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.

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.....

Surely the 24-0 victories are nothing to do with RFL and all to do with SL? They are separate entities. The RFL have done the right thing by fining the clubs tbf.

I thought the postponed game was the one at our place

The differences in journeys home from Wembley were not to be seen on a photo, despite you trying to use that as a stick to beat the RFL with. St Helens as a club returned home inline with there player bubbles, on 3 separate coaches, Castleford did not follow the protocol and mixed groups, so I hope that clarifies that for you? So yes Saints did follow protocol, Cas did not.

It`s nothing to do with been honest though is it really? If you sight Covid as a reason and Covid was not the reason that means you were unable to fulfil the fixture and was not covered by the Covid Protocols? Before Covid was around, if you had called a game off for all the reasons you suggest above i.e. Academy players backing up, injuries, mid season international then you would have been docked 2 points and fined as you have here. There's no difference.

It could well have been, apologies if I've got it wrong in fairness I did say I wasn't sure, I thought it was at their place simply because with all the disruption to their team we were frustrated at being denied a better chance of winning where we don't often fare well

Your pushing against an open door here mate, I totally agree with you a hundred percent, all this fining of the three clubs has come after the event, not really interested other than Wakefield's game, what I'm trying to say is that if the game has been played and the points awarded (hence my after the event comment) which was to Salford assuming we are talking the correct game, then they can't really award Wakey a 24nil victory, for my money as well as the fine which should not have had half suspended they should have had a number of points deducted for blatant cheating.

The one that hasn't yet been replayed was. The one the fine is for is the one first one at their place that was eventually played at Warrington as the AJ Bell wasn't available.