Clyde v East Fife

[lorenzo71]

2 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I never said likely. I said significant. If the likelihood of transmission between footballers is insignificant, logically, there is no need to be testing every player twice a week. If we are testing, it's only because the risk has been deemed as significant. If the risk is significant, then East Fife were entirely correct in refusing to play the game and the JRG were irresponsible in saying it should go ahead. 

If that's not the case then testing footballers is completely pointless.

Although playing outside I would say transmission probability is high given mingling at corners and the amount of heavy breathing( water droplets) and spitting that goes on not to mention snot.

[Life on Marrs?]

14 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I never said likely. I said significant. If the likelihood of transmission between footballers is insignificant, logically, there is no need to be testing every player twice a week. If we are testing, it's only because the risk has been deemed as significant. If the risk is significant, then East Fife were entirely correct in refusing to play the game and the JRG were irresponsible in saying it should go ahead. 

If that's not the case then testing footballers is completely pointless.

The testing of footballers was so we could get back playing when the rest of society was still locked down. Research since does seem to indicate the transmission is extremely unlikely outdoors, hence more households can now meet outdoor but not inside & beer gardens can open but not pubs. Infections from sport more likely though changing rooms and traveling, which is why those protocols exist. 

[David W]

Would it be a disadvantage to have a Thursday game, then a play-off on the Saturday? Of course it would.

Can we moan about it? No. We voted for a situation where games could end up being played on that date.

The bigger question is whether the play-off game would be moved to the Sunday/Wednesday, as would seem logical.

[Jamie_M]

35 minutes ago, lorenzo71 said:

Although playing outside I would say transmission probability is high given mingling at corners and the amount of heavy breathing( water droplets) and spitting that goes on not to mention snot.

Nothing of which constitutes 'close contacts'.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Jamie_M

[Gordon EF]

6 minutes ago, Life on Marrs? said:

The testing of footballers was so we could get back playing when the rest of society was still locked down. Research since does seem to indicate the transmission is extremely unlikely outdoors, hence more households can now meet outdoor but not inside & beer gardens can open but not pubs. Infections from sport more likely though changing rooms and traveling, which is why those protocols exist. 

Yeah, again, I'm not saying it's likely. In fact, everything would suggest that the most likely outcome is that the positive player infected nobody during the Peterhead game. As in, I'd quite happily bet a tenner that no other Clyde players test positive from Tuesday's tests. Would I bet my mortgage on it? No, because the risk might be small but it is still significant. If player health comes first, why should East Fife players take that risk with their own health, their family's health and their livelihoods? Even if the risk is only 1-2%. Nobody knows what health conditions any East Fife player might have or members of their households might have.

This isn't about likelihood, it's about significance. I appreciate that the protocols in place might make transmission between players changing and travelling insignificant if they're followed properly but there's surely still a significant risk when players come into close contact during games. People are allowed to mix with other houeholds outdoors but they're still supposed to keep 2m apart. Footballers cannot do that during games.

The reason covid-positive players are not allowed to play in games and are immediately sent home is that the risk of transmission is significant, if they were to play in games. 

[Bully Wee Villa]

58 minutes ago, WhoAmI said:

Notice it has been mentioned that Clyde would be hugely disadvantaged replaying the match on the Thursday before Saturdays first leg of playoff. Just like to point out that we played Saturday, Tuesday, Thursday prior to Scottish cup tie against Morton which went to extra time then had to regroup to take on Patrick Thistle on the following Tuesday and then a further game on the Thursday. Were we disadvantaged as we missed out on the top five on goal difference?????

Yes.

It is ridiculous how many games clubs are being asked to play, with part time squads during a pandemic.

[Pride Of The Clyde]

1 hour ago, WhoAmI said:

Notice it has been mentioned that Clyde would be hugely disadvantaged replaying the match on the Thursday before Saturdays first leg of playoff. Just like to point out that we played Saturday, Tuesday, Thursday prior to Scottish cup tie against Morton which went to extra time then had to regroup to take on Patrick Thistle on the following Tuesday and then a further game on the Thursday. Were we disadvantaged as we missed out on the top five on goal difference?????

