Clyde v East Fife

[Cannibal]

11 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

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. 

I can see why East Fife were concerned - it must have been quite confusing at the time and I'm not blaming them.

Fact is the league was started knowing there was some risk and all clubs have protocols to follow to minimise this.  There was always a chance in every game played this season.

I'm more bemused by the sheer number of posts on here going on about the testing system and protocols that just cause confusion.

[Cannibal]

13 minutes ago, BroadwoodBoy said:

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. 

Surely Danny Denholm just can't take the risk of playing tonight either after this news

[haufdaft]

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. 

This idea that the JRG just said "Ah, f**k it. Just play the game" is nonsense.

Their decision to play the match would be a considered opinion based on advice from professionals.

One of the members of the JRG is a vice-chairman of Uefa’s Medical Committee. As I understand it, he doesn't post on P&B but I trust he knows what he's talking about.

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, haufdaft said:

 

 

This idea that the JRG just said "Ah, f**k it. Just play the game" is nonsense.

Their decision to play the match would be a considered opinion based on advice from professionals.

One of the members of the JRG is a vice-chairman of Uefa’s Medical Committee. As I understand it, he doesn't post on P&B but I trust he knows what he's talking about.

 

He might well know what he's talking about, it doesn't mean he's not capable of making an incorrect call. East Fife claim this guy never even spoke to them, how do we even know what information the JRG were working from? It sounds like their decision was based on a phone call from Clyde that explained things in about 10 minutes. Obviously there were time constraints but I'd have thought pulling officials from both clubs and the JRG into an emergency meeting might be the best way to explain why the game could go ahead without risk - maybe then East Fife wouldn't have just made the choice off their own back. 

[Forest_Fifer]

Does anyone know when the hearing is taking place?

[Gordon EF]

17 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

 

 

This idea that the JRG just said "Ah, f**k it. Just play the game" is nonsense.

Their decision to play the match would be a considered opinion based on advice from professionals.

One of the members of the JRG is a vice-chairman of Uefa’s Medical Committee. As I understand it, he doesn't post on P&B but I trust he knows what he's talking about.

 

Given that this all seemingly took place within the space of half an hour, it's at least highly questionable what was known when, whether there was enough time and information to make a considered opinion and what information East Fife had to base their decision on. These should have been the first priority of the SPFL but instead, they've clarified none of that and jumped to a disciplinary hearing.

If East Fife are given a slap on the wrists and have to forfeit the game, I wouldn't agree with the decision but ultimately I'm not particularly going to give a shit. It just seems like yet another case of overly bureaucratic incompetency from the SPFL and a complete inability to respond appropriately to any kind of slightly out of the ordinary situation that arises.

 

[Jack Burton]

The SPFL just make it up as they go along so no idea what to expect.

Clyde had to forfeit two games a few seasons back after playing an ineligible player. Was entirely our fault but there was the same scenario in other cases where the games were replayed.

[SLClyde]

Dumbarton fans might’ve overtaken East Fife for the biggest meltdown in this situation. Class reading. 

[David W]

3 minutes ago, SLClyde said:

Dumbarton fans might’ve overtaken East Fife for the biggest meltdown in this situation. Class reading. 

It affects them, but it also has nothing to do with them. Any decision taken can't be made with Dumbarton in mind. Similar to when we were (rightly) given losses for the Fitzpatrick shambles, the decision had an unfortunate impact on Berwick.

[haufdaft]

Given that this all seemingly took place within the space of half an hour, it's at least highly questionable what was known when, whether there was enough time and information to make a considered opinion and what information East Fife had to base their decision on.
 

Have you considered that the JRG may have had this very kind of scenario in their protocols?

If the JRG had already considered and pre-decided on their reaction to this type of situation (re. Positive test result at short notice) it wouldn't take long to instruct clubs to play.

Are we really going to start allowing teams to decide unilaterally when to play and when not to?


The JRG are a neutral arbiter who base their decisions on informed guidance from professionals.

I can understand East Fife players alarm causing them to refuse to play. However, they should, after an investigation, take any punishment that may come their way.

[The Moonster]

10 minutes ago, SLClyde said:

Dumbarton fans might’ve overtaken East Fife for the biggest meltdown in this situation. Class reading. 

Aye, having our current 2 point lead and goal difference wiped out without our closest opposition even kicking a ball, we're over the fucking moon. 

Can you imagine the meltdown you boys would be having if this was the other way around?

 

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, haufdaft said:

Have you considered that the JRG may have had this very kind of scenario in their protocols?

If the JRG had already considered and pre-decided on their reaction to this type of situation (re. Positive test result at short notice) it wouldn't take long to instruct clubs to play.

Are we really going to start allowing teams to decide unilaterally when to play and when not to?


