They have taken it to the RFL

rlhttps://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/salford-plea-match-call-goes-9131700rl

if they agree, we should demand the 2 points!

3-0 win in football

a 30-0 win rugby sounds good!

I seem to remember a rule that anyone with less than a certain amount of first team appearances (maybe 5 or 10) prior to the start of a season is cap exempt. Anyone else remember the exact ruling and know whether or not it's still in place?

The statement from the RFL whilst accurate in itself (because the safety of players leading up to arriving & during a match has to be paramount) is massively hazy and ambiguous and open for interpretation.
If by making that statement they are hinting that somehow players from the 19s might get hurt because they aren't physically ready or that because Salford might not be able to have full use of the interchange system that players staying out too long might get hurt then that would be the biggest load of cobblers ever as reasons to postpone a match and actually contra to the operational rules.

What grounds could they postpone on the basis of player welfare, that the stadium is dangerous/unsafe to access, the pitch is dangerous/unplayable, floodlight failure with no guarantee of returning power, player death (abandonment), player safety from fans, no team/match doctor.

As for numbers, the 13/17 playing strength isn't even a requirement in the laws of the game, only if DURING the game a team goes down to 4 players are the officials allowed to use that as a reason for abandonment so the not having 17 players fit is just tough titty.
Section B2: Match Day Rules
B2.6
d) One of the competing teams is reduced to four players due to injuries and/or dismissals;

Far too easy as others have said to call a knock (Morely's ankle for instance) as being more serious, a stretching of the truth to garner an end result, happens all the time not just in sport but in life.

If there's a salary cap issue with playing some 19s they'll have to 'loan' some amateur players, after all there's no safety issue as amateur teams are allowed in the Challenge Cup.

There isn't even a pre-requisite to field 13 players, that isn't a reason to postpone a game, the sports own rules make that clear.
If you allow a side to continue to play with 5 players by the definition of the laws of the sport then only having 12 players to take to the field is not a reason to postpone. It's that simple.

It seems that our friend Marwan is upset. Ah bless!! www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... an-9133890

It seems that our friend Marwan is upset. Ah bless!! www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... an-9133890

I have no doubt the RTA affected both sides but the fact is the ENTIRE Bulls team arrived in time for the kick off. The accident happened at 4.45.pm. The original kick off was scheduled for 8.00 pm and the RFL were prepared a 9.00 pm if needed. Yes, the situation was different but I am equally as sure that any local under 19 player COULD easily have been drafted in if needed before the kick off. I believe the Bulls could have considered claiming the points but remember the Bulls coach at the time dismissing the idea. Always best to check details before posting.

You're absolutely right. Pearson should call Koukash right now and tell them that we'll postpone until 3pm Sunday, as happened then. I'm sure having Wayne Godwin back will make all the difference to them.

Any excuse to have a pop. You must be so proud.

And yes the situation was different, as you acknowledge. So it's irrelevant to the discussion here.

Hull had 9 players stranded according to Sporting Life, a bit more than 3 or 4.