I wonder if we’ll pick up 2 points

Castleford Tigers, Huddersfield Giants and Salford Red Devils have been fined for breaches of RFL Operational Rules.

The Tigers are fined £35,000 (£15,000 suspended for two years) for failing to fulfil a Betfred Super League fixture against St Helens on 30 June and for breaching Covid protocols on the return coach journey from the Betfred Challenge Cup Final at Wembley Stadium in July. A subsequent Covid outbreak at the club, resulting from a lack of social distancing on the coach, led to the postponement of additional Betfred Super League fixtures against Catalans Dragons (Saturday 24 July) and Leigh Centurions (Thursday 29 July).

Huddersfield Giants are fined £30,000 (£15,000 suspended for two years) for failing to fulfil a Betfred Super League fixture with Castleford on 6 July. Like Castleford in respect of the St Helens fixture, the Giants stated that they did not have enough players available.

In both cases the RFL advised that there were no grounds for postponement within the regulatory framework agreed between Super League clubs and the RFL – a framework which differentiates between matches that a club is unable to fulfil for Covid-related reasons and matches a club is unable to play due to other player availability issues. The clubs were also warned that failure to fulfil the fixtures could be considered ‘Misconduct’ under the game’s Operational Rules.

Separately, the RFL Board ruled that each club had effectively forfeited the game, and that their opponents be awarded the match and the competition points by a deemed score of 24-0.

Salford Red Devils have been fined £25,000 (£12,500 suspended for one year) for breaches of Covid protocols which led to the postponements of two Betfred Super League fixtures this season. A significant Covid outbreak at the club, caused by the club’s failure to properly enforce RFL Covid protocols within its Designated Sporting Environment (DSE), resulted in the postponement of matches against Wakefield Trinity (1 July) and Hull FC (5 July).

The fines reflect the RFL’s determination to protect the integrity of, and confidence in, professional Rugby League competitions. In reaching ‘agreed decisions’ with the clubs, the RFL re-emphasises the sport’s obligations to clubs, supporters, and commercial and broadcaster partners who are affected by such postponements and cancellations.

Castleford Tigers has released the following statement following the RFL’s fine:

Castleford Tigers are disappointed but ultimately accept the RFL’s decision to fine the club, following the extenuating circumstances which led to the Tigers’ Betfred Super League match against St Helens not being fulfilled on the 30th of June.

As was stated to both the RFL and St Helens, Castleford Tigers had just fourteen First Team players available due to injuries, and Covid-19 protocols being followed meant that the Club could not call upon its Academy or young players. Further details about that can be found in our original statement from June, which you can read here.

Castleford Tigers could not postpone the fixture on the 30th of June due to the number of players outside of the Club’s top 25 earners not being affected at that time by Covid protocols. Every effort was made by Castleford Tigers to field a team for the match until it was ultimately too late, and the game needed to be cancelled, much to the Club’s disappointment.

Castleford Tigers did however field a team for the match against Huddersfield Giants on 2nd August, despite meeting the RFL’s framework for a postponement due to player availability for Covid related reasons.

Saints awarded a 24-0 victory against Cas for their postponement
Cas awarded a 24-0 victory against Hudds for their postponement

Wakey awarded nothing for Salfords postponement of our game

Surprise, surprise!!!!

Don’t forget that Leeds refused to travel to Catalans, did they get any points deducted?.

All three clubs should have been fined and 6 points deducted at start of 2022 season. The fine is loose change to Huddersfield, Ken Davey has that sort of money down the back of his sofa.

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.