Football & Coronavirus [READ MOD NOTE IN FIRST POST - updated 06-05-20]

jayo26

Chuck Noland wrote: »

If and this is a big if, multimillionaire footballers can get tested quicker then frontline medical staff in the NHS/HSE then society has failed.

If it was tomorrow then yes but this will be a month or more away. Front line staff are been tested more regularly from this week onwards.

citytillidie

Chuck Noland wrote: »

If and this is a big if, multimillionaire footballers can get tested quicker then frontline medical staff in the NHS/HSE then society has failed.

Testing opened today for loads more people in England

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52466814

Who can be tested in England?

Hospital patients suspected of having Covid-19

All those working on the frontline in health and social care (with or without symptoms)

Patients in the NHS and residents in care homes (with or without symptoms)

All other essential workers with symptoms

Anyone over 65 with symptoms

Anyone who goes into work because they cannot work from home (for example, construction workers) and has symptoms

Anyone who has symptoms and lives with someone who meets any of the above criteria

All squads tested twice a week is the hope according to that Daily Mirror article. Pretty impressive, although no quotes so not sure how much you can read into it.

jayo26

Gary Neville says money is clouding the minds of Premier League chiefs https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8268511/Gary-Neville-says-money-clouding-minds-Premier-League-chiefs-push-restart.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

Intresting views from Neville this morning. Great points tho.. If money wasn't a matter how many would be trying so hard to get football back.

Mitch Connor

jayo26 wrote: »

Gary Neville says money is clouding the minds of Premier League chiefs https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8268511/Gary-Neville-says-money-clouding-minds-Premier-League-chiefs-push-restart.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

Intresting views from Neville this morning. Great points tho.. If money wasn't a matter how many would be trying so hard to get football back.

Very few.

But money is a factor, if these clubs/business want to survive they need money to do so - or they fold.

If football can return in a safe and practical manner (arguably it can't) then why would the clubs want to go out of business rather than survive?

Pretty obvious from Gary. It's a business not a voluntary organisation. Without money it'll fail like other businesses.

Mitch Connor

Even this from the article is surely a rubbish position to be taking:

The FIFA medical officer said that football should not take place before September. I think if it was a non-economic decision there would be no football for months

Without a vaccine why is returning to football in september safer than now? The players will have the exact same risks then as now. Its not months he is talking about, it is years. possibly forever.

Now, you can argue in such circumstances football should be allowed to fold, to never return in a professional capacity. Then make that argument. Don't claim you can't return in June but could in September.

jayo26

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Even this from the article is surely a rubbish position to be taking:



Without a vaccine why is returning to football in september safer than now? The players will have the exact same risks then as now. Its not months he is talking about, it is years. possibly forever.

Now, you can argue in such circumstances football should be allowed to fold, to never return in a professional capacity. Then make that argument. Don't claim you can't return in June but could in September.

From his point of view I'd imagine he means we will know more about how the virus is behaving and how it's reacting to people moving about in September.

Even without vaccines in September the general consensus is that more immediate testing kits will be available in the next couple months.

CSF

If economic issues weren’t a factor, you wouldn’t open anything that wasn’t essential to survival until there is a vaccine.

But economic issues are a factor, for reasons that should be obvious to everyone, regardless of your political leanings.

I’m generally in favour of an extra-safe approach in terms of any decision being made here, but the same people who will think lockdown can last til a vaccine comes, are the same ones who will wonder why their 350 euro a week benefit won’t be able to continue to be paid.

And alike, the same ones who are harping on about how everything should be opened, will be the same ones giving the government and health services the big one if they become overwhelmed, and people die directly as a result of the lack of care.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Without a vaccine why is returning to football in september safer than now? The players will have the exact same risks then as now. Its not months he is talking about, it is years. possibly forever.

Now, you can argue in such circumstances football should be allowed to fold, to never return in a professional capacity. Then make that argument. Don't claim you can't return in June but could in September.

This is where a lot of people's arguments fall apart. Either the league can't start back without a vaccine, or it can't.

It absolutely will.

8-10

You'll still have the problem of players like Dejan Lovren who are anti-vax.

Novak Djokovic is the same in tennis.

