Hearts fielded ineligible player against Cove Rangers

[Deevers]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

Both.

Ah, right. So is there no obligation on the SFA to check that all that needs to be done is done. I know that in the "Old Days"  player registrations were checked rigorously and it was not unusual for incorrectly filed papers to be returned to the club concerned to be resubmitted properly.

[My half sister]

If they award a 3 nil win to Cove and that's the precedent set, it may not affect this year's tournament but it could in future.  When seedings and which second placed teams qualify are based on goal difference, awarding 3 nil wins could knock out unaffected teams.

For this reason, previous precedents which apply to normal knock out competitions won't work. This gives the Spfl wiggle room to come up with a new punishment. 

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Rand Paul's Ray Bans said:

 

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

You really think the club is badly run and going in the wrong direction though? That's a bit much. 

 

I know it's the fashion to react to everything with fits of screaming abdabs these days, and this is certainly unfortunate, but humans make mistakes - I've never worked in an office where mistakes didn't happen. Calls for some admin assistant to lose their job or have the punishment come out of their wages are way out of line, it's an honest mistake, it isn't the first this has happened, and it won't be the last either.  

[Deevers]

9 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

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...)

Probably right. I still think the punishment has to be measured and appopriate. At worst forfeiture of the points and a fine. At best just a fine. I still hope that being the case is still gives us a slim chance if qualification.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Deevers

[Boab]

2 minutes ago, Barack said:

Think I'll just look in on this about 5pm on Monday.

 

 

Survey the carnage then, instead.

 

Leave it till Tuesday !

[Martin_T]

It's obviously embarrassing and the club have admitted as much. When things like this happen, people fall over each other on here as if it's a contest to see who can use the most excessive hyperbole to express that embarrassment.

 

I suppose we can take some solace that admin errors have progressed in the past few years from being unable to pay the players on time, or drawing up elaborate plans for new stands that never actually materialise.

[Bellion]

3 minutes ago, Diego10 said:

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...

 

True, but that was in 2008. When I was looking at the Spartans case earlier on (btw, if anyone thinks ours is a minor oversight, they were treated REALLY harshly), I found this: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/spartans-thrown-out-of-scottish-cup-1086502 

 

There's a bit at the bottom that refers to a game being replayed under the SFA's old rules. So I think it probably used to be the case that you'd be ordered to replay, but no more. 

 

There have been at least five cases since 2008 and they have all resulted in the guilty club losing the game (the three I mentioned earlier, plus East Stirling and Dunfermline have both been kicked out of the Scottish Cup for similar issues).

 

I think we should expect to have the result overturned. Anything else would be inconsistent with how the authorities have treated every other case in the past ten years. 

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Bellion said:

 

True, but that was in 2008. When I was looking at the Spartans case earlier on (btw, if anyone thinks ours is a minor oversight, they were treated REALLY harshly), I found this: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/spartans-thrown-out-of-scottish-cup-1086502 

 

There's a bit at the bottom that refers to a game being replayed under the SFA's old rules. So I think it probably used to be the case that you'd be ordered to replay, but no more. 

 

There have been at least five cases since 2008 and they have all resulted in the guilty club losing the game (the three I mentioned earlier, plus East Stirling and Dunfermline have both been kicked out of the Scottish Cup for similar issues).

 

I think we should expect to have the result overturned. Anything else would be inconsistent with how the authorities have treated every other case in the past ten years. 

This is nothing to do with the SFA, it's the league that will decide

[micole]

Yes it is an embarrassment, and we deserved to get sanctioned so let's take it on the chin and move on.

[RDSK]

I’d like to think a fine will suffice but somehow I doubt it will. 

 

In an attempt to avoid as much disruption as possible, a fine would discipline first time offenders and leave the competition untampered with.

 

Is there any chance of the points being docked from us and not given to Cove? 

 

 

[rudi must stay]

16 hours ago, BobbyJenkins said:

Mistake but hardly earth shattering. See what comes, take it on the chin n get on with it.

