Hearts fielded ineligible player against Cove Rangers

[stuart500]

Even if we hadn't brought him on we would still be due a punishment for him being a sub. We might not be worrying about a points deduction though.

This was a ticking time bomb. A very good point was made earlier in the thread that this could have come to light during a league match. Imagine beating Celtic and having it overturned! 

[JamboGraham]

10 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

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

 

Of course, and they can make it even harder by scoring a few against Raith on Tuesday. However, if we win our matches we will know before kick off against ICT the exact goal requirements. As it is a head to head to you also get a 2 goal swing each time..might be fun!!!

 

Actually really looking forward to the trip this afternoon. Will be fascinating to see if Hearts throw caution to the wind and go all out from the off..

[Escobar PHM]

Just now, JamboGraham said:

Actually really looking forward to the trip this afternoon. Will be fascinating to see if Hearts throw caution to the wind and go all out from the off..

Christ you’d like to think so. Assuming we are correctly anticipating a 3 point deduction were on a double figures goal chase and there’s a big chance today to eat into it

[Fozzyonthefence]

33 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

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.

 

Whether he strengthened or weakened the team is completely irrelevant and won’t be taken into account. 

[JamboGraham]

8 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

 

Whether he strengthened or weakened the team is completely irrelevant and won’t be taken into account. 

 

Do you know that or just assuming?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

On a point of info, are trialists allowed in this comp? If so, had we listed him as a trialist it wouldn't have been an issue.

 

[davemclaren]

33 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Bring. It. On. 

 

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

Handicap the top seeds?

[Nookie Bear]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Handicap the top seeds?

 

Basically just chuck the first game 0-3. Adds a sense of excitement for the other games 

[gashauskis9]

52 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

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

If we concentrate on spanking them then we should be fine.  Best 2nd place up for grabs as well.

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Basically just chuck the first game 0-3. Adds a sense of excitement for the other games 

 

 

Cathro tried that last year. 

 

Boy was ahead of his time. 

[Bazzas right boot]

Surley if we are getting done for fielding and ineligible player, then surely, every game Osh played in is up the pole as well. 

[gashauskis9]

30 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

 

Whether he strengthened or weakened the team is completely irrelevant and won’t be taken into account. 

This.  Let’s be honest, if this was another team we’d be asking the book to be thrown at them.  Let’s take our punishment and move on.  I’d have been more concerned if this was league points or the SC (for the latter, there would be no second chance).

 

I’m more disappointed that this is another off field brain fart that has halted our momentum (main stand delays last season cost us points, I’ve no doubt).  

[Bazzas right boot]

42 minutes ago, Escobar PHM said:

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.

 

Canae beat going hard for 90 minutes, you are correct but any goal swing v ICT is double so unless they do something incredible and all other scores are within a goal it two then 3 or 4 of ICT would be enough. That's a 6 plus goal swing. 

 

If the ICT game was away I wouldn't be confident if a big win, but at home 3/4 is not beyond us. 

[El Diez]

1 minute ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Canae beat going hard for 90 minutes

 

 

 

[Jambof3tornado]

18 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

On a point of info, are trialists allowed in this comp? If so, had we listed him as a trialist it wouldn't have been an issue.

 

We wouldn't list him as a trialist as he isnt so the point isnt relevant.

[Escobar PHM]

9 minutes ago, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

 

Canae beat going hard for 90 minutes, you are correct but any goal swing v ICT is double so unless they do something incredible and all other scores are within a goal it two then 3 or 4 of ICT would be enough. That's a 6 plus goal swing. 

 

If the ICT game was away I wouldn't be confident if a big win, but at home 3/4 is not beyond us. 

ICT goal difference vs our GD, after a 3-0 reversal for us would be plus 8. Add to that whatever they score against Raith. Let’s assume it’s only 3 or 4. That leaves a GD of 11-12. We need to get that down to 4 or less before we play ICT IMO. So 7-8 at least required in the next 2 games or its very difficult. You’d want to start against ICT knowing 2-0 or something equally modest puts you through. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by Escobar PHM

[colinmaroon]

11 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

 

That's unpossible sadly. It comes naturally.

 

 

 

[Tommy Brown]

19 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

We wouldn't list him as a trialist as he isnt so the point isnt relevant.

The point is relevant in that it shows an admin error rather than a ploy to cheat. 

 

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

qwertyuiop[]

 

Edited July 21, 2018 by King Of The Cat Cafe

[Bob Loblaw]

1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

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

We'd still have a good chance of being one of the 4 best runners up if we are docked that game and win our remaining games. Only one team have failed to qualify as runners up with 9 points.

 

ETA, never meant to quote your post. Was just a point in general.

Edited July 21, 2018 by Bob Loblaw

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

27 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

We wouldn't list him as a trialist as he isnt so the point isnt relevant.

I meant in general.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Bob Loblaw said:

We'd still have a good chance of being one of the 4 best runners up. Only one team have failed to qualify as runners up with 9 points.

