Clyde v East Fife

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

A lot of folk saying Clyde have done nothing wrong but they let a guy without a negative test turn up to play. I just can't fathom how that's not against protocols, regardless if the JRG gave the game the go ahead.

 

For every single fixture played, players can only travel to the match if they have a negative test within 168 hours (ie 1 week) of kick-off. I think clubs are testing twice a week, so any test that the Clyde players did in the latter part of last week would have been sufficient for last night's match.

What has happened here, however, is that the Clyde players have taken their next set of routine tests after the game on Saturday, and the results of these happen to have arrived just before last night's match kicked off.

[Life on Marrs?]

Whilst I sympathise with Dumbarton's plight, there's no guarantee we would have beaten Clyde last night, we're not the same team away from Bayview. 

You've still got to play each other. Go &  beat them on Saturday & you'll not need to worry about what we do/have done/will happen. 

[Stevo Fife]

19 minutes ago, Brian Carrigan said:

I honestly think we should all leave the finer points of viral transmission to the experts and deal with football matters.

Where's the fun in that?

[Brian Carrigan]

 

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

For every single fixture played, players can only travel to the match if they have a negative test within 168 hours (ie 1 week) of kick-off. I think clubs are testing twice a week, so any test that the Clyde players did in the latter part of last week would have been sufficient for last night's match.

What has happened here, however, is that the Clyde players have taken their next set of routine tests after the game on Saturday, and the results of these happen to have arrived just before last night's match kicked off.

This is exactly it. Personally, it seems fairly cut and dried. Clyde didn't "let" anything happen. East Fife exercised their right to pull out of the game and the authorities will have to judge the next steps. The game either gets rearranged for a later date or East Fife forfeit the points. This kind of situation was bound to happen at some point and I'm VERY surprised it hasn't happened before now. We all know that clubs won't be adhering to the rules as stringently as they're supposed to, and corners will be cut in order to get these games played - but this seems like an unfortunate situation that may have detrimental consequences to Dumbarton. For what it's worth, I think East Fife made the correct decision not to play the game but will have done so being fully aware of the consequences of doing so.

[sons exile]

It seems to be an unbelievable mess to have got into particularly with the testing procedures that we now have available.

For example teachers are required to self test prior to attending school - and their results are know within 30 minutes.

From what I understand reliance was placed on tests done on Saturday for a match taking place 4 days later?

[BrigtonClyde]

10 hours ago, Stevo Fife said:

This season should have been punted full stop. An utter and pointless farce from the very start.

Couldn't agree more.  Start off with 27 games, so right there they can't argue that would represent "fairness", depends who you get h&a twice

Then, whether in lieu of season book or "virtual walk up", we've basically been asked to pay clubs to watch what amount to Youtube videos...I don't think they understand a lower league  audience.  How many people honestly missed the football over January & February ?

Subsequently reduced to 18 games.  OK, seems fair.  But nah, our wonderful clubs have decided to squeeze every last penny out their supporters & get them to watch 4 more Youtube videos after that.  To compound that, the league intervenes demanding they be finished by certain dates, with little explanation why, meaning all the players, most part time, are put into the ridiculous position of playing a game every 2 or 3 days which will continue over the extra 4 games.  Meanwhile the silence from the Players' Union is deafening in relation to any consideration for players' welfare. 

So then we come to last night.  The club's statement was minimal & technically correct, but in the context of the situation pretty dreadful.  The best understanding of PR is gained through vocational training, if learned at a college course, this is what happens.  But we'll cut the kid some slack & put it down to lack of experience.

The first thing that needs to happen here is the JRG issue a full explanation why that game was deemed playable by them, and which members of the JRG made that decision for full transparency.  It's understandable why there's a lot of speculation and assumptions because there's been absolutely no clarification.  It was always a possibility for part time teams something like this could happen, and my own guess is that Clyde probably haven't breached protocol.  However, neither team should suffer for this.  Common sense would suggest a week on Thursday would be the target to play the game, subject to the Clyde players still testing negative....and you wonder what the Forfar players are making of this due to play us tomorrow.   Could easily be both clubs could come to an agreement to play, but of course that's subject to the pen pushers at the League not turning round and saying "computer says no".

