Knee Jerk Reaction & Team for France

[Which Tyler]

I think I'm not phrasing my query correctly.
If the match is postponed, Scotland lose access to all overseas players who's club what's them (10).
If the match is postponed, France lose access to all players (notmjust all squad players, but all players) who's club wants them (circa 200).

If the match is postponed, it's a huge advantage to Scotland (barring a miracle of negotiation that FFR have never shown capacity for before). Remember, France have as much control over their domestic players as Scotland have over their England-based players.


And don't get me wrong, the match should absolutely be forfeit, and anyone found to have breached Covid bubbles should be disciplined. I just don't get the argument that postponement is an advantage to France.

[stevedog1980]

Apologies if I am picking you up wrong but this is the way I see it

I agree, it is not an advantage to France, it is a reduction in disadvantage.

If we say that Scotland with their full squad at present is 100% and France playing with their squad this weekend is 20% for easy numbers it puts France at an 80% disadvantage.

If Scotland are forced to field a weakened squad the following lets say they are reduced to 70% and thanks to having a week to train together France improve to 30%. The disadvantage France are at has halved to 40%.

As far as I am taking the comments, I believe they are to reflect the fact that France playing next week has an advantage on France playing this week, not that they are somehow in a superior position to the Scottish team

[Which Tyler]

I don't think they improve though.
If France put out an entirely new 23 this week, they'll be made of 23 1st choice club players.
If France put out any 23 next week, they'll be made of 23 players who aren't good enough to make their club's 23.

France playing next week is at a massive disadvantage to France this week.

[Big D]

I think I'm not phrasing my query correctly.
If the match is postponed, Scotland lose access to all overseas players who's club what's them (10).
If the match is postponed, France lose access to all players (notmjust all squad players, but all players) who's club wants them (circa 200).

If the match is postponed, it's a huge advantage to Scotland (barring a miracle of negotiation that FFR have never shown capacity for before). Remember, France have as much control over their domestic players as Scotland have over their England-based players.


And don't get me wrong, the match should absolutely be forfeit, and anyone found to have breached Covid bubbles should be disciplined. I just don't get the argument that postponement is an advantage to France.

I get what you are saying now.

I haven't seen too many arguments that a postponement will advantage France. In Javas post I don't think he was inferring Dodson going to court because of any perceived advantage France would gain, more we want Scotland to be playing with our full compliment of players available.

Game should be off now.

[Which Tyler]

I get what you are saying now.

I haven't seen too many arguments that a postponement will advantage France. In Javas post I don't think he was inferring Dodson going to court because of any perceived advantage France would gain, more we want Scotland to be playing with our full compliment of players available.

Game should be off now.

I was pretty sure it was me failing to make my point this time. Essentially, we're not talking about France's 2nd XV here, were talking about their 22nd XV!

I have seen the argument made a few time that postponement favours France.

I absolutely agree that it needs to be forfeit though, so it (should be) an entirely intellectual discussion.

[stevedog1980]

I get what you are saying now.

I haven't seen too many arguments that a postponement will advantage France. In Javas post I don't think he was inferring Dodson going to court because of any perceived advantage France would gain, more we want Scotland to be playing with our full compliment of players available.

Game should be off now.

I was pretty sure it was me failing to make my point this time. Essentially, we're not talking about France's 2nd XV here, were talking about their 22nd XV!

I have seen the argument made a few time that postponement favours France.

I absolutely agree that it needs to be forfeit though, so it (should be) an entirely intellectual discussion.

Yup, I can see completely what you're talking about now!

I think that potentially prior to today's positive test result, postponement would have favoured France. I don't think they have to release players back to the clubs so if they'd been limited to the positive cases only and the rest of the squad were able to carry on regardless they would have been in a much stronger position than the latest positive case puts them in

[septic 9]

I think I'm not phrasing my query correctly.
If the match is postponed, Scotland lose access to all overseas players who's club what's them (10).
If the match is postponed, France lose access to all players (notmjust all squad players, but all players) who's club wants them (circa 200).

If the match is postponed, it's a huge advantage to Scotland (barring a miracle of negotiation that FFR have never shown capacity for before). Remember, France have as much control over their domestic players as Scotland have over their England-based players.


And don't get me wrong, the match should absolutely be forfeit, and anyone found to have breached Covid bubbles should be disciplined. I just don't get the argument that postponement is an advantage to France.

