PDA

View Full Version : Well done Brechin and Morton



Mark
28-01-2008, 22:48
Brechin beat Hamilton 2-1 AET and Morton beat Gretna 3-0 to set up fifth round Scottish Cup ties away to Aberdeen and home to Queen of the South respectively :clap:

Mark
29-01-2008, 00:00
But stop press...Brechin could be in trouble.

They played Michael Paton tonight, on-loan from Aberdeen. But he wasn't signed before the initial tie at New Douglas Park :shock:

Although last season, Queen of the South fielded a cup-tied player and were only fined for it.

np
29-01-2008, 00:07
But stop press...Brechin could be in trouble.

They played Michael Paton tonight, on-loan from Aberdeen. But he wasn't signed before the initial tie at New Douglas Park :shock:

Although last season, Queen of the South fielded a cup-tied player and were only fined for it.


It'll depend whether they think the error made a significant difference to the outcome of the game.

Mark
29-01-2008, 00:10
It'll depend whether they think the error made a significant difference to the outcome of the game.

Looking back through the archives, the worse Brechin will be hit with is a replay - and if they're given worse (i.e. a forfeit), then they just have to cite this from 8 years ago - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scottish_cup/1076159.stm

Although, by the time the Emergency Committee has met, deliberated and given a verdict, Saturday will already be here...

np
29-01-2008, 00:18
And playing suspended players would seem a worse offence TBH.

I see Paton set up Brechin's equaliser....

But I also see that he was all over the papers saying how much he was looking forward to the game, so SOMEBODY should have picked it up! He even said in the P&J he'd have to sit out the Dons game if they got through :help:

There seems to be a problem with this business of eligibility though, errors are happening too often. You'd think there would be a way of redesigning team lines to avoid mistakes.

Mark
29-01-2008, 00:20
The thing is, this particular rule is pretty stupid IMHO. If you've earned a replay, you should be allowed to field your strongest team - and if that means fielding a player who wasn't signed before the original tie then so be it.

In this case, Paton was signed on the 19th which was before the original replay date (emphasising that because I can understand not being allowed to field players who weren't signed before the original date of a rescheduled game).

super
29-01-2008, 01:01
another rule i think is a disgrace is cup tied players ffs your paying his wages he should be able to play regardless o who and when he played for in previous rounds.

Mark
29-01-2008, 01:04
another rule i think is a disgrace is cup tied players ffs your paying his wages he should be able to play regardless o who and when he played for in previous rounds.

He wasn't cup-tied ;)

He just wasn't signed before the date of the original tie - although I suspect you'll agree with me that's an even worse rule!

super
29-01-2008, 01:08
mark i said ANOTHER rule.. ;)...............................like i say you sign a player and pay his wages u should be able to play him regardless o his previous situation in cup.

Mark
29-01-2008, 01:11
:stupid:

np
29-01-2008, 01:22
I agree wth the cup tied rule I'm afraid. A player who gets knocked out of the cup shouldn't be able to get back in by moving to another team :wagfinger:

Knockout is different from league.

Now - in the Courier Hamilton are saying THEY LEFT OUT A PLAYER loaned from Gretna, weakening their midfield, because he was ineligible.

Might be a replay right enough :shock:

super
29-01-2008, 01:30
well we'll agree to differ on the cup tied rule...........and as for hamilton bleating if billy reid says to me right now its dark ootside id look and double check.................he is the most bitter manager in scottish football.

Mark
29-01-2008, 01:34
well we'll agree to differ on the cup tied rule...........and as for hamilton bleating if billy reid says to me right now its dark ootside id look and double check.................he is the most bitter manager in scottish football.

He's friends with Alan Kernaghan...nuff said.

Wullie
29-01-2008, 10:34
I agree wth the cup tied rule I'm afraid. A player who gets knocked out of the cup shouldn't be able to get back in by moving to another team :wagfinger:


Thats fair, BUT they allow teams who have been knocked out the champions league a second bite at the cherry in the form of the Uefa cup, differnt competition, different situation obviously.

Also I read somewhere that if a player is not signed before tonights semi, he cannot play in the CIS final, is that right?

np
29-01-2008, 17:06
Thats fair, BUT they allow teams who have been knocked out the champions league a second bite at the cherry in the form of the Uefa cup, differnt competition, different situation obviously.

Aye well it's maybe not that different when you think of teams dropping down.

