Clyde v East Fife

[David W]

8 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

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.

The players are sat on the bus specifically so that they AREN'T close enough. They are distance in changing rooms so that they aren't close enough. In the same way that the NHS app won't ping just because I've been on the same bus as someone who gets a positive test; I'd need to be within a certain distance for a certain time. That's why teams are now taking two buses, with strict limits on numbers of other staff/directors etc. And why teams are changing before arriving, or in larger areas (e.g. concourses).

I agree that there's a difference regarding being on a pitch, defending corner kicks etc. I don't know what the theory is there.

 

[Nowhereman]

20 minutes ago, David W said:

The players are sat on the bus specifically so that they AREN'T close enough. They are distance in changing rooms so that they aren't close enough. In the same way that the NHS app won't ping just because I've been on the same bus as someone who gets a positive test; I'd need to be within a certain distance for a certain time. That's why teams are now taking two buses, with strict limits on numbers of other staff/directors etc. And why teams are changing before arriving, or in larger areas (e.g. concourses).

I agree that there's a difference regarding being on a pitch, defending corner kicks etc. I don't know what the theory is there.

 

So why did Dunfermline's (thats the only one i can remember off the top of my head) players have to self isolate after one of their players tested positive. There didn't seem to be any question of them having broken any protocols.

[Arnold Layne]

20 minutes ago, David W said:

The players are sat on the bus specifically so that they AREN'T close enough. They are distance in changing rooms so that they aren't close enough. In the same way that the NHS app won't ping just because I've been on the same bus as someone who gets a positive test; I'd need to be within a certain distance for a certain time. That's why teams are now taking two buses, with strict limits on numbers of other staff/directors etc. And why teams are changing before arriving, or in larger areas (e.g. concourses).

I agree that there's a difference regarding being on a pitch, defending corner kicks etc. I don't know what the theory is there.

 

Really? Ok, Professor Coronavirus, how far away is safe?

[King Kebab]

 

[Cannibal]

12 minutes ago, Arnold Layne said:

Really? Ok, Professor Coronavirus, how far away is safe?

Ask the experts who set up the protocols for f**k sake.  Some of the comments on here are fucking ludicrous

[jaggyness]

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-statement-47650

[Arnold Layne]

2 minutes ago, Cannibal said:

Ask the experts who set up the protocols for f**k sake.  Some of the comments on here are fucking ludicrous

Protocols are there to manage risk, not to eliminate it. The safe number of occupants on a bus to eliminate risk is one, the driver. On a journey from Peterhead to Cumbernauld, I would suggest that all those on board, however few, were at risk.

[CM.]

Game replayed next Thursday. 11k (10k suspended) fine for EF.

[fatdoug1938]

1 grand fine, game to be replayed on Thursday. Can we stop talking now?!! [emoji23]

[Ignoramus]

See everyone next Thursday then. Sounds like a decent compromise for the issue.

Still curious how the player isn’t deemed a close contact but I don’t know what was in place and there’s clearly some evidence to support that.

[CM.]

Wonder if everyone will understand that now after it being explained for the 203534688th time

[Jaggy Snake]

Seems a sensible decision albeit an annoying outcome if we do end up in the playoffs.

You also wonder about the precedent set for clubs refusing to play games in the future, even if that's obviously not a common occurrence. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Jaggy Snake

[Big Fifer]

Game being replayed is sensible. I don't agree with the fine, particularly in a season where clubs are feeling the financial strain caused by the very issue that's surrounding this case. 

[FREDDYFRY]

9 minutes ago, Arnold Layne said:

Protocols are there to manage risk, not to eliminate it. The safe number of occupants on a bus to eliminate risk is one, the driver. On a journey from Peterhead to Cumbernauld, I would suggest that all those on board, however few, were at risk.

Not really if they are 2m apart and wearing face Mask; just like thousands of us do at work every day for 7-8 hours at a time

Edited April 29, 2021 by FREDDYFRY

[Replays]

A somewhat sensible decision.

[haufdaft]

I hope Clyde are compensated for any financial costs incurred on Tuesday.

[ScottR96]

I wonder if Greig Spence will be deleting his tweet saying Clyde will look stupid once “all the details are out”, now that all the details are out and East Fife admitted all charges.

[Gordon EF]

So does 'suspended' basically mean the £10k fine gets dropped as long as we behave ourselves until the end of the season?

[Gordon EF]

9 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

I hope Clyde are compensated for any financial costs incurred on Tuesday.

Honestly, I felt like playing the game on Thursday and East Fife covering Clyde's costs for Tuesday would be the fairest outcome if it was clear that the medical advice was for the game to go ahead and that had been clearly communicated to East Fife at the time. I don't get why the SPFL are just trousering the fine.

[Bogheidman]

1 hour ago, David W said:

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?

Well, given that the award of a win to Clyde (as was I imagine a potential outcome) would directly and adversely affect Dumbarton (and, importantly with almost no time to recover with there being only two games of the season left), we would have to have been considered.

Given the perilous situation both clubs find themselves in, to have given Clyde the win without considering the ramifications on us would have called into question the integrity of the game. To suggest our position couldn’t or shouldn’t have been considered is utterly laughable.  The outcome from this afternoon is a fair one and means the integrity of the game and governing body of the game in this country is intact (in relation to this matter anyway).