Hearts fielded ineligible player against Cove Rangers

[martoon]

28 minutes ago, Kid Creole said:

gonna predict a £5k fine and a censure

 

This. 

 

Not overly concerned about expulsions, points deductions or a 0-3 defeat. It's a minor oversight. He's legally and unequivocally our contracted player.

 

A wee fine and a ticking off is plenty. 

[Beast Boy]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

That's what I get for finding a positive in this shambles!

 

Lighthearted wee comment, that I hope was taken in the way it was intended. Missed the positive though?

[luckydug]

27 minutes ago, stuart500 said:

I would think the punishment for Hearts can only be based upon the competition rules as they stood when the game was played. These allow more or less an ad hoc solution within the possible sanctions. 

Any new set of rules with prescribed punishments would need to apply from next season. 

You would think so BUT there are no rules in place for this particular situation.

KO competition is fairly clear but not for group stages.

If only someone had thought about = what if.

[Escobar PHM]

1 minute ago, Bellion said:

Equally they're advantaged by Hearts losing 3 points and being in a worse position to qualify. It's neutral for the other three. Either way, they control whether they qualify or not. 

Its not neutral for the other 3 at all. Cove lost a game but got 3 points anyway. How is that fair on 3 clubs who done nothing wrong ? (In the event that Cove were to qualify ahead of one of them )

[ramrod]

3 minutes ago, martoon said:

 

This. 

 

Not overly concerned about expulsions, points deductions or a 0-3 defeat. It's a minor oversight. He's legally and unequivocally our contracted player.

 

A wee fine and a ticking off is plenty. 

The more I think on it the more I think this will be the outcome. 

Its a technicality rather than a registration issue . 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

9 minutes ago, Escobar PHM said:

They'd be disadvantaged if Cove got into a qualifying position partly because of 3 points they were 'awarded' for a game they lost on the park. Cove wont get into that position but its mathematically still possible.

They'd be equally disadvantaged by us having the 3 points.

 

If I'm Inverness right now I'm wanting the game to be awarded to Cove.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[jr ewing]

Always next year. 

[AlimOzturk]

Just expell us deserved IMO

 

This has me raging. Why bother tunlrning up if the games just going to be sacrificed due to such a error? 

[Bellion]

12 minutes ago, Escobar PHM said:

Its not neutral for the other 3 at all. Cove lost a game but got 3 points anyway. How is that fair on 3 clubs who done nothing wrong ? (In the event that Cove were to qualify ahead of one of them )

It's a result in a game they weren't involved in, and 3 points either way isn't enough to take it out of any one club's hands. Raith or Inverness can still qualify by winning their games. As Geoff says, they're equally "disadvantaged" by us getting some points.

 

It would be different if it happened repeatedly to one team. Let's say (hypothetically) Cove are awarded a 3-0 win against us and we win our three remaining games 1-0. We'd have 9 points and a 0 goal difference. If Raith and Cowdenbeath then both played unregistered players against Cove, so that Cove get two more walkovers, Cove would win the group on goal difference. That would be unsporting and unfair and we would have cause to complain.

 

But one result either way - out of ten games - doesn't carry sufficient weight to affect how the group works out. If anything, Inverness are probably delighted, because if they get a point against us they'll be in a great position to go through. The only team that's hurt by this is Hearts.  

Edited July 20, 2018 by Bellion

[jambali]

35 minutes ago, kila said:

 

This sort of shit has been happening for years since Budge took over.

 

https://twitter.com/jamtarts/status/553919380166574080

 

Another example of the club back in 2015 failing in due diligence by getting a player's name wrong on the official team sheet!

Thought we had a director of football to deal with such matters??

 

[martoon]

2 minutes ago, ramrod said:

The more I think on it the more I think this will be the outcome. 

Its a technicality rather than a registration issue . 

 

 

Rangers' EBT shenanigans didn't result in a single point deduction or title forfeit, despite it being a deliberate and wilful attempt to circumnavigate tax, rules etc. 

 

Any suggestion of deductions and 0-3 defeats on Monday should be fought. 

 

Vigorously. 

[It should have been ten]

10 hours ago, Eldar Hadzimehmedovic said:

 

You have a hissy fit at literally every opinion written on here. Somebody could say they wish we had brought on player A instead of player B, or they prefer salt and vinegar to cheese and onion, and you'd come steamrollering in with all guns blazing, calling them every insult under the sun. 

 

[Escobar PHM]

9 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

They'd be equally disadvantaged by us having the 3 points.

 

If I'm Inverness right now I'm wanting the game to be awarded to Cove.

So Cove could end up with 9 points ( 3 of which were awarded) and Inverness could end up with 9 but go out on goal difference to Cove because they got 'awarded' a 3-0 win. Youre still happy if you are Inverness ?

