Clyde v East Fife

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, FREDDYFRY said:

Or infected any Peterhead player’s I suppose too, given that observation 

Yep. At least they didn't play last night so every Clyde and Peterhead player will have been tested yesterday.

[Cowden Cowboy]

27 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I would expect an investigation into exactly what happened and some clarification from the SPFL before jumping straight to disciplinary proceedings, given the fairly exceptional circumstances. I might not know all the facts but I'd be fairly confident the SPFL have done neither of these things.

No that is what the disciplinary hearing does - establishes the facts and whether or not a sanction is required, etc

[FREDDYFRY]

I think the word disciplinary is unfortunate, but are we surprised?

[clyde4ever]

Have I got this right ?

All Clyde players had tested negative before the Peterhead game. Did this testing then cover the East Fife game, or were all players tested again after the Peterhead game? 

Results of testing (Saturday?, Or earlier?) had to be submitted 48 hours before the East Fife game, i.e Sunday night. The results of these tests were all negative. 

The Clyde players had to be tested again when? (Saturday? Sunday? Monday?) with the results being available 48 hours before the Forfar game? This is when the positive test came to light (shortly before the East Fife game was due to kick-off).

What then, if Clyde didn't have a game on the Thursday? This would have meant the results of the last tests wouldn't have had to be available until Thursday afternoon. The game on Tuesday would have gone ahead, with one of the Clyde players potentially having Covid - and nobody any the wiser.

This scenario just shows how ludicrous it is that we have subjected part-time players to the possibility of being infected while playing for their club.

How can anybody then fault the East Fife players for opting not to play? But it seems that someone in authority made the decision that the game should/could go ahead, and according to that decision, East Fife failed to fulfill the fixture and should forfeit the points.

Ludicrous. But unless somebody in authority admits they are at fault, I can't see how the decision can be anything other than East Fife losing the game 3-0.

And, how many players will Clyde have available for the games against Forfar and Dumbarton? And how many will have to self-isolate?

It's a farce - for all the teams affected.

 

[Pride Of The Clyde]

What an absolute shitfest of a season. A bit harsh to punish EF but Dumbarton will also be getting punished at the same time, fcuk knows what will happen now, a total shamble trying to finish the season, everyone suspected something like this would happen and who knows there may be more of this to come in the coming weeks.

[Pride Of The Clyde]

5 minutes ago, clyde4ever said:

 

And, how many players will Clyde have available for the games against Forfar and Dumbarton? And how many will have to self-isolate?

It's a farce - for all the teams affected.

 

Good point, we may not have enough players to fulfill our next fixture, would that not automatically mean forfeiting the game and a 3-0 Forfar win ?

[FREDDYFRY]

Just proves that the 3 games a week long term is  unmanageable in terms of the testing regime. Ludicrous decision to have the 22 game season if indeed the season should have taken place for Part time players. My opinion has always been season should have been mothballed end of!

Edited April 28, 2021 by FREDDYFRY

[WBR]

30 minutes ago, andrew21 said:

Daily Record ( I know)

"Clyde claimed in a statement that the Joint Response Group gave the game the green light following a “review” but Young believes that Scottish FA’s Chief Medical Consultant Dr John MacLean - a former Bully Wee employee - was contacted by Clyde officials but that the group wasn’t consulted as a collective.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/east-fife-charged-spfl-failing-24000648

This sounds far more feasible, given the short time it took took to, seemingly, make a decision.  I wondered if Doc MacLean would feature in this.   It may have been the only way to make some sort of referral to the relevant authority in the time available, though.  None of this is ideal.

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

No that is what the disciplinary hearing does - establishes the facts and whether or not a sanction is required, etc

But it gives the impression that the primary focus is to determine whether East Fife have broken a rule and whether they should be punished. I might be biased but I think the primary focus should be determining how to complete the season satisfactorily, what exactly happened and then focus on whether anyone has broken rules and whether they should be disciplined.

[David W]

28 minutes ago, WBR said:

This sounds far more feasible, given the short time it took took to, seemingly, make a decision.  I wondered if Doc MacLean would feature in this.   It may have been the only way to make some sort of referral to the relevant authority in the time available, though.  None of this is ideal.

Surely there's someone "on call" for instances such as this? Maybe The Phoenix or Cowden Cowboy would know. 

