Hearts fielded ineligible player against Cove Rangers

[Clerry Jambo]

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/craig-levein-hopes-sfa-don-t-ruin-betfred-cup-run-1-4771813

[ROCK LOBSTER]

12 hours ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

I always think folk are too quick to jump in with the pitchforks when an honest mistake is made by someone. If you were to look at this from another angle...say it was your wife who had made this mistake and she had been in the job for years, without making any prior errors, would you honestly be telling her she should be sacked?

Look at it if it was hibs or Celtic or rangers who had made the mistake we would want them kicked out. 

There is an other point the authorities could also be at fault, in friendlies a team sheet must be handed in and to play a trialist you need permission from the governing body, now the young lad has played in some of our friendlies so how has it taken for now for it to be picked up.

[luckydug]

8 hours ago, feedthefox said:

Utter utter gash to suggest anyone should be sacked over this. Feck me these things happen, it’s totally nuts to think everyone is immune from it happening to them. A genuine innocent error should never be reason to ruin someone, I’m sure they feel bad enough. 

 

What it simply highlights is how draconian the punishment is for what is nothing more than a clerical error. I’ve yet to hear ever that this type of error has any bearing on the game. Compare this to blatant diving etc which has a potential direct impact on a match result and yet you can airbrush a whole result on the back of a technicality. 

 

Well said !

The number of posters who seem to think that Cove should get the 3 points is bizarre. 

We just happened to be playing them when a clerical error that had no bearing on the result occurred. 

How about folk getting behind the club for a change ?

Somebody behind the scenes has made a mistake a small fine should cover it.

Points deductions for things like this make a mockery of the game.

[ROCK LOBSTER]

8 minutes ago, Barack said:

He's a contracted player. Not sure what you're trying to get at mentioning trialists. 

Unfortunately he is not contracted and this is why it happened. His registration ran out in June and he hasn't been re registered so he should have been shown as a trialist on the team sheet in the friendlies but wasn't

 

[soonbe110]

2 minutes ago, ROCK LOBSTER said:

Unfortunately he is not contracted and this is why it happened. His registration ran out in June and he hasn't been re registered so he should have been shown as a trialist on the team sheet in the friendlies but wasn't

 

Get your hard hat on. Flak coming your way. You are very wrong on this one. 

[ROCK LOBSTER]

4 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Well said !

The number of posters who seem to think that Cove should get the 3 points is bizarre. 

We just happened to be playing them when a clerical error that had no bearing on the result occurred. 

How about folk getting behind the club for a change ?

Somebody behind the scenes has made a mistake a small fine should cover it.

Points deductions for things like this make a mockery of the game.

Cove won't get 3 points but neither will we I can't see us getting chucked out so a fine it is and a word in the ear of the person that mucked up and we move on.

[Ecce Romanov]

My thoughts:

- No-one should be sacked over this. We are a supportive and compassionate club - learn from it and move on

- A fair result would be for us to be docked the 3 points. Any way you look at it Hearts didn't register the player properly. It's the clubs responsibility

- Given the points deduction, there is no reason why we shouldn't still be able to progress. It might even act as extra motivation

- Imagine if we went on to win it. the seethe from Leith would be amazing 

 

So, a good win against RR today will set us up for the rest of the competition

 

[Victorian]

Awarding points to Cove makes very little sense.     Yes there is a credible accusation against us regarding a potential advantage gained via using a player who was not fully registered according to the rules and processes in place,    but the award of points to Cove creates an artificial status of our mini-league as well.     It does not adequately return the status of our group to that of a group where no offence occured.     Cove have not achieved anything to merit the points.  

 

Only a retrospective and wholly separate deduction from our points makes any sense.      Given that the match was played with a total of 3 mini-league points at stake then surely the maximum number of points to deduct would be 3.

[ROCK LOBSTER]

3 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Get your hard hat on. Flak coming your way. You are very wrong on this one. 

 

4 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Get your hard hat on. Flak coming your way. You are very wrong on this one. 

If I'm wrong explain why and if I'm wrong why do I need a hard hat

[ROCK LOBSTER]

2 minutes ago, Barack said:

"Due to an administrative error on the club's part at the end of the January transfer window, Andrew Irving entered the field of play in the 65th minute as an unregistered player.