 

Well said. And we've been honest enough to admit it, can see us getting a slap on the wrists and a fine

[Bellion]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

This is nothing to do with the SFA, it's the league that will decide

That's true, but from what I can tell, the rules are applied consistently by the SFA and SPFL. 

 

Ignore the Scottish Cup examples if you want. Albion Rovers and Dundee United have both had results overturned in SPFL competitions for fielding an ineligible player. A different outcome in our case would be surprising.  

[Cut The Crap]

Im not sure we volunteered the information. More likely we were alerted to the issue when the team lines were checked by the authorities after the game?

 

Bellion’s assessment seems the most informed to me. Still leaves us the opportunity to qualify with three handsome wins.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Bellion said:

That's true, but from what I can tell, the rules are applied consistently by the SFA and SPFL. 

 

Ignore the Scottish Cup examples if you want. Albion Rovers and Dundee United have both had results overturned in SPFL competitions for fielding an ineligible player. A different outcome in our case would be surprising.  

I'm not ignoring anything, just saying. I think a 3-0 to Cove and a fine seem the most appropriate sanctions, but I wouldn't be surprised at a 3-6 point deduction either.

[Jambof3tornado]

5 minutes ago, rudi must stay said:

 

Well said. And we've been honest enough to admit it, can see us getting a slap on the wrists and a fine

Did we admit it or was it discovered by the referees submitted report?

[Diego10]

10 minutes ago, Bellion said:

 

True, but that was in 2008. When I was looking at the Spartans case earlier on (btw, if anyone thinks ours is a minor oversight, they were treated REALLY harshly), I found this: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/spartans-thrown-out-of-scottish-cup-1086502 

 

There's a bit at the bottom that refers to a game being replayed under the SFA's old rules. So I think it probably used to be the case that you'd be ordered to replay, but no more. 

 

There have been at least five cases since 2008 and they have all resulted in the guilty club losing the game (the three I mentioned earlier, plus East Stirling and Dunfermline have both been kicked out of the Scottish Cup for similar issues).

 

I think we should expect to have the result overturned. Anything else would be inconsistent with how the authorities have treated every other case in the past ten years. 

Dunfermline were reinstated though.  That's my issue, there's no clear thing in the rules saying 'field an ineligible player and the opposition will be awarded a walk over'  

Contrast it with UEFA where the guidelines are 3-0 victory for fielding an ineligible player.

 

There's also zero precedence for actually awarding a 3-0 in any circumstance, so far,  in Scotland.

[Bellion]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

I'm not ignoring anything, just saying. I think a 3-0 to Cove and a fine seem the most appropriate sanctions, but I wouldn't be surprised at a 3-6 point deduction either.

No, sorry, not accusing you of ignoring anything. I just mean I think it's pretty clear cut.  

 

I don't think they will/can impose anything that relates to a different competition. I'll be delighted if we get away with a fine.

[Rudy T]

2 hours ago, Bellion said:

There is no basis for kicking us out of the competition. If we do this on 4 August, Hamilton will be awarded a 3-0 walkover. We won’t be kicked out of the league. Hamilton’s rivals might see it as unfair that they get 3 points for free, but that’s the way it goes.

 

The league and cup are different. Don't see the correlation?

[doctor jambo]

14 minutes ago, Bellion said:

 

True, but that was in 2008. When I was looking at the Spartans case earlier on (btw, if anyone thinks ours is a minor oversight, they were treated REALLY harshly), I found this: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/spartans-thrown-out-of-scottish-cup-1086502 

 

There's a bit at the bottom that refers to a game being replayed under the SFA's old rules. So I think it probably used to be the case that you'd be ordered to replay, but no more. 

 

There have been at least five cases since 2008 and they have all resulted in the guilty club losing the game (the three I mentioned earlier, plus East Stirling and Dunfermline have both been kicked out of the Scottish Cup for similar issues).

 

I think we should expect to have the result overturned. Anything else would be inconsistent with how the authorities have treated every other case in the past ten years. 

apart from Rangers

they fielded improperly registered players in multiple tournaments for years and years and years

 

and no punishment was deemed necessary

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Bellion said:

No, sorry, not accusing you of ignoring anything. I just mean I think it's pretty clear cut.  