True but being unseeded would make things much tougher.

[ramrod]

1 hour 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.

If we are awarded a 3-0 loss for the Cove game we are 8 goals behind Caley and if they beat Raith we will be at least 9 goals behind them with 3 games to claw it back The  poster is right to point out that's a tall order for us by any stretch . We only managed a 2-1 v Cove . There is also no guarantee that  9 pts will get you through in 2nd place . He makes a very valid point a 3-0 loss and we are struggling big time . 

[Jambof3tornado]

4 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

The point is relevant in that it shows an admin error rather than a ploy to cheat. 

 

We didnt bring on messi or ronaldo. We brought on a youngster and cove scored after he came on. Dont think anyone genuinely thinks we were cheating.

[Bellion]

Trialists aren’t allowed. 8.5 of the Rules.

[Hackney Hearts]

2 minutes ago, ramrod said:

we will be at least 9 goals behind them with 3 games to claw it back 

 

But crucially, as has been pointed out, our goals in the final game will effectively count double.

[Tommy Brown]

1 minute ago, Jambof3tornado said:

We didnt bring on messi or ronaldo. We brought on a youngster and cove scored after he came on. Dont think anyone genuinely thinks we were cheating.

I know that, as do you.

i meant it was not a new signing, it was an oversight back January.

 

but on countless posts,  the words "we cheated" are being used

.

[Hungry hippo]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

True but being unseeded would make things much tougher.

 

If we can only get a maximum of 9 points we won't be seeded regardless of goal diifference. 9 points has no chance of being in the best four group winners. 

[el_jambo74]

2 minutes ago, ramrod said:

If we are awarded a 3-0 loss for the Cove game we are 8 goals behind Caley and if they beat Raith we will be at least 9 goals behind them with 3 games to claw it back The  poster is right to point out that's a tall order for us by any stretch . We only managed a 2-1 v Cove . There is also no guarantee that  9 pts will get you through in 2nd place . He makes a very valid point a 3-0 loss and we are struggling big time . 

 

Correct. I would say if we get a 3-0 loss we are more or less out. 

 

There is is no way we cheated. It was an error. Irving isn’t even a recognised first pick player. He signed an extension rather than it being a case of us rushing through a deadline day signing. Its a minor admin breach and sanctions should reflect that. I don’t doubt that the sfa make an example of us though. 

[Hackney Hearts]

2 minutes ago, el_jambo74 said:

I would say if we get a 3-0 loss we are more or less out. 

 

Really??

 

What do you think the results of our next 2 games will be?

[sadj]

1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

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

How?

 

Say we are given a 3-0 defeat by Cove we are -3 Caley are +5 then add to that say 3-0 today against Raith (not unachievable) thats a 5 goal difference. Say we both beat the teams in midweek by the same score we go intot he Caley game knowing a win by 3goals and we top the league. Its hardly a problem. More just an inconvenience. 

[frankblack]

9 minutes ago, ramrod said:

If we are awarded a 3-0 loss for the Cove game we are 8 goals behind Caley and if they beat Raith we will be at least 9 goals behind them with 3 games to claw it back The  poster is right to point out that's a tall order for us by any stretch . We only managed a 2-1 v Cove . There is also no guarantee that  9 pts will get you through in 2nd place . He makes a very valid point a 3-0 loss and we are struggling big time . 

 

Thats where I am on this.  I could see us winning all three games but not by enough goals which puts us out.

 

We should have been told before today's game as our fans don't deserve to be cheated in paying for dead rubbers.

[Brick Tamland]

We could always use Rangers side letters as an example of improperly registered players as precedent that it’s ok to play improperly registered players... 

[Jambof3tornado]

See when we qualify.......put your money on drawing celtic in the next round. 

[Bellion]

There’s also a chance that they’ll decide to deduct points without giving Cove a 3-0 win. That would achieve a similar outcome but would be less controversial in terms of the remaining fixtures. It’s what happened to Dundee Utd when they did this in a league game.

[sadj]

12 minutes ago, ramrod said:

If we are awarded a 3-0 loss for the Cove game we are 8 goals behind Caley and if they beat Raith we will be at least 9 goals behind them with 3 games to claw it back The  poster is right to point out that's a tall order for us by any stretch . We only managed a 2-1 v Cove . There is also no guarantee that  9 pts will get you through in 2nd place . He makes a very valid point a 3-0 loss and we are struggling big time . 

I assume from that you were there and therefore can judge that it was a very lucky 2-1?

9 minutes ago, Hackney Hearts said:

 

But crucially, as has been pointed out, our goals in the final game will effectively count double.

Exactly and assuming nothing it might only be 2 or 3 goals we need.

6 minutes ago, el_jambo74 said:

 

Correct. I would say if we get a 3-0 loss we are more or less out. 

 

There is is no way we cheated. It was an error. Irving isn’t even a recognised first pick player. He signed an extension rather than it being a case of us rushing through a deadline day signing. Its a minor admin breach and sanctions should reflect that. I don’t doubt that the sfa make an example of us though. 

