Home Match Day Thread 13-10-2020 L1 OUFC v Crewe Alexandra (2nd attempt MATCH OFF)

[captainox]

If Crewe and/or the EFL had put a statement out addressing any of the reasons behind the situation (including or not including any of what "Crewe" the poster has put on here) then this could have all been buried and a relative line draw underneath it.

Instead, the majority of people (apart from those who've read this thread) are still non the wiser about why Tuesday's game was off and will continue to draw their own conclusions.

I'm surprised Crewe are happy for speculation/rumour to be thrown about without presenting at least some of the "facts" as they see them, especially if the postponement was down to an outside body intervening.

 

[Crewe]

I do have some sympathy with Beckles in all this - as he was the only person at the club who felt it necessary to get tested after a colleague went down with symptoms.

Yes, he should perhaps have handled things differently over the subsequent few days until his results came back, but you can see why he would choose not to isolate while waiting for the test (eg he himself did not have any symptoms; fear of losing his place in the team; fear of repercussions for 'going against the club (and their decision that testing was unnecessary)', feeling that there is no harm him being at the club as others would have already caught it off the other lad; etc)

In addition, any penalty the club receive from him returning to the side on Saturday, should also not be his fault, as the club should be on top of the regulations etc once they know about the test/result.

I can understand, but not agree with, clubs not testing on a regular basis, but I cannot understand why everyone was not tested as soon as Wintle went down with it, both for the well-being of their staff and for clarification of the situation, so that can deal with the fallout quickly and then crack on with the season..

In regards to your last paragraph, totally agree. Essentially, I think the club were being stingey and didn’t want to foot the bill for two lots of tests. I have been told that the EFL said because of the incubation period, they didn’t need to test the full squad until the Monday after the Newcastle game (5days). However, surely they should have done one lot of tests the day after anyway, then a further lot of tests on the Monday at the end of the incubation period. The incubation period is only a guideline.

 

[Crewe]

Ok assuming your whole squad was tested after the 1st postponement, (I presume the results were in before the Wigan game thus the match was played). What has changed since the Wigan game meaning that you cancelled the match with us again, got PHE involved and have now done another round of testing so you can play against blackpool?

That is explained in my previous posts.

 

[Crewe]

Certainly some of your fans on social media. Artell saying he wanted to play, Oxford didn't in the interview after the 1st game.

Well ignore them idiots. There is a handful at most. And Artell is a bit thick. He also said in all his interviews he agreed with Oxford’s stance.

 

[Crewe]

If Crewe and/or the EFL had put a statement out addressing any of the reasons behind the situation (including or not including any of what "Crewe" the poster has put on here) then this could have all been buried and a relative line draw underneath it.

Instead, the majority of people (apart from those who've read this thread) are still non the wiser about why Tuesday's game was off and will continue to draw their own conclusions.

I'm surprised Crewe are happy for speculation/rumour to be thrown about without presenting at least some of the "facts" as they see them, especially if the postponement was down to an outside body intervening.

Again I have touched on that, but I don’t really understand the response. The response was the EFL want it kept quiet. Which I just don’t get.

 

[Crewe]

Again I have touched on that, but I don’t really understand the response. The response was the EFL want it kept quiet. Which I just don’t get.

Apologies, I think I actually deleted that post because it contained a direct quote.

 

[BigCrompy]

I agree, as I have already stated. However, the technically still stands. He has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. Morally though, I agree. He was idiotic, or at best extremely thick.

Then you will of course understand you’re pushing a rock uphill to come on this forum attempting to curry favour for your club and convince Oxford fans they’ve got no right to express concern, however much decorum and aptitude you do so with.

Would you agree that Artell needs to be heavily censured after his initial, deplorable interview?

 

[unification]

One additional question to throw into the mix. We've all been checking the NHS/.gov websites for guidance on what to do once we've had a test, when we're staying with someone who has had a test and whilst we're awaiting test results. These are pretty well defined, however are they any different for 'elite' level sportspeople?