[Cowden Cowboy]

17 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

But it gives the impression that the primary focus is to determine whether East Fife have broken a rule and whether they should be punished. I might be biased but I think the primary focus should be determining how to complete the season satisfactorily, what exactly happened and then focus on whether anyone has broken rules and whether they should be disciplined.

East Fife did break a rule if they said they wouldn’t or couldn’t fulfil a match

 

[FREDDYFRY]

If this was the case that it wasn’t Joint committee decision/ advice then would Clyde not have been called in to the disciplinary and not E Gife on a charge of not playing the game?

Edited April 28, 2021 by FREDDYFRY

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 minute ago, David W said:

Surely there's someone "on call" for instances such as this? Maybe The Phoenix or Cowden Cowboy would know. 

Doctor Maclean is the main man in Scottish football in all these cases - there is no-one on call 24 hours a day but you contact the football authorities and they review the matter usually with the good doctor involved and he liaises with ScotGov as necessary or makes judgements in line with past cases and current understanding.  It is not just a case that someone who tests positive necessarily impacts on some others or everyone in a squad.  A much more forensic review is usually undertaken but bear in mind whatever time constraints may impinge

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

East Fife did break a rule if they said they wouldn’t or couldn’t fulfil a match

 

Firstly, I'm not 100% sure that's the case. I don't know under what circumstances a club can decline to fulfil a fixture and be deemed not to be breaking a rule. I assumer there are at least some.. I don't know those rules pre-covid and I'm not sure if there any covid-specific exceptions.

Secondly, I'm not saying they haven't broken a rule or that this shouldn't at least be looked at as a disciplinary action at some point. I'm saying that the most important thing the SPFL should be thinking of right now is how to deal with the consequences for League One of last night's game not taking place and a disciplinary hearing for East Fife doesn't seem like the most appropriate way to do that.

It smacks of a kind of gormless bureaucratic inflexibility that already plays into how many people view the SPFL.

[Life on Marrs?]

God knows what decision the disciplinary panel will come up with. 

What happened when Airdrie were going bust & fans ran onto the pitch and broke the crossbar to get the game abandoned in protest? That was the final game of the season, so couldn't be replayed. Or the 1 team in tallinn debacle, that was replayed at a neutral venue. At least no one travelled to the game unlike our Dublin farce a couple of years ago. 

[Cowden Cowboy]

33 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Firstly, I'm not 100% sure that's the case. I don't know under what circumstances a club can decline to fulfil a fixture and be deemed not to be breaking a rule. I assumer there are at least some.. I don't know those rules pre-covid and I'm not sure if there any covid-specific exceptions.

Secondly, I'm not saying they haven't broken a rule or that this shouldn't at least be looked at as a disciplinary action at some point. I'm saying that the most important thing the SPFL should be thinking of right now is how to deal with the consequences for League One of last night's game not taking place and a disciplinary hearing for East Fife doesn't seem like the most appropriate way to do that.

It smacks of a kind of gormless bureaucratic inflexibility that already plays into how many people view the SPFL.

It’s how every other such situation has been handled this season and is the standard approach - why would you suddenly want ad hoc decisioning and an exceptional approach

[Karpaty Lviv]

18 minutes ago, Life on Marrs? said:

God knows what decision the disciplinary panel will come up with. 

What happened when Airdrie were going bust & fans ran onto the pitch and broke the crossbar to get the game abandoned in protest? That was the final game of the season, so couldn't be replayed. Or the 1 team in tallinn debacle, that was replayed at a neutral venue. At least no one travelled to the game unlike our Dublin farce a couple of years ago. 

What?  

[Gordon EF]

12 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

It’s how every other such situation has been handled this season and is the standard approach - why would you suddenly want ad hoc decisioning and an exceptional approach

Because it is by any reasonable definition of the word, it's an exceptional circumstance.

Might be just me but I generally don't find "because it's the way we've always done it" to be a good argument for pretty much anything.

[Life on Marrs?]

7 minutes ago, Karpaty Lviv said:

What?  

The only precidents I could think of. 

Mind you, it'll probably just be made up as we go along

[peternapper]

Certainly anything the SPFL or the SFA rule on the best policy is insist on it in writing. Cant remember the exact circumstances but a while back we asked if a certain player was ok to play on the Saturday someone at the SFA said yes which turned out to be wrong, when the club were called before them nobody at Hampden would own up to answering the phone, think we ended up with a suspended sentence because they knew they were in the wrong but would not admit it and had to be seen to punish us.