I 100% agree with your first three points. The problem for me on your last point is we simply don't know if or what amendments have been made to this years rules handbook. The world has changed so much with this pandemic and IMO it would be grossly negligent of the SFA/SPFL not to include amendments they have worked on with Government that cover this particular state. I completely understand your pragmatism since all we have to work with is the previous years rules handbook which obviously did not foresee such a scenario. Of course it does not mean that we should not be pressing them for the NEW rules hand book ASAP which should have already been in circulation in order to avoid as much ambiguity as possible.
I completely agree with this. It's essentially what I've said all along.
I genuinely believe they haven't provisioned specific amendments into the laws of the game for this year to cover CoVid regulations. We don't know because they haven't published them, but there's no evidence to suggest they exist - which is essential if claiming a rule has been broken, you kind of need to actually have that rule to break.
Negligence is exactly how I'd describe it and I can't imagine anyone would be even slightly surprised by it.
As I've said before, they SHOULD have the rules written and defined to specifically cover what was supposedly agreed with Nippy.
They SHOULD make them public for transparency.
They SHOULD then enforce them from whenever they came/come into effect.
Pressing for this SHOULD be a priority for all clubs and supporters now.
As for this specific debate that has been raging. In the simplest terms, my point remains that player eligibility for that game is the wrong angle to attack.
My opinion on what SHOULD have happened:
- Nippy has decreed that as a result of breaches of the protocols
supposedly agreed between ScoGov and the SFA/SPFL, Celtic and Aberdeen are prohibited
by the Government from taking part in football matches for the agreed period.
- As a result, both clubs must declare themselves to the footballing authorities of being unable to fulfil the fixtures occurring during that period.
- They are then accountable under the existing
football rules and regulations for that and can be penalised by forfeiture of those ties (3-0 wins to opposition)
Now, under those points I would suspect (would need to look up) that there is scope for wiggle room in terms of agreeing postponement if all parties inc. opponents accept.
That sounds like a get out, but I would think what it actually allows is for clubs that are unable to fulfil fixtures due to a CoVid outbreak in their squad that was genuinely caused by accident (which could potentially happen) to be given the benefit of the doubt, versus clubs/players who find themselves in the scenario through clear breaches such as Bolingoli/The Sheep.
Under these circumstances opponents can rightfully say "no, we'll take the points, we're not to blame, we don't want a fixture pile-up later and we shouldn't suffer any punishment/penalty for the actions of other clubs/players".
Given the UEFA Linfield example, it seems reasonable to think the show must go on because if we accept that any time a team has a CoVid situation we are allowing games to be backlogged, there's a real threat to the footballing schedule in general and a genuine ongoing penalisation of innocent clubs' own fixture lists.
We come back to the fundamental issue of not having this defined upfront and then them setting the precedent by allowing Aberdeen's game to be postponed after their players' breach. First step then should have been to make them play the game without the affected players or declare themselves unable to fulfil and award the points to St Johnstone.
Instead? The usual pull it out of the arse response from the SPFL which creates a knock-on havoc effect.