RugbyRebels

whatisthejava wrote: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

Also got to consider the fact that if the game is played without English based players, those players would have a fair legal complaint about the money they would mid out on by making a greater case for lions selections.

It really is a fluster cluck that is going to end up in the courts

whatisthejava wrote:

whatisthejava wrote: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

Also got to consider the fact that if the game is played without English based players, those players would have a fair legal complaint about the money they would mid out on by making a greater case for lions selections.

It really is a fluster cluck that is going to end up in the courts

As well as the image rights of winning a championship (that they still are in for a shout of)

whatisthejava wrote:

whatisthejava wrote: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

Also got to consider the fact that if the game is played without English based players, those players would have a fair legal complaint about the money they would mid out on by making a greater case for lions selections.

It really is a fluster cluck that is going to end up in the courts

Not wanting to go full amateur lawyer but these are some far fetched legal claims being thrown out here. I would like to see a lawyer try and draw the line between breach of Covid bubble in France and lack of selection for a Lions tour several months later. You can't just say "conceivably this could have harmed my chances therefore give me money".

I would tend to agree with you Cameo.

Whether or not it should or shouldn't go to court, in my mind the 6 nations have bottled it. They should have handed out an appropriate punishment to France and awarded them the loss. It looks like a pretty clear case of putting the tv revenue ahead of player welfare. Chance to send out a strong message about adherence to the rules and a genuine care for those in camp, instead they just pander to the FFR in case they decide to pull out of the tournament

It wont end up in court. Deals will be made, concessions had and the game will be played.

Cameo wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:

whatisthejava wrote: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

Also got to consider the fact that if the game is played without English based players, those players would have a fair legal complaint about the money they would mid out on by making a greater case for lions selections.

It really is a fluster cluck that is going to end up in the courts

Not wanting to go full amateur lawyer but these are some far fetched legal claims being thrown out here. I would like to see a lawyer try and draw the line between breach of Covid bubble in France and lack of selection for a Lions tour several months later. You can't just say "conceivably this could have harmed my chances therefore give me money".

yep. Lions is invitational, so no claim possible IMHO. Might as well make a claim that my chances are more than conceivably diminished because Gatland is coach

stevedog1980 wrote:I would tend to agree with you Cameo.

Whether or not it should or shouldn't go to court, in my mind the 6 nations have bottled it. They should have handed out an appropriate punishment to France and awarded them the loss. It looks like a pretty clear case of putting the tv revenue ahead of player welfare. Chance to send out a strong message about adherence to the rules and a genuine care for those in camp, instead they just pander to the FFR in case they decide to pull out of the tournament

don't think they could do that because that very sensible option was not part of the pre tournament agreement. Which just goes to show what a bunch of amateurs are running the sport of Rugby Union. A game being affected by covid was always a high risk, just as a hurricane in Japan in hurricane season was

septic 9 wrote:don't think they could do that because that very sensible option was not part of the pre tournament agreement. Which just goes to show what a bunch of amateurs are running the sport of Rugby Union. A game being affected by covid was always a high risk, just as a hurricane in Japan in hurricane season was

I'm calming down towards that view. Except... A game being affected by Covid was an acknowledged risk, with procedures in place to account for it (postponement).

I think what makes this different, and wasn't forseen, is that it seems to have been a result of knowingly and unenforced breaching of the Covid bubble.

Had it been a person getting a false negative, and infecting 10 colleagues before it was caught; I don't think there'd be any complaints about saying "well, shit happens, I guess we postpone" - but actively socialising outside of the bubble during a global pandemic - that's idiocy, and needs a different response.

Oh, and it seems that it was the B117 variant - so I think you can safely blame the English

Which Tyler wrote:

septic 9 wrote:don't think they could do that because that very sensible option was not part of the pre tournament agreement. Which just goes to show what a bunch of amateurs are running the sport of Rugby Union. A game being affected by covid was always a high risk, just as a hurricane in Japan in hurricane season was

I'm calming down towards that view. Except... A game being affected by Covid was an acknowledged risk, with procedures in place to account for it (postponement).

I think what makes this different, and wasn't forseen, is that it seems to have been a result of knowingly and unenforced breaching of the Covid bubble.

Had it been a person getting a false negative, and infecting 10 colleagues before it was caught; I don't think there'd be any complaints about saying "well, shit happens, I guess we postpone" - but actively socialising outside of the bubble during a global pandemic - that's idiocy, and needs a different response.

Oh, and it seems that it was the B117 variant - so I think you can safely blame the English

That's pretty much my view on things, France are the architects of this situation and they are not being punished for it at all. What message does this send on compliance to anyone else? To governments that have agreed to games being played on the basis of adequate protection being in place? This is amateur at best and negligent at worst

I assume the Scotland squad is already in France, quarantining?

morepork wrote:I assume the Scotland squad is already in France, quarantining?

No they never travelled

Cameo wrote:
Not wanting to go full amateur lawyer but these are some far fetched legal claims being thrown out here. I would like to see a lawyer try and draw the line between breach of Covid bubble in France and lack of selection for a Lions tour several months later. You can't just say "conceivably this could have harmed my chances therefore give me money".

The point I'm making is that there are a lot of different parties that could all go to court and argue damages, the game would be delayed while all these different parties got their day in court. Ive no idea who could claim or win what, but if you put Dodson, the top 14 and the GP execs in a room with a tonne of shit the most appealing thing in the room is the shit and all 3 of those groups are not scared of threatening to call the lawyers in.


Possibly a deal is done but I'm struggling to see how?

Far too many people with skin in the game and they all want different things, i reckon in a week the game gets abandoned after the 6N realize that its a lose/lose, certainly a lot of the commentators in the papers think France should concede and we should move on so the competition ends in March with the final it deserves.

That's one "positive" I 'spose.

Still can't understand why this comp went ahead in the first place though. All the PR showing teams disinfecting their balls (!), sitting 6 feet apart at virtual team meetings, then resuming full contact training in preparation for sweating and exhaling spittle in the faces of other dudes wot have traveled from another country.

morepork wrote:That's one "positive" I 'spose.

Still can't understand why this comp went ahead in the first place though. All the PR showing teams disinfecting their balls (!), sitting 6 feet apart at virtual team meetings, then resuming full contact training in preparation for sweating and exhaling spittle in the faces of other dudes wot have traveled from another country.

Yeah, obviously if you’re going to play then take whatever precautions you can, but it does seem ridiculous watching a socially distanced anthem immediately followed by 15 minutes of reset scrums where you have 19 people crammed into a few square meters.

Postponing this game just makes the whole championship seem even more pointless.