RasTa

It's governments stopping the leagues atm. Britain is in some wartime blitz we are the best at everything mode atm so can see the Tories restarting the league because the Brits are the best.

Traffic jams on the morning commute to work is noticeably back this week.

Mitch Connor

jayo26 wrote: »

From his point of view I'd imagine he means we will know more about how the virus is behaving and how it's reacting to people moving about in September.

Even without vaccines in September the general consensus is that more immediate testing kits will be available in the next couple months.

Next couple of months would be June. When the PL is looking to return.

And he may mean that, but if he does he needs to expand on it so that his point isn't a mess.

He can't bring up football returning in September, say there should be no football for months (September would be 5 full months) and have unsaid meaning that we may know more then, rather than him considering that is the safer time to bring it back.

Bringing football back in September has the exact same monetary considerations, the exact same reasons for it returning. And it will have to be done behind closed doors then too.

gstack166

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Very few.

But money is a factor, if these clubs/business want to survive they need money to do so - or they fold.

If football can return in a safe and practical manner (arguably it can't) then why would the clubs want to go out of business rather than survive?

I think most people without the blinkers on can agree it won’t be safe until a vaccine is found, that’s an entirely different point than football clubs folding, players without wages etc, it’s an objective fact that any game played until a vaccine is found is putting people in danger.

There’s plenty of coaches in the vulnerable bracket Brian Kidd at Manchester City for example who is 70 years of age, now you could say perhaps he’s placed on leave until a vaccine is found or retire maybe but there’s managers too like Roy Hodgson who’s in that bracket also, it’s not entirely fair forcing them to play in the current climate.

joe_99

Chuck Noland wrote: »

If and this is a big if, multimillionaire footballers can get tested quicker then frontline medical staff in the NHS/HSE then society has failed.

Germany as an example have capacity for 600k tests per week. They only did 280k last week.

Ireland has capacity for 60k test a week currently we are only doing 41k.

Football is so irrelevant in a testing scenario. They will not be taking tests away from frontline workers.

joe_99

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Very few.

But money is a factor, if these clubs/business want to survive they need money to do so - or they fold.

If football can return in a safe and practical manner (arguably it can't) then why would the clubs want to go out of business rather than survive?

The company I work for wants to get back fully operational as soon as possible. Why? So that it stays in business and we all don't lose our jobs. Why is football not allowed to act the same as every other business. It's amazing the double standards that apply to football clubs and footballers.

Mitch Connor

gstack166 wrote: »

I think most people without the blinkers on can agree it won’t be safe until a vaccine is found, that’s an entirely different point than football clubs folding, players without wages etc, it’s an objective fact that any game played until a vaccine is found is putting people in danger.

There’s plenty of coaches in the vulnerable bracket Brian Kidd at Manchester City for example who is 70 years of age, now you could say perhaps he’s placed on leave until a vaccine is found or retire maybe but there’s managers too like Roy Hodgson who’s in that bracket also, it’s not entirely fair forcing them to play in the current climate.

I don't argue against that.

So the options are:

1. play/work with that risk, with whatever measures you can practically put in place to mitigate that risk.

2. Football is finished. possibly a 18 month wait for a vaccine that may never come. Not one single league or professional club will survive that. If the vaccine never comes, football never returns.

I don't think anyone should be forced to partake if they deem the risk too great. Like we see in American Football, players have retired after 1 year due to concerns around Concussion. They cannot be forced to play or manage, but is it any fairer to end an entire industry because Brian Kidd or Roy Hodgson decide the risk is too great?

Mitch Connor

joe_99 wrote: »

The company I work for wants to get back fully operational as soon as possible. Why? Do that it stays in business and we all don't lose our jobs. Why is football not allowed to act the same as every other business. It's amazing the double standards that apply to football clubs and footballers.

The argument is that it is easier to social distance in a standard environment.

Most people's jobs don't have them sweating and panting around the place for 90mins in extreme close proximity to their colleagues. Football and Sport in general has inherent issues that make social distancing impossible.

There are certain establishments that might also have difficulty opening for the same reasons....

joe_99

gstack166 wrote: »

I think most people without the blinkers on can agree it won’t be safe until a vaccine is found, that’s an entirely different point than football clubs folding, players without wages etc, it’s an objective fact that any game played until a vaccine is found is putting people in danger.

