Hmmm interesting. So less testing healthy players then?

Link here

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... 884125.amp

Link here

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... 884125.amp

Shabino wrote:

Hmmm interesting. So less testing healthy players then?

How do we know who is healthy?

[Frosties.]

Think it’s a good decision by the RFL myself. This will hinder those clubs with the most players unvaccinated for the simple reason they’ll have to isolate if they are a close contact. One positive could mean losing five/six players to them through close contact, whereas others with not many could just lose that one positive.

bdrhino wrote:

How do we know who is healthy?

They test them

Be interested to hear what level of compensation might be required. Were we to, say, lose a televised Friday game against one of the bigger draws then we'd potentially be losing an eye-watering sum. And vice versa of course.

The last two years have been ruined. Something needs to give this year to get a proper season, so let’s see……

Luke Thompson was holding out until the Bulldgos told him he'd be sacked if he didn't get vaxxed because he would be considered unable to fulfil his contract.

Personally I think this is a good thing. Whether you agree with the protocols or not, the league is now saying that there can't be any more excuses for causing games to be cancelled. You can choose not to get vaccinated, but there are now consequences for clubs, which will flow through to individual players. Those holding out obviously don't really care about the consequences for others (primarily health), so stuff them.

Frosties. wrote:

Think it’s a good decision by the RFL myself. This will hinder those clubs with the most players unvaccinated for the simple reason they’ll have to isolate if they are a close contact. One positive could mean losing five/six players to them through close contact, whereas others with not many could just lose that one positive.

Agree and thats a very good point.