 

I don't think they will/can impose anything that relates to a different competition. I'll be delighted if we get away with a fine.

 

 

[Four faces]

I know this is a daft question but when awarding cove a 3.0 win does that mean we would be on a goal difference of minus 3?.

[NANOJAMBO]

24 minutes ago, 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. 

I don't know how it works up there but down here the club retains the documents and sends a copy to the league body. For FA related activities , clubs have to complete quite a lot  of activities on line too - and the FA is very strict if clubs fail to comply. The problem we have down here is that leagues (at admittedly low level , but still in the "Step" set up) refuse to adopt the FA's Wholegame IT approach which means a lot of work for clubs who are always the ones left holding the baby if some thing goes wrong.  Possibly a similar problem up in Scotland ? (rhetorical). 

[Hagar the Horrible]

1 minute ago, Four faces said:

I know this is a daft question but when awarding cove a 3.0 win does that mean we would be on a goal difference of minus 3?.

Yes

 

Forgot to add it would also be that Olly and McLean would have their goals scrubbed from the history books

Edited July 20, 2018 by Hagar the Horrible

[sairyinthat]

2 hours ago, Rudy T said:

 

Its irrelevant how cove perform or are likely to perform. We broke the rules, and Cove receiving 3 points and us remaining in the competition will isn't fair on the other teams who still have to play us. I suspect we will get away with a fine but we certainly couldn't complain if they kicked us out. I'm pretty sure Raith and Cowdenbeath would have plenty to say if Cove get 3 points and we remain in the group.   

Couldn't we?I think we would with an immediate appeal and rightly.But that wont be required.

[Four faces]

1 minute ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Yes

Thanks

[Bellion]

4 minutes ago, Diego10 said:

Dunfermline were reinstated though.  That's my issue, there's no clear thing in the rules saying 'field an ineligible player and the opposition will be awarded a walk over'  

Contrast it with UEFA where the guidelines are 3-0 victory for fielding an ineligible player.

 

There's also zero precedence for actually awarding a 3-0 in any circumstance, so far,  in Scotland.

Both fair points. The League Cup Rules are unhelpfully vague (and not a particularly good read): https://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__leaguecupregulations201730june_1499765115.pdf 

 

8.6 says that a club that plays an ineligible player will face action under Section J of the SPFL Rules, and Section J give the SPFL the power to do basically whatever they fancy.

 

You're right about the 3-0 thing, but so far this has only come up in knockout cup/dead rubber league matches. We might be able to argue our circumstances are different to the other cases, but I reckon it's unlikely. 

 

 

[rudi must stay]

9 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Did we admit it or was it discovered by the referees submitted report?

 

Don't think that matters. We've admitted it, plenty clubs wouldn't IMO. It shows integrity

[Shanks]

All the other clubs in the group would be delighted to see cove given a 3-0 win.  They aren't going to qualify so it gives every other team an advantage over us.  I don't see why folk are saying it would be a disadvantage to the other teams in the group?  Surely they would want us to lose the points.

 

I think we will get a fine for having the player in the match day squad and also lose the game 3-0 for bringing him on as a sub.

[Prof]

Precedent is either three points loss or kicked out of tournament. And some people here think it wont affect season ticket sales! For those youngsters keen to watch live football and are egging their parents to get season tickets . Who would hey pick to buy a season for?. A team doing well or another that simply cannot get the easy things right.

[Gambo]

4 minutes ago, Longshanks said:

All the other clubs in the group would be delighted to see cove given a 3-0 win.  They aren't going to qualify so it gives every other team an advantage over us.  I don't see why folk are saying it would be a disadvantage to the other teams in the group?  Surely they would want us to lose the points.

 

I think we will get a fine for having the player in the match day squad and also lose the game 3-0 for bringing him on as a sub.

It is not only about us and the group we are in and how that may pan out. That should have nothing to do with it.

 

It will set a precedent if it happens again.