There’s plenty of coaches in the vulnerable bracket Brian Kidd at Manchester City for example who is 70 years of age, now you could say perhaps he’s placed on leave until a vaccine is found or retire maybe but there’s managers too like Roy Hodgson who’s in that bracket also, it’s not entirely fair forcing them to play in the current climate.

Nobody is forcing anybody. You are allowed to leave your job if it's not safe for you. Plenty of doctors over 70 stopped working.

gstack166

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't argue against that.

So the options are:

1. play/work with that risk, with whatever measures you can practically put in place to mitigate that risk.

2. Football is finished. possibly a 18 month wait for a vaccine that may never come. Not one single league or professional club will survive that. If the vaccine never comes, football never returns.

I don't think anyone should be forced to partake if they deem the risk too great. Like we see in American Football, players have retired after 1 year due to concerns around Concussion. They cannot be forced to play or manage, but is it any fairer to end an entire industry because Brian Kidd or Roy Hodgson decide the risk is too great?

No it shouldn’t, I agree with you there but the complexities of it is what will cause issues. Take Roy Hodgson for example who’s 72, football comes back in June behind closed doors and his doctors recommends he retires due to some underlying condition he has. Hodgson says to himself football is all I have, I can’t walk away from it I’ll take my chances I have 15-20 years of my life left anyways & I’ve lived a good life, I’d rather take my chances by still being in the game than walking away. So he goes back to work (I assume he wouldn’t be able to be stopped from doing so) catches the virus at a game and dies. What happens then?

Do the premier league say he knew they risks and went ahead without taking medical advice and it’s business as usual with us or is it at that stage they decide that’s it, Football is done until we get a vaccine.

It’s a tricky one and no matter what the decision is going to be it’s going to be split down the middle with those for are in favour and those who are not.

joe_99

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The argument is that it is easier to social distance in a standard environment.

Most people's jobs don't have them sweating and panting around the place for 90mins in extreme close proximity to their colleagues. Football and Sport in general has inherent issues that make social distancing impossible.

There are certain establishments that might also have difficulty opening for the same reasons....

I'm in agreement and as you say the other option is to shut down football for upto 5 years.

Solutions are difficult.

Chuck Noland

jayo26 wrote: »

If it was tomorrow then yes but this will be a month or more away. Front line staff are been tested more regularly from this week onwards.

Well that’s fair enough so once the people who need to be tested are a priority.

~Rebel~

gstack166 wrote: »

No it shouldn’t, I agree with you there but the complexities of it is what will cause issues. Take Roy Hodgson for example who’s 72, football comes back in June behind closed doors and his doctors recommends he retires due to some underlying condition he has. Hodgson says to himself football is all I have, I can’t walk away from it I’ll take my chances I have 15-20 years of my life left anyways & I’ve lived a good life, I’d rather take my chances by still being in the game than walking away. So he goes back to work (I assume he wouldn’t be able to be stopped from doing so) catches the virus at a game and dies. What happens then?

Do the premier league say he knew they risks and went ahead without taking medical advice and it’s business as usual with us or is it at that stage they decide that’s it, Football is done until we get a vaccine.

It’s a tricky one and no matter what the decision is going to be it’s going to be split down the middle with those for are in favour and those who are not.

If the risks are considered too high, I think there’s a good chance Palace would step in and take the decision out of his hands. They’re the ones paying the wages and insurance and ultimately it’s their reputation on the line if the wrong decision is taken... there’s probably a happy medium (as will be found in all things) where his duties are changed to adapt. Not on the training pitch or the touch line, delegates his pitch-side responsibilities to a colleague while he watches remotely (or from high in the stands perhaps) with a constant open radio channel. Keeping his input, while keeping him safe. There are ways.

Or perhaps he just steps away for a season like Houllier did.

niallo27

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

The above article, doctor worrying about spitting.. niallo response "what does it matter" lol

Not sure why you mentioned me, my post was before this article. Did you read the article, it said football was the only sport with spitting, what about rugby and no where did it say spitting was an issue.

Arghus

Nothing in the last few days has made me change my mind that football is a long way off. The PL restarting is fantasy stuff.