No one has had a busier league schedule than Clyde and then to add on 3 Scottish cup games on top of that. It has been tough on everyone, I don’t think anyone can complain about Clyde having any advantage when they clearly haven’t.

[haufdaft]

. If player health comes first, why should East Fife players take that risk with their own health, their family's health and their livelihoods? Even if the risk is only 1-2%. Nobody knows what health conditions any East Fife player might have or members of their households might have.

Before lockdown infection rates were higher. No testing was being carried out by lower League teams. It's likely footballers played with and against infected players.

If an East Fife player (or any other) felt playing football was such a risk to their family perhaps they should have sat this season out.

I'd guess the risk was more significant earlier in the season than now.

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

27 pages for a game that did not take place! 

If the SPFL decision is in anyway controversial this could run and run.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, haufdaft said:

 

 

Before lockdown infection rates were higher. No testing was being carried out by lower League teams. It's likely footballers played with and against infected players.

If an East Fife player (or any other) felt playing football was such a risk to their family perhaps they should have sat this season out.

I'd guess the risk was more significant earlier in the season than now.

 

It's a fair point. But that is absolutely not the line the SPFL and the JRG have taken. If it basically doesn't matter whether covid-positive players play games, why are they not allowed to do so and why are we even testing and making clubs adhere to fairly strict covid protocols?

If we all took the attitude that it doesn't really matter and it's fine for players with covid to play against other players, then fine. People can make up their own minds about whether they want to play. But we're not. We're saying that covid-positive players should not be playing alongside other players and taking all reasonable precautions to prevent that. East Fife's decision not to play is entirely consistent with that approach. The seeming approach of the JRG which sounds basically like 'f**k it, he probably didn't infect anyone anyway . Just bash on' is entirely inconsistent with the approach taken by the SPFL, the JRG and the clubs up until this point.

If it didn't matter whether the positive player played against Peterhead, why could he not just play against East Fife as well?

[Cannibal]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

It's a fair point. But that is absolutely not the line the SPFL and the JRG have taken. If it basically doesn't matter whether covid-positive players play games, why are they not allowed to do so and why are we even testing and making clubs adhere to fairly strict covid protocols?

If we all took the attitude that it doesn't really matter and it's fine for players with covid to play against other players, then fine. People can make up their own minds about whether they want to play. But we're not. We're saying that covid-positive players should not be playing alongside other players and taking all reasonable precautions to prevent that. East Fife's decision not to play is entirely consistent with that approach. The seeming approach of the JRG which sounds basically like 'f**k it, he probably didn't infect anyone anyway . Just bash on' is entirely inconsistent with the approach taken by the SPFL, the JRG and the clubs up until this point.

If it didn't matter whether the positive player played against Peterhead, why could he not just play against East Fife as well?

We make the clubs follow covid protocols to reduce the chances of anyone with covid spreading it off the field of play where it is much more likely to happen.   Some of the posts on this show a real lack of understanding of the issues to be honest

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, Cannibal said:

We make the clubs follow covid protocols to reduce the chances of anyone with covid spreading it off the field of play where it is much more likely to happen.   Some of the posts on this show a real lack of understanding of the issues to be honest

Right, so why was the positive player not allowed to play against East Fife?

[craigkillie]

Anyone who test positive has to self-isolate immediately. That's a government decision, not a football one.

[The Moonster]

5 minutes ago, Cannibal said:

We make the clubs follow covid protocols to reduce the chances of anyone with covid spreading it off the field of play where it is much more likely to happen.   Some of the posts on this show a real lack of understanding of the issues to be honest

Those protocols do not make anything absolute though. Hence, East Fife can't be certain there aren't more infected players and thus being forced to play that game on Tuesday within half an hour of finding out details of a positive test would've been irresponsible. How the JRG/SPFL can say "yes we know there is a confirmed positive test of a player who has been in contact with the squad on at least two separate days since testing positive but we're confident the risk is minimal and this game should go ahead" is absolutely beyond me. 

