And nothing for Salford cancelling against Hull fc either one rule for one ect

Hope Wakefield put out a statement regarding all this and in particular the reason for the discrepancy !

The statement isn't really clear about who is getting the 24-0 points, apart from the fact Wakefield don't get them.

It's good that the sport is taking action against clubs not fulfilling their fixtures.
However, the lack of even handedness is very, very poor and sadly, not surprising.

The Salford postponement against us stunk the house out.
Having already asked to postpone, they then miraculously seemed to find enough close contacts and the game was off.

At the time they would have had a number of suspensions to contend with but, not for the re match. Surprise, surprise.

There is a clear distinction in the narrative why Cas and Hudds were awarded a 24-0 against them and why Hull and Wakefield were not awarded a 24-0 win against Salford as usual the devil is in the detail.

I miss that clarity, I'm afraid. It doesn't jump out at me.

Please do explain what the clear difference is. Ta.

I do get the difference.
The fine is for not following protocols
The award of points is because a game was cancelled when it didn't need to be.

I'm just not sure about the details of why some were option b and some weren't.
I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just that detail isn't there.

What is not clear is why it's ok to cancel a game for covid, when you have CAUSED the covid issue by breaking the protocols!

Exactly! It reeks.

Wakey had 1 positive and only stood down 1 player two seperate ocassions. Likely because we were following protocol and fulfilled our fixtures.

Salford in contrast down on troops through injury and suspension requested postponement. Had a positive playing staff and 6/7 traces? Due to not following clear protocols whether on purpose or through recklessness who knows. Their fault the game wasn’t played. Disgusting.

It was quite clear at the time as well, if you look back we all said it was likely they were trying it on, my guess is they had a positive test, played the system so that player had come in contact with the others to meet the requirement of 7 and not realised they would get pinged for not following protocols.

The sheer fact that they asked for a postponement prior to then conveniently having EXACTLY 7 close contacts having to isolate should be all the evidence anyone with half a brain needs - however we're talking about rugby league's governing body here so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all.

I might be wrong here as I'm not too sure, but hasn't that game against Salford at their place been played since the postponement? if that is the case then the ideal situation would be to deduct them points as well as the fine, and realistically as the game has already been played we could hardly be given points when Salford already have them in the bag, on a moral standing we are 100% unfortunately Salford were that desperate any morals they may have possessed were conveniently overlooked.

I guess the whole point is that the game would have gone ahead had Salford followed protocols and the fact that it was replayed weeks later allowed numerous players who were injured or banned to be able to play against us. It’s clear that was the intention. This gave an unfair advantage to what should have been a scheduled fixture. Had there been no wrong doing on Salford’s part there would be no arguement. Not good when a team for the last 2 years have fulfilled most league structures and are sticking to the rules yet end up suffering for it.

Yes it’s been played but it shouldn’t have been if they had been found to breach the protocols/rules put in place.

If Chester was right about anything he certainly was about the leadership at the RFL.

its perfectly clear why some postponements mean points are conceded whilst others don't. the facts seem beyond some wakey fans.
The fact some clubs are honest and get fined, whilst some are not honest and therefore don't is the issue here. (PS Ken Davy is currently the SL interim chairman)
Huddersfield were forced to cancel their game against Hull FC even though they said they could fulfil the fixture as the academy players were available but the RFL wouldnt allow the game to go ahead.
then when they had Covid, injuries, stupid mid season international friendlies, and our academy unavailable as they had just played a game player welfare isn't taken into account apparently those 17 /18 year olds should have been forced to back up ........
Also - funny how Cas are cited for covid protocol issues on the coach - whilst saint Helens aren't - and im sure everyone saw the photos of the team celebrations on the way home on the coach plastered all over social media - no covid protocols in sight there!!!

so basically you are honest you get shafted.....