Beckles didn't self-isolate when awaiting his test result. On principle and by NHS rules, he should have been. However, are elite sport guidelines any different to those us mere mortals have to adhere to?

There's a shed load of COVID-19 reading here if anyone is willing to sift through it for my answer. I don't have the time, I'm afraid!

Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.

www.gov.uk

 

[Marked Ox]

Well ignore them idiots. There is a handful at most. And Artell is a bit thick. He also said in all his interviews he agreed with Oxford’s stance.

That is why your club should be making an official statement with the facts, as this fills the gap otherwise and why Oxford fans, even Karl Robinson based on his interview on the day, are getting annoyed. The way Crewe have handled this is disrespectful imo and it was very easy to have been respectful to all, especially with it happening a 2nd time. I include supporters who whilst we (Oxford & Crewe) aren't at games, they do work their time around iFollow/radio etc for games.

 

[Crewe]

Well you mistake my intentions. I am not trying to convince Oxford fans of anything. I am simply passing on what I have heard because I thought it wrong how fans are being kept in the dark. And I am certainly not trying to curry favour for my club. Why would I care if Oxford fans slag them off? You have to have thick skin as a Crewe fan these days what with the appalling way the club has handled the Bennell fall out in recent years. All I am doing on here is attempting to provide some clarity, on the assumption that the information I have been given is correct.

edit. This was in reply to bigcrompy

 

[chuckbert]

I think Beckles’ behaviour is very bizarre, yes. But not in the way you do. I think it’s bizarre that he got a test because he has a child at home, but we know children are barely touched by this disease. There is much more chance of dying in a car crash for a child.

It’s completely irrelevant whether kids are seriously affected or not. They are still contagious. If you’re in contact with someone with it you might have it and should get tested. Seems sensible rather than bizarre to me.

 

[captainox]

One additional question to throw into the mix. We've all been checking the NHS/.gov websites for guidance on what to do once we've had a test, when we're staying with someone who has had a test and whilst we're awaiting test results. These are pretty well defined, however are they any different for 'elite' level sportspeople?

Beckles didn't self-isolate when awaiting his test result. On principle and by NHS rules, he should have been. However, are elite sport guidelines any different to those us mere mortals have to adhere to?

There's a shed load of COVID-19 reading here if anyone is willing to sift through it for my answer. I don't have the time, I'm afraid!

Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.

www.gov.uk

They were definitely different in terms of isolation etc during the original return protocols in May.
Who knows if they still are?!

A whole mix of documents available at https://www.efl.com/covid-19/

 

[Crewe]

One additional question to throw into the mix. We've all been checking the NHS/.gov websites for guidance on what to do once we've had a test, when we're staying with someone who has had a test and whilst we're awaiting test results. These are pretty well defined, however are they any different for 'elite' level sportspeople?

Beckles didn't self-isolate when awaiting his test result. On principle and by NHS rules, he should have been. However, are elite sport guidelines any different to those us mere mortals have to adhere to?

There's a shed load of COVID-19 reading here if anyone is willing to sift through it for my answer. I don't have the time, I'm afraid!

Reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace

Public health principles for reducing the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, in the workplace.

www.gov.uk

A private test is different. You do not need to self isolate if you take a private test. That is just fact, contrary to what some other posters believe. I assume it’s so the millionaires and billionaires can get a test every day and carry on relatively normally. Bless them.

 

[Crewe]

It’s completely irrelevant whether kids are seriously affected or not. They are still contagious. If you’re in contact with someone with it you might have it and should get tested. Seems sensible rather than bizarre to me.

But that is why he got the test, according to the manager. He didn’t want to pass it to his child as he didn’t want to put them in harms way. He wasn’t doing it to keep his child from being a super spreader.

But yes, in a roundabout way he was spot on to get a test. They all should have been tested. It’s just his rational I personally don’t agree with and shows a lack of understanding of the disease, but that’s a separate issue and an issue that much of the country has.