[gowestjambo]

15 hours ago, sidjamesbottle said:

Have a word with yourself ya clown

 

Thanks for your contribution. Yet another keyboard fantasist who talks big on a computer.

[Deevers]

44 minutes ago, All Out Attack said:

Right, so the club didn't screw up and no penalties are appropriate. We just imagined the whole thing. Give us a break... 

 

What an absolute shambles. 

 

 

 

Where did anyone say that no penalties are appropriate.  There will undoubtedly be a sanction of some sort. We'll know on Tuesday. What is clear is that there is no way we can be excluded from the competition as some  of the more hysterical posters were claiming.

 

bet you are loving every minute of this though.   

[Hagar the Horrible]

The fans of all other clubs in my work believe this is deliberate so as to get out of this tournament without fielding a weak side, and throwing it?   It would be a bit to creative for us to do this, it was an admin error no more no less, but do expect the worst punishment.  Saying that a small fine would be unfair to Cove, we DID gain a sporting advantage,  just give is fair punishment, take our medicine and move on!

[The Treasurer]

What people are forgetting is that the player was already registered, it's just the change to his contract that wasn't.

This is completely different from the other cases mentioned.

It's still a breach of the rules but a very minor one.

 

[Escobar PHM]

1 minute ago, Deevers said:

Where did anyone say that no penalties are appropriate.  There will undoubtedly be a sanction of some sort. We'll know on Tuesday. What is clear is that there is no way we can be excluded from the competition as some  of the more hysterical posters were claiming.

 

bet you are loving every minute of this though.   

We cant be excluded from the competition. That is not one of the list of possible punishments. However we could be unilaterally deducted enough points that would make qualification mathematically impossible, which has the same effect as exclusion, expect of course that we still have to play the meaningless games.

[martoon]

Had a look at Hibs.nest. Their ongoing rage at anything Hearts is exquisite. 

 

They don't half mention 5-1 a lot too. 

 

Brilliant. 

 

 

[It should have been ten]

12 hours ago, Ali Lawrie said:

Brenda’s opinion will no doubt be all over the news tomorrow, we know the script on what happens next 

 

 

You’re probably right!

[ShedBoy]

From EEN

 

The governing body could decide to fine Hearts or potentially deduct points from their total in Betfred League Cup Group C. Ironically, Cove Rangers themselves were fined £2,000 along with Stranraer in 2016 for using ineligible players in the same competition.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

5 minutes ago, Escobar PHM said:

So Cove could end up with 9 points ( 3 of which were awarded) and Inverness could end up with 9 but go out on goal difference to Cove because they got 'awarded' a 3-0 win. Youre still happy if you are Inverness ?

Absolutely. Hearts could only end with a maximum of 9 as well.

 

[All Out Attack]

1 minute ago, Deevers said:

Where did anyone say that no penalties are appropriate.  There will undoubtedly be a sanction of some sort. We'll know on Tuesday. What is clear is that there is no way we can be excluded from the competition as some  of the more hysterical posters were claiming.

 

bet you are loving every minute of this though.   

It's embarrassing quite frankly and if we fail to qualify through the group stages, someone should fall on their sword. 

 

There is not enough accountability at our club. 

 

 

[Escobar PHM]

2 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

What people are forgetting is that the player was already registered, it's just the change to his contract that wasn't.

This is completely different from the other cases mentioned.

It's still a breach of the rules but a very minor one.

 

The player was NOT registered after 9th June. His registration expired. All the cases were minor breaches of the rules and administrative errors. Most, but not all, were punished very harshly.

[Deevers]

50 minutes ago, Barack said:

I honestly think we'll be given a fine and the match awarded to Cove.

 

If the sanction is there, and (Rangers aside) the precedent is there, as Bellion has highlighted a few times, then that's what should be applied.

 

Can't expect leniency for absent-mindedness, mate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Probably the case Barack. Though with Cove and Stranraer were only fined for a similar indiscretion. Though this is Hearts at the hearing. The pantomime villains for both ruling bodies.  Tuesday will indeed be interesting.  As you say though a stupid piece of absent mindedness by someone.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Deevers

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, Escobar PHM said:

We cant be excluded from the competition. That is not one of the list of possible punishments. However we could be unilaterally deducted enough points that would make qualification mathematically impossible, which has the same effect as exclusion, expect of course that we still have to play the meaningless games.

WE can but we wont?  we are box office, it would be hurtfull financially to the other teams in our group and with 2 games set for TV, but I do agree with you

[18Jambo_dave74]

As others have said, the nature of the group stage makes it hard to give a punishment that doesn't effect other teams in the group.

