Clyde v East Fife

[Adolfo Rios]

This test was done on Saturday to clear the team to play on Thursday and  Saturday(?).  Tests done prior had originally cleared the players for Tuesday's game.   

This fact seems to be a significant sticking point considering it was repeated on BBC Sportsound that someone had failed to get tests results in a timely fashion for Tuesday's match,  which is not remotely true.  If the results had came in after the match,  they still could be submitted before midnight to clear the team to play(?) , this match could have been played without either side knowing of the positive test which could have been far worse.    

The decision to say the match could be played was still wrong as this test result changed the landscape.   

[haufdaft]

This is a genuine question and not a criticism of any systems or decisions by clubs or the JRG.

Has there ever been a proven case of Covid transmission between opposing players during a football match?

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

10 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

This is a genuine question and not a criticism of any systems or decisions by clubs or the JRG.

Has there ever been a proven case of Covid transmission between opposing players during a football match?

I’m not sure you could accurately prove how any case has been transmitted unless you’ve been locked in an air tight chamber prior to coming into contact with anyone.

[ScottR96]

14 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

This is a genuine question and not a criticism of any systems or decisions by clubs or the JRG.

Has there ever been a proven case of Covid transmission between opposing players during a football match?

No, but as said above it would be impossible to prove exactly where it was transmitted in any case. Which is why I can’t see Darren Young’s argument of “nobody could 100% guarantee the safety of my players” on Sportsound last night holding much weight if the SPFL maintain that the risk was minimal. Cases were inevitable and EF signed up to it. I don’t think DY came across well with his “this is the 2nd time this is happened to us with Clyde” patter. Pretty desperate stuff and of course he wouldn’t expand on exactly what his point was when he was having that particular rant. 

Still, at least Charlie Adam was on hand to make the most embarrassing comment of the evening by going on about East Stirling players for some reason. 

[Pride Of The Clyde]

8 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

Yeah, I think it's all arguable. Declaring a 3-0 win for Clyde is clearly to their advantage. The other two options aren't so clear cut. you can argue the toss over them. If we play on Thursday and Clyde get a result they need to avoid 9th, you could argue it was to their advantage that they went into teh game knowing what they needed. However, if they don't it would disadvantage them going into a play-off.

As far as East Fife are concerned, none of the various options puts us that up or down. But it's pretty clear that declaring the game forfeit shafts Dumbarton.

The way things stood before Tuesday was Dumbarton would have gone into their final match knowing what they needed to avoid the playoffs that was an advantage for them.

[The Moonster]

I'm not that bothered about Clyde knowing what they would need to avoid 9th in the event they play next Thursday. I'm more bothered about knowing what sort of result against Clyde we would need on Saturday - there are scenarios that make it a must win and others where a draw might be okay. This goes for Clyde too, they'll need to know if they need to win or simply not losing is enough. 

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, haufdaft said:

This is a genuine question and not a criticism of any systems or decisions by clubs or the JRG.

Has there ever been a proven case of Covid transmission between opposing players during a football match?

As BBPF says, I'm not sure it's possible to pinpoint exactly when transmission occurs to that degree of accuracy.

But basically, either there is a significant chance of transmission during a match or not. Some people seem to be making the point that it would be almost impossible for the positive player to have infected either a team mate or opponent prior to kick off on Tuesday. But if that's the case, why are we even testing players. If the off-the-pitch protocols are as full proof as people claim and there's no significant chance fo transmission during games, then why are we testing every player twice a week? Surely half the players in the SPFL could be covid positive and there would still be no chance of transmission if that was the case?

It's clearly not the case because the twice weekly testing is designed to catch outbreaks and stop them amongst football players.

It's utterly illogical to demand that the positive player is immediately sent away from the ground on Tuesday night on health grounds but then say it's fine for East Fife to play against 11 players who played with that player on Saturday. There is surely a significant risk that multiple Clyde players have covid and that they could infect East Fife players? If not, why don't we just let covid positive players bash on with it and play with covid negative players?

Unless there's some very significant information that hasn't been revealed, logically, it's completely irresponsible for the JRG to suggest that Tuesday's game was fine to go ahead and it would be fucking scandalous if East Fife were punished for being the only sensible heads in the room on Tuesday.

[FREDDYFRY]

47 minutes ago, ScottR96 said:

No, but as said above it would be impossible to prove exactly where it was transmitted in any case. Which is why I can’t see Darren Young’s argument of “nobody could 100% guarantee the safety of my players” on Sportsound last night holding much weight if the SPFL maintain that the risk was minimal. Cases were inevitable and EF signed up to it. I don’t think DY came across well with his “this is the 2nd time this is happened to us with Clyde” patter. Pretty desperate stuff and of course he wouldn’t expand on exactly what his point was when he was having that particular rant. 