 

[Rudolf]

2 hours ago, Rudy T said:

 

Its irrelevant how cove perform or are likely to perform. We broke the rules, and Cove receiving 3 points and us remaining in the competition will isn't fair on the other teams who still have to play us. I suspect we will get away with a fine but we certainly couldn't complain if they kicked us out. I'm pretty sure Raith and Cowdenbeath would have plenty to say if Cove get 3 points and we remain in the group.   

If they Kicked us out then I'm sure that Inverness and Cowdenbeath would also have plenty to say as they'd miss out on their gate receipts from the games at Tynecastle.

[feedthefox]

Looking at this in purely a football sense if we are to win the SLC then surely we need to be beating Raith, Cowdenbeath and Inverness so putting aside this registration farce nothing changes. 

[Rudolf]

1 minute ago, Prof said:

Precedent is either three points loss or kicked out of tournament. And some people here think it wont affect season ticket sales! For those youngsters keen to watch live football and are egging their parents to get season tickets . Who would hey pick to buy a season for?. A team doing well or another that simply cannot get the easy things right.

What an absolute slaver you are.

[Des Lynam]

32 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You really think the club is badly run and going in the wrong direction though? That's a bit much. 

 

I know it's the fashion to react to everything with fits of screaming abdabs these days, and this is certainly unfortunate, but humans make mistakes - I've never worked in an office where mistakes didn't happen. Calls for some admin assistant to lose their job or have the punishment come out of their wages are way out of line, it's an honest mistake, it isn't the first this has happened, and it won't be the last either.  

 

Aaaah sanity! 

[Francis Albert]

26 minutes ago, micole said:

Yes it is an embarrassment, and we deserved to get sanctioned so let's take it on the chin and move on.

We don't have a choice but I think we need to do more than just "move on". Do we have a simple player registration data base that flags up say an amber warning when a player's registration is due to expire in say a month's time and a red warning nearer the time that says the player can't play or be on a team sheet until it has been confirmed that he has been registered. If not, why not?

It is actually not dissimilar in principle to the seats fiasco. Someone presumably failed to do something and the failure was not picked up until the consequences of the falure bit us in the arse..

The fault lies not with the individual but with the system and procedures, and whoever is responsible for them.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, Prof said:

Precedent is either three points loss or kicked out of tournament. And some people here think it wont affect season ticket sales! For those youngsters keen to watch live football and are egging their parents to get season tickets . Who would hey pick to buy a season for?. A team doing well or another that simply cannot get the easy things right.

 

I'm no Happy Clapper, and i hate people pointing the finger of suspicion at people just because they don't keep to the party line...but you're either hibs or a wind-up merchant.

[Bull's-eye]

Anybody's heid blown off yet ?

[highlandjambo3]

Definitely not in the know on this one and, my opinion only but........

 

how did this come to light?  

 

Did we put our hand up once this became apparent or was the issue pointed out to us by someone else.  He’s not exactly new to the club and from what AB said, the registration paperwork was completed but not yet loaded onto the system.  We were 2 nil up at the time and his coming on did not influence the game in our favour did it.

 

storme in a tea cup if you ask me.  Booted out would be extreme but, a 3 point deduction is highly likely...........let’s push on

[Rudy T]

5 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

If they Kicked us out then I'm sure that Inverness and Cowdenbeath would also have plenty to say as they'd miss out on their gate receipts from the games at Tynecastle.

 

ICT possibly. But Raith qualifying will be worth more than a gate receipt.

[I P Knightley]

46 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Surely you mean RIUNS

The RUNS, we've all got the RUNS!!

 

Doomed, ah tell ye.

[graygo]

55 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. 

 

Can you provide a link to where this wee nugget is in the rules please? Or is this just how you think it should be?

[colinmaroon]

13 hours ago, Morgan said:

Agreed Colin.  There is no way Hearts intended this. It’s not like we sneaked on Ronaldo to make sure we won the game.

 

But, in saying that, if the shoe was on the other foot (Hibs, Celtic, Rangers etc.) we would be screaming ‘injustice’.

 

Football fans can be as fickle as feck sometimes and Hearts are just as bad as the rest.

 

 

 

I accept that an offence is an offence, by the letter of the law but, anyone who uses the word "cheat" either has an agenda or doesn't understand the English language.