 

Going by past offences from this competition I'd expect a fine and a censure at a minimum but the fact that the ineligible player played some part in the game makes me think we'll either have the 3 points taken off us and given to Cove or they just take the points from us and neither side gets any points. As unlikely as it may be, what if Cove go through on goal difference by virtue of receiving a 3-0 win by default. 

 

The ironic thing about all this is that we actually lost the game 1-0 for the time in which Irving was on the pitch. 

 

For this to happen at a club our size is an absolute embarrassment and already makes life tougher for us to qualify out of the group. I'm guessing a possible points deduction (and 3-0 defeat) would mean its extremely unrealistic (or even impossible?) that we could be one of the four best group winners therefore meaning a tougher game in the next round, should we get there. 

 

If we do have the result overturned, I hope that those who made the effort to go to the game are reimbursed. 

 

 

 

[All Out Attack]

1 minute ago, ShedBoy said:

From EEN

 

The governing body could decide to fine Hearts or potentially deduct points from their total in Betfred League Cup Group C. Ironically, Cove Rangers themselves were fined £2,000 along with Stranraer in 2016 for using ineligible players in the same competition.

Most interesting post in a while. 

 

Precedent would suggest just a fine then. Something like £10k

[It should have been ten]

11 hours ago, eyesandears said:

Disappointing for sure BUT I'd rather we didn't sack someone over an admin error. Someone that may have a wife/husband.partner, mortgage, kids, dependents. Someone that may have given years of service to the club. Yes we're all pissed off by this but I'd rather help the person that made the mistake to make sure it never happens again than hang-em-high. And who here can honestly say they have never made an administrative error at work in their life? Calm down and stop turning on our own people!

 

Right own up, it was you eh? ?

[ShedBoy]

2 minutes ago, All Out Attack said:

Most interesting post in a while. 

 

Precedent would suggest just a fine then. Something like £10k

 

 

Would seem logical. As you say, the precedent is set.

[Deevers]

4 minutes ago, All Out Attack said:

It's embarrassing quite frankly and if we fail to qualify through the group stages, someone should fall on their sword. 

 

There is not enough accountability at our club. 

 

 

Where I would agree with you is that for a club of Hearts stature a mistake like this is inexcusable. I hope that someone is being hauled over the coals for this and we ensure that this sort of mistake never happens again.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Just a fine would be too lienient and unfair to cove and the other teams in the group, but the seethe from everywhere would be worth basking in

[sadj]

2 hours ago, Prof said:

The committee is still to meet to hear our case so we can only speculate. But given the make up of the SFA we will be thrown out the tournament. What's clear is the so called professional business like approach of the board is making a number of serious mistakes-massive overruns on timing and cost of new stand, another new pitch and now basic stuff like player legibility. Our club needs a chief executive that gets things done efficiently and accurately.

Another new pitch? The one put in for IC as he requested was always a temporary solution. Player legibility issues happen in football , Real Madrid and other big teams have done it at times. Very rarely does a building project come close to its original budget. All points that are just being made to beat AB and the club with and not relevant. 

 

The make up of the SFA does not mean expulsion. There is several options such as a replay , points deduction to a simple fine and others. Most likely would be a reduction of points or reversal and a dine but Doncaster has also made a rod for his own back with insisting on replays previously so we have that point we can argue now especially in his new capacity.

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Just a fine would be too lienient and unfair to cove and the other teams in the group, but the seethe from everywhere would be worth basking in

Not really

 

Cove , in the same competition, were only fined.

To expect that same Cove to receive a points "bonus"  would be daft

[heartsfc_fan]

Whilst this whole thing is a farce it's probably just aswell it was picked up now and not in a league game. Imagine we bring him on in the 89th minute in a league game we're winning comfortably then find he was ineligible? Sake.

Edited July 20, 2018 by heartsfc_fan

[neilnunb]

10 minutes ago, ShedBoy said:

From EEN

 

The governing body could decide to fine Hearts or potentially deduct points from their total in Betfred League Cup Group C. Ironically, Cove Rangers themselves were fined £2,000 along with Stranraer in 2016 for using ineligible players in the same competition.

 

The difference being Cove didn't actually field their player, he stayed on the bench.

 

 

[Bellion]

9 minutes ago, ShedBoy said:

From EEN

 

The governing body could decide to fine Hearts or potentially deduct points from their total in Betfred League Cup Group C. Ironically, Cove Rangers themselves were fined £2,000 along with Stranraer in 2016 for using ineligible players in the same competition.

 

6 minutes ago, All Out Attack said:

Most interesting post in a while. 

 

Precedent would suggest just a fine then. Something like £10k

The EEN article says that Cove and Stranraer were fined for LISTING ineligible players. 