Example: Celtic knocked out by Basle so drop down to UEFA Cup. (End up in Seville thanks to getting beat but that's another story).

Now Basle got through their group in second place but say they had finished third and dropped down. They could very well have been knocked out by a much-improved Celtic - despite having beaten them earlier. that's bad enough. But now it seems Celtic could sign a player from Basle who would help them knock them out, and he'd be eligible because he'd only played in the CL before ....

A bit off topic I know, but the cup-tie rules in Europe are wierd, mainly because of two competitions being sort-of different but sort-of connected.


Also I read somewhere that if a player is not signed before tonights semi, he cannot play in the CIS final, is that right?


It was me that posted that but it was to do with the Scottish Cup I think? Not sure if the same rule applies to the CIS or not. Maybe I'll look it up when I can be bothered.

Mark
29-01-2008, 17:08
Hamilton have now said they aren't seeking a replay.

So either they're accepting defeat and pretty much agree with us that the rule is absurd, or they're trying to tell the SFA what to do, i.e. chuck Brechin out.

np
29-01-2008, 17:12
Just checked, no special rule re eligibility for the CIS final, normal eligibility rules apply.

np
29-01-2008, 17:16
So either they're accepting defeat and pretty much agree with us that the rule is absurd,

Regardless of what Hamilton think of the rule, they weakened their own team to comply with it. And they don't need to seek a replay - a replay can be ordered anyway. Doesn't have to be, but can be.

Plenty of refs probably think he current offside rule is absurd but they can't just change it for themselves. Even if it seems otherwise on occasion.

Mark
29-01-2008, 17:17
Just checked, no special rule re eligibility for the CIS final, normal eligibility rules apply.

So that's...

1) Play for Celtic or Rangers
2) Go to 1

:)

np
29-01-2008, 17:22
Here's something though - not having a go at Hamilton as it seems to be commonplace in these situations - if a team can complain to the ref about a player's ineligibility straight after the game as the rules require, how come they didn't know before the game when the team sheet was handed to them? Pointing it out at that point would have saved all this.

Mark
29-01-2008, 17:24
It's been claimed they did know, but didn't say.

Emphasis on "claimed"...

super
29-01-2008, 17:25
imagine bleating on aboot an inllegiable(sp) player so undignified they should just accept the fact they were shafted and get on wi it........................u'd never hear us bleating on aboot teams cheating :).............ps whatever happened to that consultant/gardener livi had as ive a homer needing done and canna find his name in the yellow pages ???

Saintslady
30-01-2008, 09:33
Sour grapes me thinks!!!!!

dufc5
30-01-2008, 09:44
Sour grapes me thinks!!!!!

St Johnstone would do the same!!

Mark
30-01-2008, 11:35
Could Brechin realistically get off on a technicality?

From the SFA handbook:


11. Grounds for Ties, excluding Semi-Final and Final Ties
Subject, in every case, to the terms of Rule 13:-
(a) In each tie, a match shall be played on the ground of the club first drawn in the
ballot.
(b) If the result is a draw, a second match shall be played on the ground of the club
drawn second in the ballot, unless, in the case of a Preliminary Round match (if
applicable), a match in Round One, Round Two or Round Three, the clubs agree to
play on a neutral ground.

And then back to 15b:


When a match which is postponed, drawn, or abandoned, is played or replayed, only
those players who were eligible at the date fixed for originally playing the Round,
may play.

But then you have 28b:


In subsequent Rounds, the drawn or unplayed match shall be replayed or played in
the second midweek following the first match or the date fixed therefor, on a day
other than Thursday or Friday, unless the two clubs, the relevant authorities and the
Association are all agreeable that the match be played on an earlier date.

So what was it they played - a "second match" or a "replay"?

Saintslady
30-01-2008, 11:36
Maybe i, Maybe no!!!!!!!

I just think its sour grapes IMHO!!!

Mark
30-01-2008, 11:58
Match to be replayed at Glebe Park on Saturday.

Brechin also fined heavily.

dufc5
30-01-2008, 12:23
How much they fined? Hamilton should make free buses for their supporters as it's harsh that their being forced to travel twice in 5 days or so.

shedboy
30-01-2008, 12:24
I agree wth the cup tied rule I'm afraid. A player who gets knocked out of the cup shouldn't be able to get back in by moving to another team :wagfinger:

Knockout is different from league.