"Andrew was given an extension contract in January 2018 and his extension paperwork was all properly completed and in order. However, it was not loaded onto the online SFA registration system at the time. His official registration, therefore, ran out on 9th June 2018. Unfortunately, this was not picked up in advance of last night's game."

Therefore in the friendlies he played in it should have been flagged up.

[rmreido]

26  pages

WOW!

[Gorgie_Rules]

Baffled at how many people seem to think we will/can still qualify if we are docked the 3 points.

 

For us to go through we’ll need to win every game - not impossible but not a given

Inverness will need to not beat Raith at home - unlikely

If they do we’ll need to score a fair few goals in each of the games, particularly against Inverness at home.

 

Even if that happens it still may not be enough depending on the other groups. Peterhead finished on 9 points last year and didnt progress as the 5th best 2nd placed team.

 

Not sure how the seedings work but I assume if we make it through in 2nd place we’ll play one or Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen etc

 

Shambles of a situation

 

Edited July 21, 2018 by Gorgie_Rules

[heartmussel]

24 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Well said !

The number of posters who seem to think that Cove should get the 3 points is bizarre. 

We just happened to be playing them when a clerical error that had no bearing on the result occurred. 

How about folk getting behind the club for a change ?

Somebody behind the scenes has made a mistake a small fine should cover it.

Points deductions for things like this make a mockery of the game.

At last sense?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

32 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Well said !

The number of posters who seem to think that Cove should get the 3 points is bizarre. 

We just happened to be playing them when a clerical error that had no bearing on the result occurred. 

How about folk getting behind the club for a change ?

Somebody behind the scenes has made a mistake a small fine should cover it.

Points deductions for things like this make a mockery of the game.

It's nothing to do with "getting behind the club". We are discussing potential sanctions for a feck up.

 

There are people on here who try to defend the indefensible. You're one of them.

[PTBCAL]

8 minutes ago, Gorgie_Rules said:

Baffled at how many people seem to think we will/can still qualify if we are docked the 3 points.

 

For us to go through we’ll need to win every game - not impossible but not a given

Inverness will need to not beat Raith at home - unlikely

If they do we’ll need to score a fair few goals in each of the games, particularly against Inverness at home.

 

Even if that happens it still may not be enough depending on the other groups. Peterhead finished on 9 points last year and didnt progress as the 5th best 2nd placed team.

 

Not sure how the seedings work but I assume if we make it through in 2nd place we’ll play one or Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen etc

 

Shambles of a situation

 

 

If you want to win the cup you will need to play one of them sooner or later. 

 

if you are unseeded do you get home advantage? 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

17 minutes ago, rmreido said:

26  pages

WOW!

Maybe it wouldn't be if the sanction had been applied already, which it should have been.

[Victorian]

11 minutes ago, Gorgie_Rules said:

Baffled at how many people seem to think we will/can still qualify if we are docked the 3 points.

 

For us to go through we’ll need to win every game - not impossible but not a given

Inverness will need to not beat Raith at home - unlikely

If they do we’ll need to score a fair few goals in each of the games, particularly against Inverness at home.

 

Even if that happens it still may not be enough depending on the other groups. Peterhead finished on 9 points last year and didnt progress as the 5th best 2nd placed team.

 

Not sure how the seedings work but I assume if we make it through in 2nd place we’ll play one or Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen etc

 

Shambles of a situation

 

 

You seemed to recover from your bafflement very quickly indeed.     

[MacDonald Jardine]

11 hours ago, Jodami said:

Gross negligence does not even exist in Scottish law but let's settle on negligence. To sack someone on unintentional negligence would be difficult to defend if they have a record of good conduct at work and it would cause us considerable reputational damage. If the club didn't have written procedures in place detailing the activities and review and sign off on registration then it would be automatically overturned for a start. Surely you can see that is an own goal all round MJ. 

You know what I mean, and I'm perfectly well aware of legal terminology thank you.

On the assumption one person had responsibility for the registration and failed to do so I'd be confident that could be defended.

[Alan_R]

39 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Well said !