[el_jambo74]

17 minutes ago, Bellion said:

Both fair points. The League Cup Rules are unhelpfully vague (and not a particularly good read): https://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__leaguecupregulations201730june_1499765115.pdf 

 

8.6 says that a club that plays an ineligible player will face action under Section J of the SPFL Rules, and Section J give the SPFL the power to do basically whatever they fancy.

 

You're right about the 3-0 thing, but so far this has only come up in knockout cup/dead rubber league matches. We might be able to argue our circumstances are different to the other cases, but I reckon it's unlikely. 

 

 

 

The spirit of the ineligible player rule is surely to stop clubs playing players they haven't signed. We had signed Andy Irving. He wasn't a new player. He merely signed a contract extension which wasn't filed by an admin assistant. A major mess up I know, but hardly deception on the clubs part, and there was no sporting advantage gained. We played a signed player. The rule is open ended for a reason - it should judge on a case by case basis. We are clearly a different case to a club who plays a player they haven't even signed. Presumably all the contractual documents show a January signature on them. They'd be done through independent parties such as lawyers / agents so it's not like Hearts could have mocked these up yesterday. The players salary will be reflecting any changes for the past 6 months. Further proof that it's just an admin oversight. A fine is correct in this instance.

[Morgan]

17 minutes ago, Prof said:

Precedent is either three points loss or kicked out of tournament. And some people here think it wont affect season ticket sales! For those youngsters keen to watch live football and are egging their parents to get season tickets . Who would hey pick to buy a season for?. A team doing well or another that simply cannot get the easy things right.

I think we know where you would buy a season ticket for.

[johnthomas]

47 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You really think the club is badly run and going in the wrong direction though? That's a bit much. 

 

I know it's the fashion to react to everything with fits of screaming abdabs these days, and this is certainly unfortunate, but humans make mistakes - I've never worked in an office where mistakes didn't happen. Calls for some admin assistant to lose their job or have the punishment come out of their wages are way out of line, it's an honest mistake, it isn't the first this has happened, and it won't be the last either.  

Your post is spot on , apart from being a little understated

[Bellion]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Can you provide a link to where this wee nugget is in the rules please? Or is this just how you think it should be?

I can’t, because as I’ve already said, the rules aren’t that prescriptive.

 

But it’s how each case has been treated (by both SPFL and SFA) for some time. I’ve listed all the ones I can find. Whether people like it or not, these things have been dealt with consistently for a few years now.

[Morgan]

2 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

I accept that an offence is an offence, by the letter of the law but, anyone who uses the word "cheat" either has an agenda or doesn't understand the English language.

Yes, that’s true.

[Diego10]

19 minutes ago, Bellion said:

Both fair points. The League Cup Rules are unhelpfully vague (and not a particularly good read): https://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__leaguecupregulations201730june_1499765115.pdf 

 

8.6 says that a club that plays an ineligible player will face action under Section J of the SPFL Rules, and Section J give the SPFL the power to do basically whatever they fancy.

 

You're right about the 3-0 thing, but so far this has only come up in knockout cup/dead rubber league matches. We might be able to argue our circumstances are different to the other cases, but I reckon it's unlikely. 

 

 

I expect us to lose the points in truth.  I think it would be fairer to just deduct them from us and scratch the victory than award a 3-0 to Cove but if it's given as a 3-0 then we can't have many complaints.

 

I think this is also a somewhat unique case in that it involves a player who's always been ours and was previously registered with no issues.  Most ineligible players have been guys who would not have been able to play in any circumstance.  Just have  to wait and see what the punishment is.

[John Findlay]

54 minutes ago, Deevers said:

Ah, right. So is there no obligation on the SFA to check that all that needs to be done is done. I know that in the "Old Days"  player registrations were checked rigorously and it was not unusual for incorrectly filed papers to be returned to the club concerned to be resubmitted properly.

No they still check except in the case of a team that play their home games at Ibrox.

[poultry]

3 hours ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Old Firm mentality that would have this place rioting if it happened. 

Your probably right, but as I say the sponsor is the key to the cash. Powers that be know that.