So I guess I will have to write off the cost of three tickets
to Prem Cup Final, plus car parking ticket. A refund was
requested several weeks ago, but no sign of it as yet. I suppose
if they are skint, then can renege on the promises and not worry
too much about the consequences.
>
--- End Quote ---
They refunded Quinssa last week for 150 tickets , everyone has
been refunded now , so Im sure it will happen soon , no reason
to write it off .
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page