The number of posters who seem to think that Cove should get the 3 points is bizarre. 

We just happened to be playing them when a clerical error that had no bearing on the result occurred. 

How about folk getting behind the club for a change ?

Somebody behind the scenes has made a mistake a small fine should cover it.

Points deductions for things like this make a mockery of the game.

If irving had came on and scored a hat trick to win us the game would your opinion be the same?

Rules cant be ambiguous unfortunately. Even the club have admitted its our fault and will have to take whatever punishment on the chin.

Sadly should have been decided by now. Sceptic in me things SPFL will take the lazy route (we win today = deduction, we lose= fine. and the cup continues as normal)

[MacDonald Jardine]

1 hour ago, ROCK LOBSTER said:

Look at it if it was hibs or Celtic or rangers who had made the mistake we would want them kicked out. 

There is an other point the authorities could also be at fault, in friendlies a team sheet must be handed in and to play a trialist you need permission from the governing body, now the young lad has played in some of our friendlies so how has it taken for now for it to be picked up.

Well I wouldn't. That's a massive overreaction.

[soonbe110]

30 minutes ago, ROCK LOBSTER said:

 

If I'm wrong explain why and if I'm wrong why do I need a hard hat

He was properly contracted just not registered with SFA therefore clearly not a trialist. 

 

[luckydug]

11 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

It's nothing to do with "getting behind the club". We are discussing potential sanctions for a feck up.

 

There are people on here who try to defend the indefensible. You're one of them.

There are people on here who enjoy sticking the boot in at every opportunity. 

You are one of them.

[Jambof3tornado]

14 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Maybe it wouldn't be if the sanction had been applied already, which it should have been.

Correct. Plenty time to work out what to do. Get the feeling they are waiting til this weekends results are in to help them decide which is very wrong.

[Nookie Bear]

2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

There are people on here who enjoy sticking the boot in at every opportunity. 

You are one of them.

 

And there are people on here who see any kind of criticism as being unsupportive of the club/Levein/Budge etc so they try and sweep the negatives. under the rug. 

 

You are are one of them. 

 

If I was representing the club at the hearing and said “yeah, we should probably be kicked out”, then that is being unsupportive. Saying it on a message board is just chat. 

[David McCaig]

Hopefully there is some mitigation in the fact that we chose to weaken our team by bringing on a Youth player in favour of a more experienced colleague, as the match was effectively won by this stage.

[luckydug]

2 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

And there are people on here who see any kind of criticism as being unsupportive of the club/Levein/Budge etc so they try and sweep the negatives. under the rug. 

 

You are are one of them. 

 

If I was representing the club at the hearing and said “yeah, we should probably be kicked out”, then that is being unsupportive. Saying it on a message board is just chat. 

Just have to agree to disagree then.

BTW I have also criticised the club on occasion.

I just think there has been a massive over reaction to this.

Wanting some ordinary worker sacked for a single mistake gies peace.

If it was that important it should have been supervised at a high level.

[Hungry hippo]

33 minutes ago, Gorgie_Rules said:

Baffled at how many people seem to think we will/can still qualify if we are docked the 3 points.

 

For us to go through we’ll need to win every game - not impossible but not a given

Inverness will need to not beat Raith at home - unlikely

If they do we’ll need to score a fair few goals in each of the games, particularly against Inverness at home.

 

Even if that happens it still may not be enough depending on the other groups. Peterhead finished on 9 points last year and didnt progress as the 5th best 2nd placed team.

 

Not sure how the seedings work but I assume if we make it through in 2nd place we’ll play one or Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen etc

 

Shambles of a situation

 

 

Not that confusing that we could still qualify. Peterhead are the only one of the 5 second placed teams to finish on 9 points and not qualify in the two seasons so it would still be very possible. As for not being seeded in a potential last 16 it wouldn't be ideal but hardly mean we are automatically out.

[Nookie Bear]

3 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Just have to agree to disagree then.

BTW I have also criticised the club on occasion.

I just think there has been a massive over reaction to this.

Wanting some ordinary worker sacked for a single mistake gies peace.

If it was that important it should have been supervised at a high level.

 

I agree the future if that employee should be considered after a proper investigation, and not see him or her sacked without it. 