The season is done. It's only a matter of time.

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

Nothing in the last few days has made me change my mind that football is a long way off. The PL restarting is fantasy stuff.

The season is done. It's only a matter of time.

What do you define as a long way off?

2 months, 6 months, a year, 5 years? Just curious

niallo27

Arghus wrote: »

Nothing in the last few days has made me change my mind that football is a long way off. The PL restarting is fantasy stuff.

The season is done. It's only a matter of time.

How far is a long way off for you.

Fitz*

It sounds like Switzerland are the latest country to allow football to return, behind closed doors.

https://twitter.com/FootballSwissEN/status/1255483655314649089

RasTa

Coronavirus Cases:
29,407
Deaths:
1,699
Recovered:
22,600

That's the Swiss stats

Cantona's Collars

FitzShane wrote: »

It sounds like Switzerland are the latest country to allow football to return, behind closed doors.

https://twitter.com/FootballSwissEN/status/1255483655314649089

Always the caveat at the end of no worsening in cases. While the news in general is positive,we always have that hanging over every announcement.

gstack166

joe_99 wrote: »

Nobody is forcing anybody. You are allowed to leave your job if it's not safe for you. Plenty of doctors over 70 stopped working.

https://twitter.com/telefootball/status/1255492664000200708?s=21

RasTa

Ahead of the government's new methodology for counting deail victims of coronavirus, the data relesased across the UK today suggests a cautious estimate of the total deaths linked to Covid-19 stands at

47,100

Model updated to take account of new data from Scotland

Yeah I'd be surprised if the PL comes back in June

Although United have just got approved for a safe standing section for next season. 1500 barrier seats

joe_99

gstack166 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/telefootball/status/1255492664000200708?s=21

Players are not slaves. They have choices. Any player not comfortable should be allowed to not partake.

LuckyLloyd

Arghus wrote: »

Nothing in the last few days has made me change my mind that football is a long way off. The PL restarting is fantasy stuff.

The season is done. It's only a matter of time.

Personally think next season is done aswell. There are likely to be a couple of brief windows between waves of infection where sport is possible, until a vaccine is widely implemented.

It seems obvious to me that it would be better to use the next window to finish out the current season than start a subsequent one with an even lower chance of being completed.

Guy:Incognito

RasTa wrote: »

Although United have just got approved for a safe standing section for next season. 1500 barrier seats

It'll be real safe with no people in it.

Mitch Connor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It'll be real safe with no people in it.

100% success so!

Arghus

6 wrote: »

What do you define as a long way off? 
2 months, 6 months, a year, 5 years? Just curious

At least until September-October, possibly longer. No football until 2021 would be a possibility. And not that far of a possibility.

I think this season is done. Look at the way the wind is blowing. There is nothing to suggest that football is due to make an imminent return, quite the opposite in fact:

Uefa initially saying people shouldn't cancel their leagues. Then people cancel their leagues, then Uefa say people can do it. Then governments, like in Holland and France, effectively taking it out of association's hands and making the decision for them. Expect more of this. Governments will essentially make the decision for associations. The penny still hasn't dropped for a lot of people how long and drawn out this crisis will be.

And I don't see how the situation in the UK will be any different in the long run. At the moment, the government are making noises about how they'd like to see a return, but, don't fool yourself, they've got bigger things on their minds. It's easy for them to say that, it sounds optimistic and promising. But the scale of the public health emergency in the UK is huge - look at those stats about possibly 46,000 dead already and numerous complaints about a lack of testing, results, lack of staffing, lack of equipment - they've a long hard road ahead. IMO, eventually the government is going to step in and cancel sporting events, even behind closed doors, on the grounds of public health. Even from a PR perspective, if you've got 22 athletes running around the field, while you are trying to convince everyone to minimise physical contact? Ultimately, the state and questions of public health will determine what happens, not the football authorities. Countries that are further along and in better condition than the UK in this crisis have already pulled the plug for this year. It's only a matter of time.

Liam O

6 wrote: »

This is where a lot of people's arguments fall apart. Either the league can't start back without a vaccine, or it can't.

It absolutely will.

No, it's something that your "argument"(inverted because you just repeat the same thing without taking into account any other points) falls apart on.

