• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Are the Champions Covid rules fair?

Scotty

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
4,919
Club or Nation
Exeter
(As i understand it) Chiefs had multiple cases couldnt play so couldnt put out a team and got a 28 - 0 loss, i think thats fair. So 5 point loss

But Glasgow couldnt play because of the Chiefs game, no cases yet couldnt put out the team...28 - 0 loss. 5 point loss? Maybe a 4 - 2 loss, shouldn't be punished the same for playing a team with cases rather than having cases themselves.

Surely they would could have come up with a fairer solution to this?
 
Yeah I feel like it should be a draw if you have to forfeit because you're isolating due to contact during a game the previous week

I guess it's to stop people claiming they can't field a side?
Like if you're playing Toulouse away but you've only got your third choice and academy players not isolating, you could say they also have to isolate and get 2pts, rather than go there with a cobbled together side and get nothing.
 
(As i understand it) Chiefs had multiple cases couldnt play so couldnt put out a team and got a 28 - 0 loss, i think thats fair. So 5 point loss

But Glasgow couldnt play because of the Chiefs game, no cases yet couldnt put out the team...28 - 0 loss. 5 point loss? Maybe a 4 - 2 loss, shouldn't be punished the same for playing a team with cases rather than having cases themselves.

Surely they would could have come up with a fairer solution to this?
As no blame is being apportioned , both games were cancelled for the same reason ie. not being able to field a team that hadn't had contact with infected players.
The chances are Chiefs could have fielded a side apparently clear of covid , the same as Glasgow. so from what I understand the 'punishment' should be the same.
I might be wrong tho.
 
As no blame is being apportioned , both games were cancelled for the same reason ie. not being able to field a team that hadn't had contact with infected players.
This is the bit that I don't understand. If they're not apportioning blame, why are they punishing apparently innocent parties with a 28-0 decision in preference to say a 28-26 or 28-28 one?
 
This is the bit that I don't understand. If they're not apportioning blame, why are they punishing apparently innocent parties with a 28-0 decision in preference to say a 28-26 or 28-28 one?
As the games couldn't be played then or apparently any future dates, they obviously had to allocate a 'result'. The 28-0 is basically a random choice as there is no way of coming to a solution that would please all parties. The 28-0 does seem a tad heavy as it virtually rules out any chance of finishing top 4. Something like 5-1 or 5-2 would have been a more fitting result.
 
Falcons got 4pts, Tigers 2, in the prem called off game
That seems fair
 
Top