 

There is one punishment for listing an ineligible player and a different punishment for using an ineligible player.

 

The precedent for what we are guilty of having done is having the match result overturned. See:

 

1. Spartans being booted out the Scottish Cup

2. Albion Rovers being kicked out the Challenge Cup 

3. Dundee United losing 3 points when already relegated

 

All for FIELDING ineligible players. 

 

If the rules are applied consistently, Cove will be awarded a 3-0 win. There will be no anti-Hearts conspiracy involved. 

[Deevers]

11 minutes ago, Escobar PHM said:

We cant be excluded from the competition. That is not one of the list of possible punishments. However we could be unilaterally deducted enough points that would make qualification mathematically impossible, which has the same effect as exclusion, expect of course that we still have to play the meaningless games.

 Still don't think it's in their interests to impose such a severe sanction on us so as to make our continued participation in the competition meaningless. I doubt that the Sponsors would be delighted with such an outcome.

[I P Knightley]

2 hours ago, Prof said:

...and now basic stuff like player legibility. Our club needs a chief executive that gets things done efficiently and accurately.

 and now they're mucking up the printing of player names on the shirts? 

 

The club is in ruins, I tell you. RUINS!!!

[Diego10]

6 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Just a fine would be too lienient and unfair to cove and the other teams in the group, but the seethe from everywhere would be worth basking in

It wouldn't really.  I mean I doubt that's what will happen but it's made zero material difference to the game

 

[Diego10]

3 minutes ago, Bellion said:

 

The EEN article says that Cove and Stranraer were fined for LISTING ineligible players. 

 

There is one punishment for listing an ineligible player and a different punishment for using an ineligible player.

 

The precedent for what we are guilty of having done is having the match result overturned. See:

 

1. Spartans being booted out the Scottish Cup

2. Albion Rovers being kicked out the Challenge Cup 

3. Dundee United losing 3 points when already relegated

 

All for FIELDING ineligible players. 

 

If the rules are applied consistently, Cove will be awarded a 3-0 win. There will be no anti-Hearts conspiracy involved. 

There are also examples where teams have been fined or have been made to replay the game.

 

The lack of set punishment makes it ambiguous.

[Bellion]

1 minute ago, Diego10 said:

There are also examples where teams have been fined or have been made to replay the game.

 

The lack of set punishment makes it ambiguous.

It's not ambiguous.

 

If you play an unregistered player = forfeit the game

If you play a suspended player = replay the game

If you list either of the above as an unused sub = £ fine

 

I'm not aware of any precedents that don't accord with the above. I'll happily admit it's ambiguous if you can find one. 

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

48 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

So you think overall the club is badly run and going in the wrong direction? 

 

Yes. Things could be better. Like correctly registering our players and remembering to order seats for a new stand in time. 

[i8hibsh]

No complaints with any outcome tbh.  Ideally, just a fine as I don't trust us to get 9 points out of the next 3.  But then with a fine I am left thinking ffs more money spunked against the wall.

 

More money from our club to the SFA to not go towards grass roots football in the country.  **** knows what these utter shitesticks do with all the cash as we are diabolical at international level.

Edited July 20, 2018 by i8hibsh

[Deevers]

Just a quick question for anyone actually in the know - the paperwork for the registration was all completed promptly and correctly.  Who holds the paperwork? Is it held by the club or is it held by the SFA. 

[John Findlay]

8 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

 and now they're mucking up the printing of player names on the shirts? 

 

The club is in ruins, I tell you. RUINS!!!

Surely you mean RIUNS

[John Findlay]

Just now, Deevers said:

Just a quick question for anyone actually in the know - the paperwork for the registration was all completed promptly and correctly.  Who holds the paperwork? Is it held by the club or is it held by the SFA. 

Both.

[Nookie Bear]

10 minutes ago, Deevers said:

 Still don't think it's in their interests to impose such a severe sanction on us so as to make our continued participation in the competition meaningless. I doubt that the Sponsors would be delighted with such an outcome.

 

I don't think any punishment should be considered on the basis of our attractiveness to the sponsors. By that token, the old firm would be treated very differently to everyone else (yeah, i know i know...)

[heartandsoul]

If we are deducted 3 points so be it. Just have to go all out to get big wins in our next 3 games. 

[Diego10]

5 minutes ago, Bellion said:

It's not ambiguous.

 

If you play an unregistered player = forfeit the game

If you play a suspended player = replay the game

If you list either of the above as an unused sub = £ fine

 

I'm not aware of any precedents that don't accord with the above. I'll happily admit it's ambiguous if you can find one. 

Brechin were ordered to replay a game after fielding an ineligible player in a game they won.

 

Admittedly they were then later kicked out when it turned out they'd actually played a second ineligible player in the same game...