The JRG are a neutral arbiter who base their decisions on informed guidance from professionals.

I can understand East Fife players alarm causing them to refuse to play. However, they should, after an investigation, take any punishment that may come their way.

 

That might be a rule already in place. I have no idea. If it is, I'd say it's a poor rule and would be inconsistent with other rules relating to covid. 

It's silly to say that to accept that East Fife's decision not to play was reasonable and consistent means that teams can just decide to play or not on a whim for any reason. There have to be valid circumstances where teams are allowed not play a fixture. I imagine it's more likely there is no clear guidance on the specific circumstances that occurred on Tuesday, in which case, whether East Fife's decision not to play is considered a punishable offence has to be decided on it's own merits. And of course that's something the SPFL do have to consider. I have no problem with that.

Nobody is arguing that the JRG isn't neutral. But being neutral doesn't automatically mean you're always correct. It's fair to call their decision making into question.

I don't think there's been any suggestion at all that East Fife won't accept any punishment resulting from this process.

[David W]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Aye, having our current 2 point lead and goal difference wiped out without our closest opposition even kicking a ball, we're over the fucking moon. 

Can you imagine the meltdown you boys would be having if this was the other way around?

 

There's a long running conspiracy amongst some that we are persecuted against (by the authorities, by match officials, by opposition players/manager) because we signed junior players in 1998, who then went on to be actually pretty good.

So we would be quite right to have a meltdown.

[Bogheidman]

18 minutes ago, David W said:

It affects them, but it also has nothing to do with them. Any decision taken can't be made with Dumbarton in mind. Similar to when we were (rightly) given losses for the Fitzpatrick shambles, the decision had an unfortunate impact on Berwick.

There’s been some absolute rubbish written on here by fans of several clubs on this topic, but this just about take the biscuit. Absolutely preposterous.

[Gordon EF]

4 minutes ago, David W said:

There's a long running conspiracy amongst some that we are persecuted against (by the authorities, by match officials, by opposition players/manager) because we signed junior players in 1998, who then went on to be actually pretty good.

So we would be quite right to have a meltdown.

Neil Doncaster being told that Paddy Keogh turned out to be quite a good player 11 years before he got involved in Scottish football...

Spoiler

 

[haufdaft]

That might be a rule already in place. I have no idea. If it is, I'd say it's a poor rule and would be inconsistent with other rules relating to covid. 
It's silly to say that to accept that East Fife's decision not to play was reasonable and consistent means that teams can just decide to play or not on a whim for any reason. There have to be valid circumstances where teams are allowed not play a fixture. I imagine it's more likely there is no clear guidance on the specific circumstances that occurred on Tuesday, in which case, whether East Fife's decision not to play is considered a punishable offence has to be decided on it's own merits. And of course that's something the SPFL do have to consider. I have no problem with that.
Nobody is arguing that the JRG isn't neutral. But being neutral doesn't automatically mean you're always correct. It's fair to call their decision making into question.
I don't think there's been any suggestion at all that East Fife won't accept any punishment resulting from this process.

Fair response

[David W]

8 minutes ago, Bogheidman said:

There’s been some absolute rubbish written on here by fans of several clubs on this topic, but this just about take the biscuit. Absolutely preposterous.

Go on then, give us your hot take. Why should the outcome of the disciplinary hearing into East Fife's actions in a match against Clyde, take Dumbarton into account?

[BroadwoodBoy]

I can understand frustrations of other clubs especially at this time of season but ultimately JRG deemed the match safe to be played. East Fife didn’t want to which is entirely up to them but SPFL must go by the rule book. 3-0 Clyde. 
 

Roll on Forfar tonight!

[YoungersPaleAle]

43 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

Pish.

 

Have you considered that the JRG may have had this very kind of scenario in their protocols?

If the JRG had already considered and pre-decided on their reaction to this type of situation (re. Positive test result at short notice) it wouldn't take long to instruct clubs to play.

Are we really going to start allowing teams to decide unilaterally when to play and when not to?


The JRG are a neutral arbiter who base their decisions on informed guidance from professionals.

I can understand East Fife players alarm causing them to refuse to play. However, they should, after an investigation, take any punishment that may come their way.

 

 

[Nowhereman]

There was  more than one game postponed earlier in the season because one player had a positive covid test. This was because other players in the squad had to self isolate and the clubs did not have sufficient numbers to play. I genuinely don't understand why not one of the other Clyde players didn't have to isolate after the positive test. There must have been some of them close enough on the bus back from Peterhead. And the same goes for tonight's game against Forfar. Player tests positive on Saturday. the incubation period is 2-5 days so there is undoubtedly a chance that another Clyde player could have been infected.