[johnthomas]

10 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Hopefully there is some mitigation in the fact that we chose to weaken our team by bringing on a Youth player in favour of a more experienced colleague, as the match was effectively won by this stage.

Trying not to be biased but I feel losing all 3 points (or any) is harsh . Yes we , accidentally , broke a rule . We , yes arguably , gained no advantage from it . The punishment should fit the crime , personally think a fine would be fair .

Unfortunately football authorities often appear to be heavy handed in these matters 

[davemclaren]

3 minutes ago, johnthomas said:

Trying not to be biased but I feel losing all 3 points (or any) is harsh . Yes we , accidentally , broke a rule . We , yes arguably , gained no advantage from it . The punishment should fit the crime , personally think a fine would be fair .

Unfortunately football authorities often appear to be heavy handed in these matters 

It does appear he was legally under contract ( paperwork signed ) but we hadn’t registered that contract with the Footy authorities. We need a good lawyer for this...

[johnthomas]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

It does appear he was legally under contract ( paperwork signed ) but we hadn’t registered that contract with the Footy authorities. We need a good lawyer for this...

Yes it is basically a technicality . Hopefully it is regarded as such 

[Hannibal]

36 minutes ago, PTBCAL said:

 

If you want to win the cup you will need to play one of them sooner or later. 

 

if you are unseeded do you get home advantage? 

 

I though the seedings were based on your league position last season? 

So top 8 in the premier last season assuming Killie, Hearts, Motherwell and St Johnstone make it out of the groups will be seeded. 

[Hannibal]

2 minutes ago, allyjambo said:

 

I though the seedings were based on your league position last season? 

So top 8 in the premier last season assuming Killie, Hearts, Motherwell and St Johnstone make it out of the groups will be seeded. 

 

Nope I am wrong, last season the 4 group winners with the highest points and the 4 teams in Europe were the seeds. 

[EIEIO]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

It does appear he was legally under contract ( paperwork signed ) but we hadn’t registered that contract with the Footy authorities. We need a good lawyer for this...

Agree any points deduction here would be harsh as he had signed a contract extension. Small fine otherwise major seethe from me.

[JamboGraham]

49 minutes ago, Gorgie_Rules said:

Baffled at how many people seem to think we will/can still qualify if we are docked the 3 points.

 

For us to go through we’ll need to win every game - not impossible but not a given

Inverness will need to not beat Raith at home - unlikely

If they do we’ll need to score a fair few goals in each of the games, particularly against Inverness at home.

 

So baffled that within a paragraph you stated exactly why so many people think we can qualify. Even with a maximum points deduction of 3 points it all remains in our own hands regardless of what anyone else does. If we don’t get maximum points from Raith and Cowdenbeath then we don’t deserve to go through anyway. Win both and we will know exactly how many goals we will need to beat Inverness by before the game

kicks off.

[gashauskis9]

1 minute ago, JamboGraham said:

 

So baffled that within a paragraph you stated exactly why so many people think we can qualify. Even with a maximum points deduction of 3 points it all remains in our own hands regardless of what anyone else does. If we don’t get maximum points from Raith and Cowdenbeath then we don’t deserve to go through anyway. Win both and we will know exactly how many goals we will need to beat Inverness by before the game

kicks off.

This.  If we win our remaining games then the only team that could finish above us on points would be Cove, and I’d doubt they would win all theirs.  Simply put, we need to win comfortably and in 90 mins and we should be sorted.  Last year, a win in 90 against Dunfermline would have been enough to qualify, so no real change here if we ‘lose’ to Cove.

[JamboGraham]

27 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Hopefully there is some mitigation in the fact that we chose to weaken our team by bringing on a Youth player in favour of a more experienced colleague, as the match was effectively won by this stage.

 

This would be my approach with the panel.

 

The fine is for the technicality, we will get a fine.

 

Anything else is a judgement on sporting advantage.

 

I hope the club are currently working on a full data set regarding experience, appearances, level played at, etc for the two players. I would also have someone go over the match video in fine detail. Number of times he touched the ball, number of seconds involved the action zone, tackles, passes, etc, etc, etc. As much evidence as possible to help the panel confirm that we were weakened by him coming on and he wasn’t as effective as other players on the park whilst on. If we can’t provide evidence for that it’s difficult to argue no sporting advantage.