This season has just highlighted, as if we needed reminding, that the people who run our game are fucking idiots

    

[Cowden Cowboy]

30 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

For every single fixture played, players can only travel to the match if they have a negative test within 168 hours (ie 1 week) of kick-off. I think clubs are testing twice a week, so any test that the Clyde players did in the latter part of last week would have been sufficient for last night's match.

What has happened here, however, is that the Clyde players have taken their next set of routine tests after the game on Saturday, and the results of these happen to have arrived just before last night's match kicked off.

Players need to have had a negative PCR test within 168 hours of kick off and for any game results must be with football authorities no later than midnight 2 days before a match.  That is Sunday midnight for a Tuesday match.  Testing twice a week is not required but some teams will have tested on Saturday and again on Tuesday this week for logistical reasons if they think that next Tuesday is likely to be their last match or they don’t have certainty of a fixture a week on Saturday 

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

Do all the outraged East Fife players realise that the Clyde statement says the same thing as the East Fife one? 

[CM.]

11 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Do all the outraged East Fife players realise that the Clyde statement says the same thing as the East Fife one? 

It's quite remarkable stuff. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by C. Muir

[David W]

22 minutes ago, sons exile said:

It seems to be an unbelievable mess to have got into particularly with the testing procedures that we now have available.

For example teachers are required to self test prior to attending school - and their results are know within 30 minutes.

From what I understand reliance was placed on tests done on Saturday for a match taking place 4 days later?

Teachers are not required to test.

Teachers are using less accurate lateral flow tests. Football has to send away PCR tests, so there's clearly going to be be turnaround time.

[Arnold Layne]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

There's been a few folk making the argument that it's almost impossible for footballers to transmit the virus to each other through playing, training, etc. Didn't Clyde have an 'outbreak' where four players tested positive in November. Surely the assumption was there was transmission between the players in that case? Why would anyone assume that couldn't happen again?

it's entirely possible. The virus is very contagious. The protocols put in place are there to manage risk. To enable some semblance of 'normality' in the current environment. The protocols are designed to minimise risk they do not guarantee safety.

[CM.]

Darren Young now saying on twitter that the JRG weren't consulted to his knowledge. But the SPFL were according to EF's statement? 

[Replays]

Darren Young now saying that he doesn’t believe JRG were consulted with.

[Big Fifer]

What a laugh.

[Darkness78]

14 minutes ago, C. Muir said:

It's quite remarkable stuff. Their players and fans on twitter can't seem to grasp that it should be the JRG they're angry at, not Clyde 

Darren Young on Twitter stating that to his knowledge JRG were not contacted 

 

[Another The Other Chairman]

The permanent members of the JRG are all heid yins in the SFA or SPFL with only one qualified to make medical decisions. Could it be the other three were more concerned about avoiding the repercussions of a postponement ?  
Are we seeing a new, dynamic SFA/SPFL who can make significant decisions in 30 minutes.

Equally important is when do I get my £12 back ?

[Ignoramus]

Would Darren Young know whether we had contacted the ERG or not, surely those discussions would’ve been had at board level?

As someone said last night - can’t remember who - I don’t believe we would risk openly lying in a statement about getting JRG approval but who knows? I agree this will end on PPG in some form if the facts are as we assume at the moment.  

[CM.]

What does this mean on EFs statement then if there was apparently no consultation? 

[sons exile]

20 minutes ago, David W said:

Teachers are not required to test.

Teachers are using less accurate lateral flow tests. Football has to send away PCR tests, so there's clearly going to be be turnaround time.

Ok - it is not mandatory but most teachers are testing before attending school.

And the lateral flow might be less accurate - but surely its better than what we are witnessing in situations like last night.

[Karpaty Lviv]

Darren Young has omitted the million dollar answer - who made the decision.

According to him - not the JRG. According to Clyde statement - JRG. According to EF statement - SPFL.