The players are going to be tired in August when this rule change is introduced. My question is if players are negative how are they going to catch the virus by being in scrums?

I suppose the tests aren't 100% accurate?

No different than in a tackle.

Make you wonder if here is a hidden agenda to scrap scrums on a permanent basis now that the hookers no longer strike for the ball.

If so, how can our game be classed as a code of rugby!

Feels a bit gimmicky to me.

Does an absence of scums really reduce the risk of infection in a game of heavy and constant physical contact?

I know some doctors have put their names down for this, but there are some doctors who, if we let them, would have us playing in helmets or just playing tap.

It's not only Doctors!

It's very different than a tackle. They estimate around 1,500 less contacts per game.

It supposedly only takes one, though, doesn't it? So why allow any kind of contact sport to go ahead?

But hey, I'm not medically trained. If someone decides it's essential, who am I to argue? But someone had better tell the NRL.

I fear for the Yawnion game if scrums and "all pile on" are removed. They'd actually have to pass and run with the ball.

Because tests are only at a particular point in time - you can test negative one day, catch the virus the next and therefore be infectious.

So why bother testing at all? Why not just tell people who have symptoms to self isolate? I have been questioning this obsession with test numbers from the start. I just dont see what exactly it proves other than the result at the time of the test. By the time of a negative result coming through you could of been infected.

To be honest, i predict that within 2 months, Covid will be almost unheard of and the numbers of new infections so small that there will be no need for social distancing.

Well I predict that you will be completely and utterly wrong about that.

Unfortunately.

If these idiots keep on protesting and going to these bloody raves it will linger for a long time yet