Still, at least Charlie Adam was on hand to make the most embarrassing comment of the evening by going on about East Stirling players for some reason. 

Strangest comment was Darren Young saying that Clyde had Covid outbreak before and it was “just swept under the carpet”

[Life on Marrs?]

10 minutes ago, FREDDYFRY said:

Strangest comment was Darren Young saying that Clyde had Covid outbreak before and it was “just swept under the carpet”

Wasn't that the case? 

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

14 minutes ago, FREDDYFRY said:

Strangest comment was Darren Young saying that Clyde had Covid outbreak before and it was “just swept under the carpet”

True, we have a flair for that!

[Karpaty Lviv]

18 minutes ago, Life on Marrs? said:

Wasn't that the case? 

IIRC there was an investigation to be carried out that, in the end, was totally forgotten about by everyone. I don’t remember being any sort of outcome. 

[Mantis Toboggan]

23 minutes ago, Life on Marrs? said:

Wasn't that the case? 

It got investigated, nothing from the SPFL about any punishment so would suggest there was nothing done wrong by the club and the games were rearranged. Wouldn’t say that’s being swept under the carpet 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Mantis Toboggan

[WhoAmI]

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?????

Edited April 29, 2021 by WhoAmI
Grammer

[Life on Marrs?]

15 minutes ago, Mantis Toboggan said:

It got investigated, nothing from the SPFL about any punishment so would suggest there was nothing done wrong by the club and the games were rearranged. Wouldn’t say that’s being swept under the carpet 

No one has heard any outcome. Not saying Clyde were at any fault, but is that not the meaning of literally sweeping it under the carpet.

Were East Fife not disadvantaged having to squeeze that game into the already packed schedule? We just got on with it though. 

[ScottR96]

8 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. We’re we disadvantaged as we missed out on the top five on goal difference?????

You could simply have scored more and conceded less. Hope this helps. 

[Jamie_M]

22 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. We’re we disadvantaged as we missed out on the top five on goal difference?????

Yup, because that's exactly the same...

[haufdaft]

As BBPF says, I'm not sure it's possible to pinpoint exactly when transmission occurs to that degree of accuracy.
But basically, either there is a significant chance of transmission during a match or not. Some people seem to be making the point that it would be almost impossible for the positive player to have infected either a team mate or opponent prior to kick off on Tuesday. But if that's the case, why are we even testing players. If the off-the-pitch protocols are as full proof as people claim and there's no significant chance fo transmission during games, then why are we testing every player twice a week? Surely half the players in the SPFL could be covid positive and there would still be no chance of transmission if that was the case?
It's clearly not the case because the twice weekly testing is designed to catch outbreaks and stop them amongst football players.
It's utterly illogical to demand that the positive player is immediately sent away from the ground on Tuesday night on health grounds but then say it's fine for East Fife to play against 11 players who played with that player on Saturday. There is surely a significant risk that multiple Clyde players have covid and that they could infect East Fife players? If not, why don't we just let covid positive players bash on with it and play with covid negative players?
Unless there's some very significant information that hasn't been revealed, logically, it's completely irresponsible for the JRG to suggest that Tuesday's game was fine to go ahead and it would be fucking scandalous if East Fife were punished for being the only sensible heads in the room on Tuesday.

It's this not precautionary because the risk is unknown rather than transmission being likely.

The only research I can find that looks at a similar issue. This is for Rugby League which probably had more and longer contact than football.

It looks at matches where participants in the match were Covid positive.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/10/bjsports-2020-103714

It states: Positive cases were most likely traced to social interactions, car sharing and wider community transmission and not linked to in-match transmission.

It's concludes: Despite tackle involvements and close proximity interactions with SARS-CoV-2 positive players, in-match SARS-CoV-2 transmission was not confirmed. While larger datasets are needed, these findings suggest rugby presents a lower risk of viral transmission than previously predicted.

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, haufdaft said:

It's this not precautionary because the risk is unknown rather than transmission being likely.

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.

[WhoAmI]

25 minutes ago, ScottR96 said:

You could simply have scored more and conceded less. Hope this helps. 

And if Clyde had won more games and lost less they wouldn’t have been in a “disadvantaged” situation. Hope this helps.

[Brian Carrigan]

3 minutes ago, WhoAmI said:

And if Clyde had won more games and lost less they wouldn’t have been in a “disadvantaged” situation. Hope this helps.

It actually doesn't but we appreciate your efforts