Hull saying no to West Ham’s coronavirus test offer after Moyes’ positive result was stubborn and blindly dismissive

WITH the comment “we felt fine”, Hull boss Grant McCann explained why he refused our offer to pay for Covid-19 tests for him, his staff and players.

The refusal, before Tuesday night’s Carabao Cup tie at the London  Stadium, seemed a little strange at the time.

Karren Brady was disappointed Hull boss Grant McCann turned down the offer of free coronavirus tests before the Carabao Cup tie with West HamCredit: Rex Features

West Ham’s French defender Issa Diop tested positive for Covid-19, as did manager David Moyes and Josh CullenCredit: Getty Images – Getty

Josh Cullen tested positive an hour ahead of the Carabao Cup kick-offCredit: Getty Images – Getty

In the wake of what happened later, it now appears to be blindly  dismissive.

Seventy minutes before kick-off our unsuspecting manager David Moyes and two players — despite “feeling fine” — were discovered to have contracted the virus without showing any symptoms.

McCann said immediately after the match that none of his staff or players had the virus — that might have been true of the last time they were tested, which was prior to the start of the EFL season.

But how was he to know that — like Moyes, Issa Diop and Josh Cullen — one or two had not unwittingly caught it since their previous tests?

The root cause of the farce is that the EFL had withdrawn the order that all their clubs had to test  players before each match or even just regularly.

So I can only guess that  this  decision was made because of the cost of testing which, to take Hull as an example, would have been £5,500.

Spurs, Liverpool and Chelsea all paid for EFL Cup opponents to be tested. A hive of the disease was uncovered at Leyton Orient.

Grant McCann’s attitude was unnecessarily stubborn and does zilch for football and plans to bring back crowds

So much for McCann’s assertions.

At the time, he commented: “Just because somebody offers you free tests, it doesn’t mean you do it.

“We are comfortable with what we are doing. We are monitoring the players at every level.”

His attitude was unnecessarily stubborn and does zilch for football and plans to bring back crowds —  plans  that were blocked on the same day as Boris Johnson’s suggestion that it may take six months before stadiums can be filled again.

I understand the EFL have told their clubs that offers like ours should be accepted. I should think so. And with thanks.

Especially when you have to fulfil your Premier League fixtures come what may and as long as you have 14 players, even if you have no  manager!

IN another attempt to climb a greasy pole, our rule-makers decided to  codify exactly — and to the minutest fraction — what a handball is.

So, no room for argument, when the ball met hand or arm, it was handball. No appeals, no changes of mind.

That’s it then? Well, not necessarily.

At least not when the ball struck Gabriel Magalhaes’ arm in West Ham’s match at Arsenal.

Of course it was an accident and it seems referee Michael Oliver took this view — or perhaps saw something viewers didn’t.

The problem is the handball law has changed this summer and all decisions are now based on the “T-shirt rule”.

If the ball strikes  the area of the arm that would be covered by a T-shirt sleeve, that and the shoulder area are now not considered handball.

But when it does strike this imaginary T-shirt line, the ref and VAR have to determine whether more of the ball was touching above or below it.

So, while the rules are clear, still the  interpretation is subjective.

Normally, many   people would applaud Oliver’s decision as common sense overcoming rigid dogma.

Fair enough, but interpretation of the new IFAB ruling isn’t permissible.  There was a similar incident where Martin Atkinson took the opposite view  and gave a penalty to Crystal Palace after a VAR consultation on whether Victor Lindelof’s hand was in ‘an unnatural position’.

It is sometimes impossible to know whether a handball is accidental or  craftily illegal.  Neither the ref nor VAR can read minds — and therefore many important decisions are a collaboration.

At least we know where we are. Unless, like some refs, you trust your own senses and ignore the rules — which   just leaves everyone scratching their heads, asking where is the consistency in VAR?

Source: Soccer - thesun.co.uk