[Pasquale for King]

8 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

A whataboutery argument won't support incompetence in your own role.

It would in court if the persons punjshment is more extreme. 

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

That’s not a defence at all as it’s whataboutery. 

 

However, if they can point out another member of staff made an identical mistake and kept their job, then that’s different. 

In an unfair dismissal case whataboutery is relevant, if you get sacked for costing the club thousands and someone else hasn’t been sacked for costing millions you will win. 

[Francis Albert]

58 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Maybe it wouldn't be if the sanction had been applied already, which it should have been.

Number Crunching.

Time taken for SPL to hold a board meeting to discuss a (falsely) alleged breach of a non-existent rule (about timely payment of wages) - 6 hours

Time taken for the SPL  to meet to discuss an admitted breach of a long standing rule with many precedents - 6 days.

(with apologies to Private Eye)

 

Scottish football works in mysterious ways ...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

46 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

And there are people on here who see any kind of criticism as being unsupportive of the club/Levein/Budge etc so they try and sweep the negatives. under the rug. 

 

You are are one of them. 

 

If I was representing the club at the hearing and said “yeah, we should probably be kicked out”, then that is being unsupportive. Saying it on a message board is just chat. 

Quite. However, unless you follow those you mention in the first sentence, you are "sticking the boot in".

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

7 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

It would in court if the persons punjshment is more extreme. 

How would it be more extreme precisely?

 

Scot Gardiner, he of the alleged seats, is no longer in gainful employment. On the playing side, how do you determine "waste" precisely? That's entirely subjective.

 

Therefore, even your whataboutery is a bit daft as a defence.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

17 minutes ago, Gashauskis9 said:

This.  If we win our remaining games then the only team that could finish above us on points would be Cove, and I’d doubt they would win all theirs.  Simply put, we need to win comfortably and in 90 mins and we should be sorted.  Last year, a win in 90 against Dunfermline would have been enough to qualify, so no real change here if we ‘lose’ to Cove.

It's Inverness's goal difference that is the problem. They would also finish on 9 points.

[Tommy Brown]

.While stringent processes are already in place to try to prevent something of this nature occurring, clearly mistakes can happen.  An additional step in our internal procedures will be implemented immediately to try to ensure this cannot happen again.

 

There will be no dismissals, going by that statement.

[Victorian]

So what we're now looking at is the distinct possibility of a MUNNEY-SPINNAR match vs the vermin.

[Nookie Bear]

8 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

In an unfair dismissal case whataboutery is relevant, if you get sacked for costing the club thousands and someone else hasn’t been sacked for costing millions you will win. 

 

But that's only really applicable if you are comparing similar jobs and responsibilities. 

 

Signing players is a judgement call, and it's difficult to quantify what is a success or failure. It is only really reflected in League positions and, if that suffers then yes, the manager will be sacked.

 

Incidentally - not aimed at you, by the way - if we go to the hearing and try to use the "we only brought a kid on and lost a goal, so where's the harm" argument then we would deserve to be kicked out of the tournament. It's embarrassing. 

[Escobar PHM]

5 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

It's Inverness's goal difference that is the problem. They would also finish on 9 points.

We may have to score 10-12 goals in 3 games. Not impossible given the opposition 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Escobar PHM said:

We may have to score 10-12 goals in 3 games. Not impossible given the opposition 

Indeed.

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, Escobar PHM said:

We may have to score 10-12 goals in 3 games. Not impossible given the opposition 

 

Bring. It. On. 

 

I think we've stumbled on an exciting new League Cup format. 

[Escobar PHM]

Just now, Nookie Bear said:

 

Bring. It. On. 

 

I think we've stumbled on an exciting new League Cup format. 

Also. We could really do without ICT running up a score against Raith. I imagine they’ll go on a goal chase and could easily hit 3 or 4. Hopefully not more than that as it might take them out of sight. Cowdenbeath we’ve got to go at hard for 90 minutes. Yes. Could be a bit more exciting than the warm up stroll it looked like being.