[Gordon EF]

10 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Anyone who test positive has to self-isolate immediately. That's a government decision, not a football one.

Yeah, I didn't really mean what are the rules regarding positive players playing in competitive games and who sets them, I meant more what is the principle behind not allowing positive players to play games? The reason covid-positive people are supposed to isolate form others (which would include not playing competitive football games) is that there's deemed to be a significant enough risk of transmission. The significance of transmission doesn't change retrospectively once you know someone was positive after the event.

There was either a significant chance that transmission occurred during the Peterhead game or there wasn't. Does anyone think it's the JRG's, the SPFL's or the government's position that the risk of transmission during a competitive outdoor football game is insignificant?

It's fair enough if people do think that. I just don't think that's the position that has been taken since the start of this season so I'm not sure why East Fife's decision not to play is inconsistent with that.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Gordon EF

[Cannibal]

3 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Those protocols do not make anything absolute though. Hence, East Fife can't be certain there aren't more infected players and thus being forced to play that game on Tuesday within half an hour of finding out details of a positive test would've been irresponsible. How the JRG/SPFL can say "yes we know there is a confirmed positive test of a player who has been in contact with the squad on at least two separate days since testing positive but we're confident the risk is minimal and this game should go ahead" is absolutely beyond me. 

They have never made anything absolute at any point in the season.   At any time someone could have developed it after a test and then played.

Your definition of 'in contact' may well be different to what is regarded as 'close contact' that would require isolation and that is what the protocols exist for.  

Should we all find out what every players job is and what their partner's job is just to see if we think they are more likely to have it?  How far do you take this?  If we broke protocols then we should be punished. Other than a snide comment from Young, no one has suggested this.

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, Cannibal said:

They have never made anything absolute at any point in the season.   At any time someone could have developed it after a test and then played.

Your definition of 'in contact' may well be different to what is regarded as 'close contact' that would require isolation and that is what the protocols exist for.  

Should we all find out what every players job is and what their partner's job is just to see if we think they are more likely to have it?  How far do you take this?  If we broke protocols then we should be punished. Other than a snide comment from Young, no one has suggested this.

There is no suggestion that Clyde have broken any rule or acted any distance short of exactly what's being asked of them. That's not really the point.

[The Moonster]

6 minutes ago, Cannibal said:

They have never made anything absolute at any point in the season.   At any time someone could have developed it after a test and then played.

Your definition of 'in contact' may well be different to what is regarded as 'close contact' that would require isolation and that is what the protocols exist for.  

Should we all find out what every players job is and what their partner's job is just to see if we think they are more likely to have it?  How far do you take this?  If we broke protocols then we should be punished. Other than a snide comment from Young, no one has suggested this.

Yeah, nobody on here is suggesting Clyde have done anything wrong, but my point is you can have all the protocols you like, they are still using the same spaces as a guy who has tested positive and there is a chance it could be transmitted. I suspect you are right that Clyde informed the JRG that all protocols had been followed and as such they've said the game can go ahead, but anyone with a brain can see why the East Fife players would have doubts here - and we have been informed throughout this that anyone who thinks they might have it should isolate and test. The Clyde players were tested before leaving on Tuesday and went into isolation. If that's the protocols Clyde have taken after finding out about a positive test then it would've been ludicrous to play a game of football before doing that. 

[tbsouth]

Any idea if the Clyde supporters mini bus will be breaking protocols again tonight?

[BroadwoodBoy]

14 minutes ago, tbsouth said:

Any idea if the Clyde supporters mini bus will be breaking protocols again tonight?

Only mini bus breaking rules was the Peterhead one bringing back their central belt players. No social distancing on that mini bus. 
 

As for Clyde if you are referring to the supporters that have travelled in last week no rules have been broken. No travel bans,  no mini buses involved & no car sharing. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by BroadwoodBoy