It is safer to return in an environment where the virus is suppressed and there isn't thousands of people dying from it every week.

It is safer to have it return when you know more about the virus and can test more adequately.

It's not as simple as "well if you can do it then, you can do it now" which you've been pushing for weeks.

wadacrack

OFFICIAL: The Swiss Super League will be allowed to resume on June 8 behind closed doors, provided the COVID-19 outbreak does not worsen in Switzerland.

Mitch Connor

Arghus wrote: »

I think this season is done. Look at the way the wind is blowing. There is nothing to suggest that football is due to make an imminent return, quite the opposite in fact:

I'd say the opposite.

Seems far closer to seeing football return in June now that a couple of weeks ago.

Plans being formulated, government are seemingly onboard and even encouraging of it (personally I think the government are and will push it for PR reasons).

Plans and backing could come to an abrupt halt and 180 - but right now it certainly seems that those in control of making the decisions more likely to decide football returns (in some capacity) than not.

You point to Holland and France, and don't see why the UK would be different....

1. How about Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Germany where it looks like football will return in June, based on current announcements (that could indeed change)
2. The UK goverment have not been in lock-step with anyone else at all, so why you don't think the UK government would be different is an absilute mystery me.

ArmaniJeanss

France's main sporting priority is the Tour De France, so it's noticeable that the date of the return of sport there corresponds to the date of the already rescheduled TDF.
September is probably the last month that the tour could realistically take place.
They've also (somewhat controversially because they did it without consulting the tennis authorities) grabbed a date to re-run the Roland Garros event.

Other countries will have different priorities. With a couple of the flagship events like Wimbledon and The Open already gone, and no Ashes cricket scheduled this summer, the UK may see soccer as the one to get going in summer.

RasTa

Shouldn't the lower leagues be starting before the billionaires? We might have a lot more Bury's and Bolton's

Mitch Connor

RasTa wrote: »

Shouldn't the lower leagues be starting before the billionaires? We might have a lot more Bury's and Bolton's

cost/benifit isn't good enough for most of them.

costs or restarting are higher than the money they would receive from TV contracts. Without gate reciepts I don't think it is affordable for a lot of clubs to play out the season.

Cantona's Collars

RasTa wrote: »

Shouldn't the lower leagues be starting before the billionaires? We might have a lot more Bury's and Bolton's

The main issue is that lower leagues are so dependent on matchday revenue with bums on seats and fans spending on food,drinks and merchandise. No fans and that's a lot of money they are short of.
The EPL can survive without fans due to the TV deals and sponsorship.

RasTa

Mitch Connor wrote: »

cost/benifit isn't good enough for most of them.

costs or restarting are higher than the money they would receive from TV contracts. Without gate reciepts I don't think it is affordable for a lot of clubs to play out the season.

They will need the money more then City, United etc. There is going to be an even bigger divide and lots of clubs going under if FA are just thinking about TV $$$

Mitch Connor

RasTa wrote: »

They will need the money more then City, United etc. There is going to be an even bigger divide and lots of clubs going under if FA are just thinking about TV $$$

I agree.

But its not the FA just thinking about TV money. Its the PL and its clubs.

Yes smaller clubs need money more than City. But that isn't the point.

Playing out the season will net the PL clubs a significant amount of money, more than it would cost to play out the season.

Playing out the season in L1 and L2 will cost the clubs more than they stand to make.

I've said here (not that it matters) that the PL and the FA need to come up with some way of keeping clubs going, whether that is a % of the TV money the PL get from playing BCD or some other form of funding, I don't know.

But a base position of 'L1 or L2 should start up before the PL' ignores the realities of the situation from the start.

Arghus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'd say the opposite.

Seems far closer to seeing football return in June now that a couple of weeks ago.

Plans being formulated, government are seemingly onboard and even encouraging of it (personally I think the government are and will push it for PR reasons).

Plans and backing could come to an abrupt halt and 180 - but right now it certainly seems that those in control of making the decisions more likely to decide football returns (in some capacity) than not.

You point to Holland and France, and don't see why the UK would be different....