FFR have deal in place with LNR (T14 clubs). I know that that deal covers more than just release for defined games - eg it may cover for some the whole period of the 6N, or certain gap weeks - I don't know that it des but I do know that all French players play for T14 clubs and an arrangement could be easily reached. so France may or may not be weakened. Scotland's players are spread over 3 unions

[Donny osmond]

The game has now been called off and they're looking at reschedule

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[septic 9]

I think I'm not phrasing my query correctly.
If the match is postponed, Scotland lose access to all overseas players who's club what's them (10).
If the match is postponed, France lose access to all players (notmjust all squad players, but all players) who's club wants them (circa 200).

If the match is postponed, it's a huge advantage to Scotland (barring a miracle of negotiation that FFR have never shown capacity for before). Remember, France have as much control over their domestic players as Scotland have over their England-based players.


And don't get me wrong, the match should absolutely be forfeit, and anyone found to have breached Covid bubbles should be disciplined. I just don't get the argument that postponement is an advantage to France.

FFR have deal in place with LNR (T14 clubs). I know that that deal covers more than just release for defined games - eg it may cover for some the whole period of the 6N, or certain gap weeks - I don't know that it des but I do know that all French players play for T14 clubs and an arrangement could be easily reached. so France may or may not be weakened. Scotland's players are spread over 3 unions

reading the regs again, the deal I've said is possible between FFR and T14 team sis indeed permissable; Scotland cannot come to a similar agreement except where the union holds primacy over contract over a player - ie home based players

[Which Tyler]

We'll see, I sincerely hope you guys are right.

The impression no have is that the relationship between FFR and LNR is about where RFU and PRL were about 15 years ago - AKA making the first, tiny steps away from all-out war

[septic 9]

We'll see, I sincerely hope you guys are right.

The impression no have is that the relationship between FFR and LNR is about where RFU and PRL were about 15 years ago - AKA making the first, tiny steps away from all-out war

not saying they will cut a deal, I'm saying they can, Scotland cannot

LNR challenged the widening of the Autumn window - to be precise, FFR calling up players for 7 weeks and were pretty successful, hence the reserves who played against England. They also took the case to the European Court, but I suspect that will drop as an accommodation was reached, but again point is they can make a deal if their is a will, Scotland cannot, and that is what should be considered rather than whether the French can talk to each other

I'm not exactly optimistic about it though!

It seems pretty clear now that there have been more than one instance of the virus being brought into camp, and this the efficacy of the French management of this highly questionable. Repeat offences get you longer suspensions, and less discount if you dot admit to them. Apparently

[Which Tyler]

I disagree, but I understand where you're coming from, and better understand the comments I was originally questioning.

Not sure why Scotland are incapable of making a deal though - unwilling, but not incapable
I know (for example) PRL have said a few times that they're happy to make a deal with SRU / WRU / IRFU. Precedent and price have been set by their deal with RFU.
Presumably it's more "can't afford to make the deal"?

Again, I hope I'm wrong, as Scotland 1.5s Vs France 2nds will be much more entertaining (and the match should still be forfeit)

[Ally]

really good point about the biggest blocker in postponement being the relationship between FFR and the Top 14 clubs: presumably any rescheduled fixture needs to have an agreement in place to release the French players, let alone any scots based in France.

The pragmatic approach would be to aim for next weekend and release the players for this weekend's domestic fixtures instead. However that would require clubs in England and France being well-inclined to be helpful. Besides, it being Thursday afternoon already, even if players were released back to clubs, would it really be that useful to club coaches to have them back, having prepared the whole week without them.

As a point of principle, Scotland shouldn't agree to any postponement where our overseas players are unavailable: it simply wouldn't be fair. Which means either the Unions and the clubs work out a solution that guarantees both sides full player availability, or the game is forfeit. The whole world has had to adapt and be flexible in this pandemic: if the Six Nations, Unions and clubs cannot come to an agreement in these unique circumstances, that would be an astonishing failure of governance, co-operation and planning. Let's keep fingers crossed that we can see the match rescheduled soon with two full strength sides

On a side note, this feels like a bit of a hammer blow for our boys Lions prospects. A match against Italy is not going to count for anything, which really means they only have the Ireland match to advance their cases, and domestically it is unlikely that Glasgow or Edinburgh are going to be involved at the business-end of the European competitions, so it feels like this postponement could harm the prospects of those players who might be on the fringe of selection

[septic 9]

Galthie and Dupont were at at awards do a day or so after Ireland game. There are pics out there for anyone who wants to find them, standing together, no masks, glorying in their award

If this is true then I think France should have to forfeit the game. I expect to see a great game at the weekend but the penalty for abusing the COVID protocols can't simply be that if a player (or coach) catches COVID they aren't available. If there have been violations that lead to the virus being in camp, there should have to be a punishment to dissuade others of risking it more often

https://www.midi-olympique.fr/oscars-midol/

[whatisthejava]

It seems tomme that the claim is that Scotland losing access to 10 players, whilst France loses access to all players, doesn't really benefit France

France losing 10 players this week due to their own breach of the bubble should not be rewarded. Dont see why France above all other rugby teams in the last 6 months are allowed to fuck around with Covid

[tigran]

Game is postponed

[septic 9]

I disagree, but I understand where you're coming from, and better understand the comments I was originally questioning.