Now - in the Courier Hamilton are saying THEY LEFT OUT A PLAYER loaned from Gretna, weakening their midfield, because he was ineligible.

Might be a replay right enough :shock:


The player in question was DAVID GRAHAM who was actually a sub and I'm sure he came on in extra-time, so does that mean that Hamilton broke the rules as well?

dufc5
30-01-2008, 12:26
Depends what was in the loan deal.

jmo1506
30-01-2008, 13:23
Could Brechin realistically get off on a technicality?

From the SFA handbook:

And then back to 15b:

But then you have 28b:

So what was it they played - a "second match" or a "replay"?


i believe it's neither.

when this happens the offending match becomes void, so ceases to exist in all respects (except as the basis for intervention by the sfa and punishment that follows...and from there the game is played according to the directions that the sfa make regarding venue etc.

that 's how i interpret the regulations

Arthur Montford
30-01-2008, 14:11
What happens now about the Hamilton player who was sent off?, is he banned?, or does his red card get rescinded since the game does not officially exist?. Hmmmmm :thinking:

np
30-01-2008, 16:29
The player in question was DAVID GRAHAM who was actually a sub and I'm sure he came on in extra-time, so does that mean that Hamilton broke the rules as well?


Actually no, turns out Courier got its wires crossed. The player Hamilton left out was Simon Mensing, whom they signed from Motherwell.

It makes no difference at all whether the player is on loan BTW. What matters is whether he was registered before the first game.

Mark
30-01-2008, 16:57
Seemingly, Brechin fielded another ineligible player...

Willie Dyer was signed on-loan from St Johnstone, but went back...before being re-signed on a permanent basis on 18th January...

This is slowly but surely turning into a farce.

np
30-01-2008, 17:06
Not a farce at all. A straightforward blunder by Brechin and a proportionate and fair response by the SFA. (Well the fine is a bit high for a team the size of Brechin but a replay is fair).

Aberdeen complaining about not having a game at the weekend given their fixture problems but what did they expect the SFA to do? It would have been unprecedented to let Brechin go through and too severe to eliminate them, or so it seems to me.

Mark
30-01-2008, 17:09
No, it's a farce because the SFA haven't got a clue about this other player, even though it was raised before the meeting. They acted based on just the one player being ineligible.

Mark
30-01-2008, 19:01
And now it seems the SFA have found out about the other player and have called another meeting for tomorrow.

Like I said, a farce.

There should be strict procedures in place for when a club fields an ineligible player, namely check the rest of the team sheet against registration documents etc. to ensure the same hasn't happened with another player.

arabest
30-01-2008, 20:07
The news has certainly livened up Brechin tonight!

np
30-01-2008, 21:35
And now it seems the SFA have found out about the other player and have called another meeting for tomorrow.

Like I said, a farce.

There should be strict procedures in place for when a club fields an ineligible player, namely check the rest of the team sheet against registration documents etc. to ensure the same hasn't happened with another player.


Maybe there are such procedures and that's how they found out? Or would that be against the religious conviction that everything that goes wrong is the SFA's fault?

For Pete's sake, it's the SAME mistake. They didn't know they couldn't field players signed after the first game. Arbroath fielded two SUSPENDED players and still got to replay. Replay is still appropriate, and if they are thrown out I for one will suspect it's due to unfair and unreasonable pressure from Aberdeen.

Mark
30-01-2008, 23:56
No, they found out after the meeting, hence the reason they're having another one tomorrow.

I agree that it's the same mistake and they shouldn't be thrown out for it. However, some people are arguing that Brechin should have realised that Dyer was also ineligible and had two days to put their hands up and tell the SFA there were two players.

super
31-01-2008, 16:13
i think hamilton have been sneaky *******s in this situation as listening to their chairman getting interviewed on the radio the other night he said they knew about this inelligable player before the match started but didna say anything till after it...and then he backtracked and said they just had suspicions..............i'll bet my mortgage that if hamilton had won this game **** all would have been said...........and by the way BILLY REID IS STILL A DICK.

dufc5
31-01-2008, 16:16
Brechin cheated so Hamilton have the right to notify the SFA thst rules have been broken.

super
31-01-2008, 16:22
Brechin cheated so Hamilton have the right to notify the SFA thst rules have been broken.
yes but they realised there had been a **** up before the game started.....so why didnt they mention it then or was this kept back as a get out o jail free card...........