1. How about Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Germany where it looks like football will return in June, based on current announcements (that could indeed change)
2. The UK goverment have not been in lock-step with anyone else at all, so why you don't think the UK government would be different is an absilute mystery me.

I wouldn't read too much into leagues saying they are ready to resume, a lot of things have to happen in the meantime. The return of those leagues is far from certain and the decision won't be made by them alone. It'll be made by governments and it's dependent on factors outside football's control. They can be as prepared as they want, but they aren't going to call the shots. The news yesterday out of Germany is that infections are back on the rise, so don't be betting heavily on a return of the Bundesliga just yet.

Interestingly enough this is what the Italian sports minister had to say -

taly’s sports minister Vincenzo Spadafora said on Wednesday that Serie A looks unlikely to resume this season because of the Covid-19 epidemic.

Italy suspended the league campaign on March 9th as part of a nationwide lockdown to curb a new coronavirus epidemic that has seen over 200,000 confirmed cases and more than 27,000 deaths, the second highest tally in the world after the United States.

“I see an increasingly narrow path for the resumption of the Serie A . . . If I were one of the presidents [of the clubs) I would focus on the next season,” Spadafora told private TV broadcaster La7.

France and the Netherlands have already declared their soccer seasons over, while the English Premier League, the German Bundesliga and Serie A have said they want to finish.

“These decisions [in France and in the Netherlands] could push Italy to follow this line, which would become a European line,” Spadafora said.

He added that he thought a majority of Serie A presidents may soon ask to suspend the league and prepare for the next championship.

Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte has announced that lockdown measures will be eased from May 4th, with training for sports teams possibly allowed from May 18th.

The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) has drawn up a medical protocol for training, but Spadafora said the government’s scientific expert did not deem it sufficient, and that discussions would continue.

“If the championship should ever resume, it will certainly be behind closed doors,” Spadafora said.

There are 12 rounds of matches still to play in Serie A plus a number of games from previous rounds. Title holders Juventus are one point clear of Lazio at the top.

The UK government were initally out of step with countries across Europe at the beginning of the crisis, but as it has gone on they've increasingly followed what other countries are doing. Restrictions on movement, shops and business shut, no sport etc,etc. It's a bit of a myth to say that they are still out of step.

And also if you look at the situation in the UK compared to other European countries. Most other large European nations have at least outlined their potential road-map to emerge from lock down by now. They are at least thinking about the future, even we will - I suspect - have some sort of plan in place pretty soon - The UK isn't even at this stage. They are still trying to fight the fire.

So some countries that are better prepared, have better health systems, more competent governance, less deaths and hospital admissions and are further past their first peak of the disease than the UK is have already decided to junk their leagues and those that haven't - yet -are reliant on numerous factors outside their control?

The season will be cancelled on public health grounds.

Richard Hillman

The football league have the IFollow streaming service already in place, they just need to get rid of the GeoBlock. There will be lot of revenue from local fans should they play behind closed doors. They can offer the season ticket holders a free pass or a refund.

I don't think there is much imagination with those in power at football.

Mitch Connor

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The football league have the IFollow streaming service already in place, they just need to get rid of the GeoBlock. There will be lot of revenue from local fans should they play behind closed doors. They can offer the season ticket holders a free pass or a refund.

I don't think there is much imagination with those in power at football.

If they can do that, great.

If it was as simple as offering the fans streams, why didn't they do it previously and open up that revenue model? There must be a contractual reason.

gstack166

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'd say the opposite.

Seems far closer to seeing football return in June now that a couple of weeks ago.

Plans being formulated, government are seemingly onboard and even encouraging of it (personally I think the government are and will push it for PR reasons).

Plans and backing could come to an abrupt halt and 180 - but right now it certainly seems that those in control of making the decisions more likely to decide football returns (in some capacity) than not.

You point to Holland and France, and don't see why the UK would be different....

1. How about Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Germany where it looks like football will return in June, based on current announcements (that could indeed change)
2. The UK goverment have not been in lock-step with anyone else at all, so why you don't think the UK government would be different is an absilute mystery me.

The players have all the power here, if they don’t feel safe football doesn’t happen. Rightly so, why should they put themselves and their families in danger. You can’t play a contact sport all the while whilst the rest of the world is being told to stay 2 metres apart.