 

[guyellow]

I do have some sympathy with Beckles in all this - as he was the only person at the club who felt it necessary to get tested after a colleague went down with symptoms.

Yes, he should perhaps have handled things differently over the subsequent few days until his results came back, but you can see why he would choose not to isolate while waiting for the test (eg he himself did not have any symptoms; fear of losing his place in the team; fear of repercussions for 'going against the club (and their decision that testing was unnecessary)', feeling that there is no harm him being at the club as others would have already caught it off the other lad; etc)

In addition, any penalty the club receive from him returning to the side on Saturday, should also not be his fault, as the club should be on top of the regulations etc once they know about the test/result.

I can understand, but not agree with, clubs not testing on a regular basis, but I cannot understand why everyone was not tested as soon as Wintle went down with it, both for the well-being of their staff and for clarification of the situation, so that can deal with the fallout quickly and then crack on with the season..

This. Beckles actually did what Crewe should have done for the whole squad. I don't blame him, Crewe should have sorted testing for everyone so he didn't have to.

 

[Crewe]

This. Beckles actually did what Crewe should have done for the whole squad. I don't blame him, Crewe should have sorted testing for everyone so he didn't have to.

And also, what hasn’t really been touched on is that Beckles’ actions (whatever his intentions were) got the initial game called off. Crewe had 2 players in the starting 11 that day who would go on to test positive 2 days later. So however we stumbled upon it, the absolutely right decision was made in the first PP. And the only reason we got to that decision was because of Beckles.

 

[Wallop]

Is this match day thread now one of the longest ever? Ironic given the match wasn't played.

 

[unification]

A private test is different. You do not need to self isolate if you take a private test. That is just fact, contrary to what some other posters believe. I assume it’s so the millionaires and billionaires can get a test every day and carry on relatively normally. Bless them.

Ok, fine. I think you have said it earlier in this thread that Beckles should have self-isolated whilst awaiting the results anyway, even if the law doesn't mandate him too. Also, he should have informed your club that he had had the test (do we know when this occurred?) and was awaiting results and organised separate travel for himself to the first Oxford game (which he didn't, potentially risking his team mates and Crewe staff on the coach contracting it).

This isn't us being wise after the event. Oxford had a round of sniffles and poorly children/partners of players ahead of our game against Accrington on 26/09. Those players (Long, Brannagan and Henry, I believe) stayed away from training, got tested, self-isolated and arranged their own travel to the match to prevent the spread of anything they might've had.

Just because something isn't the law yet, you still have to take all instances - real or imagined - of COVID as the real thing until a test proves otherwise. 'Innocent until proven guilty' doesn't work in this instance. It can't be the case of 'doing enough' anymore, it's got to be 'do things better'. That's my issue here as the two postponements show. It's jeopardising the game.

This. Beckles actually did what Crewe should have done for the whole squad. I don't blame him, Crewe should have sorted testing for everyone so he didn't have to.

To some extent he did. However testing and then continuing to train and travel with Crewe and seemingly not informing them that he had been tested were the key reasons for the first postponement. A whack of honesty to his employer by informing them he'd been tested and common sense in staying away would have prevented this. Plenty does fall on Beckles shoulders even if the right thing to do overall was to test the squad after the Newcastle U21 game.

 

[m]

Then you will of course understand you’re pushing a rock uphill to come on this forum attempting to curry favour for your club and convince Oxford fans they’ve got no right to express concern, however much decorum abs aptitude you do so with.

Would you agree that Artell needs to be heavily censured after his initial, deplorable interview?

Latin or typo?

Asking for a friend...

 

[BigCrompy]

You do not need to self isolate if you take a private test. That is just fact.

What do you suggest is the point of taking the test at all then, if not prepared to be bound by its consequences? Once again I'm not talking 'need', I'm talking 'should'.

Appreciably I only practice medicine in lil' ol' Australia rather than in big brave Blighty these days so I may not be well placed to comment; I daresay you think the latest COVID statistics in the UK as opposed to Australia's justifies an attitude of corner-cutting?