Not sure why Scotland are incapable of making a deal though - unwilling, but not incapable

read the regs. Arrangements outside the window can be made IF the union has primacy of contract. SRU do not have that with Eng or French teams. The best the regs say is that WR might be able to help; not that they can or will force player release.

The intent is clearly to stop wealthier unions doing deals while Fiji etc can't afford to

[Which Tyler]

France losing 10 players this week due to their own breach of the bubble should not be rewarded.

Making them play their 29th choice tight 5 isn't rewarding them.
I thought this had been cleared up?

read the regs. Arrangements outside the window can be made IF the union has primacy of contract. SRU do not have that with Eng or French teams. The best the regs say is that WR might be able to help; not that they can or will force player release.

The intent is clearly to stop wealthier unions doing deals while Fiji etc can't afford to

You mean there's actually a WR regulation that prevents someone at the SRU from picking up the phone and taking to someone from PRL?
That's utterly insane, and thus entirely possible in rugby admin.

[septic 9]

France losing 10 players this week due to their own breach of the bubble should not be rewarded. Dont see why France above all other rugby teams in the last 6 months are allowed to fuck around with Covid

Making them play their 29th choice tight 5 isn't rewarding them.
I thought this had been cleared up?

read the regs. Arrangements outside the window can be made IF the union has primacy of contract. SRU do not have that with Eng or French teams. The best the regs say is that WR might be able to help; not that they can or will force player release.

The intent is clearly to stop wealthier unions doing deals while Fiji etc can't afford to

You mean there's actually a WR regulation that prevents someone at the SRU from picking up the phone and taking to someone from PRL?
That's utterly insane, and thus entirely possible in rugby admin.

we can talk, but cannot make a financial deal is my take. But money is what PRL want. And they fine clubs who break the line don't they.

[Which Tyler]

It is.
I haven't seen the reg.s (have you a link?), but preventing 2 independent, consenting bodies from coming to any agreement seems insane, and of questionable legality

[septic 9]

It is.
I haven't seen the reg.s (have you a link?), but preventing 2 independent, consenting bodies from coming to any agreement seems insane, and of questionable legality

was just coming back to apologise for my mis-reading of the reg. We cannot narrow the window by agreement, but in theory SRU and PRL could agree to extend it.
But I don't see us agreeing to cough up as a matter of principle (it does mean as I said one rule for richer unions and a different one for the rest), and not in this case for a problem not of our making.

I do get PRL's position incidentally, but there is little point in having a governing body allegedly wanting to grow rugby globally when it knowingly allows obstacles like this to be put in front of tier 2 unions like Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, etc. We all know had it been a fixture involving any one of those it would match forfeit 28-0

[whatisthejava]

For me the 6N committee can say what they want currently, there is no way Scotland will be playing this game without a full compliment of players.

So many legal routes to challenge in the courts that the courts would never be able to get through them all before the due date of the game. Only way this gets resolved is if the 6N foots the bill for the release of all Scotland players home and abroad. And iim fairly confident of that with Mark "Lets go to fucking court" dodson at the SRU. No way will the commercial arm of the SRU accept it

[whatisthejava]

Some have also suggested that reg 9 covers this and the English clubs might have to suck it. Even in that case its off to court we go and if the GP clubs won, then the SRU would go and then prop some of the players who wouldn't be allowed to play could argue about loss of earnings. All because the french couldn't maintain a bubble

[septic 9]

4 week ban upheld, but was applied wrongly. Glasgw games Ulster last week and Zebre next week will count. Frane game would have but is off, that needs revised*, and next 6N game

* logically speaking with that game off Fagerson would have been free to go back and play for Glasgow this weekend, so that should count

[septic 9]

Some have also suggested that reg 9 covers this and the English clubs might have to suck it. Even in that case its off to court we go and if the GP clubs won, then the SRU would go and then prop some of the players who wouldn't be allowed to play could argue about loss of earnings. All because the french couldn't maintain a bubble

reg 9 needs 14 days notice apparently, unless to replace a player who has withdrawn