 

How on earth are we all but out if its a 3-0 to Cove? 

[Escobar PHM]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Thats where I am on this.  I could see us winning all three games but not by enough goals which puts us out.

 

We should have been told before today's game as our fans don't deserve to be cheated in paying for dead rubbers.

If we get more than 3 points deducted it’s an outrage and a punishment far in excess of anything handed out for a previous offence by other clubs. Assuming that doesn’t happen we are on a goal chase against inferior opposition. As far from a set of dead rubbers as you can get

[Juanjo15]

2 minutes ago, Bellion said:

There’s also a chance that they’ll decide to deduct points without giving Cove a 3-0 win. That would achieve a similar outcome but would be less controversial in terms of the remaining fixtures. It’s what happened to Dundee Utd when they did this in a league game.

 

That choice will probably depend on results today.  

Cove lose today then they get a 3-0 win, draw or win us points deduction.  Us lose or draw then a fine. 

[Hackney Hearts]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

We should have been told before today's game as our fans don't deserve to be cheated in paying for dead rubbers.

 

Whatever happens now, this is not a dead rubber! They would have told us by now, if we were going to be expelled from the cup. The goal difference catch up is very doable. If anything, it's more exciting now - the opposite of a dead rubber.

[JamboGraham]

4 minutes ago, ramrod said:

If we are awarded a 3-0 loss for the Cove game we are 8 goals behind Caley and if they beat Raith we will be at least 9 goals behind them with 3 games to claw it back The  poster is right to point out that's a tall order for us by any stretch . We only managed a 2-1 v Cove . There is also no guarantee that  9 pts will get you through in 2nd place . He makes a very valid point a 3-0 loss and we are struggling big time . 

 

Challenging yes, but its not baffling in any way. The path to winning the group is still very clear, regardless of any punishment. If ICT don't beat Raith we become overwhelming favourites to win the group again, even with any penalty. If ICT win by 1 goal against Raith then 3-0 wins over Raith and Cowdenbeath followed by a 2-0 win against ICT wins us the group. For each additional goal ICT beat Raith you need to add one goal to our target.

 

3 goals wins (on average) against Raith/Cowdenbeath/ICT should be challenging but not out of the question.

[sadj]

8 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Thats where I am on this.  I could see us winning all three games but not by enough goals which puts us out.

 

We should have been told before today's game as our fans don't deserve to be cheated in paying for dead rubbers.

But for a dodgy offside call , two off the line , a dodgy foul given against us and Olly Lee managing to hit the post when scoring seemed easier we’d of won on wednesday night 7-1. There is goals in our team this year.

Edited July 21, 2018 by sadj

[ramrod]

2 minutes ago, sadj said:

I assume from that you were there and therefore can judge that it was a very lucky 2-1?

Exactly and assuming nothing it might only be 2 or 3 goals we need.

 

How on earth are we all but out if its a 3-0 to Cove? 

Assume nothing lad . The facts are we won 2-1 , the end . 

Im only agreeing with the original poster , it will be very difficult to over turn a 9 goal minimum swing over 3 games for us , doable ? Yes , but very difficult, imo obv . 

[Escobar PHM]

We’ll take 6 off Cowdenbeath if we need to and apply ourselves properly. I have no doubts.

[Bridge of Djoum]

1 minute ago, Escobar PHM said:

We’ll take 6 off Cowdenbeath if we need to and apply ourselves properly. I have no doubts.

Or..

 

 

[sadj]

Just now, ramrod said:

Assume nothing lad . The facts are we won 2-1 , the end . 

Im only agreeing with the original poster , it will be very difficult to over turn a 9 goal minimum swing over 3 games for us , doable ? Yes , but very difficult, imo obv . 

As I said above Wed could without any stretch of been 7-1 there is goals in our team. If that translates jn games going forward its not a very difficult task its a 50/50 at worst

[frankblack]

4 minutes ago, sadj said:

As I said above Wed could without any stretch of been 7-1 there is goals in our team. If that translates jn games going forward its not a very difficult task its a 50/50 at worst

 

I really hope you are right but if there is one thing I have learned watching Hearts is that we don't score freely - other than the year in the championship.

[sadj]

10 minutes ago, New York Fleapit said:

Or..

 

 

Could watch that all day its up there with the 98 n 12 cup finals in that way.

[sadj]

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

I really hope you are right but if there is one thing I have learned watching Hearts is that we don't score freely - other than the year in the championship.

Not going to argue that , we have the odd season where we do but its not every year. Thats no exaggeration for Wed and thats not counting the fact Laff on last seasons form would of had 3/4 aswell. It was encouraging from last season. 

[el_jambo74]

20 minutes ago, sadj said:

I assume from that you were there and therefore can judge that it was a very lucky 2-1?

Exactly and assuming nothing it might only be 2 or 3 goals we need.

 

How on earth are we all but out if its a 3-0 to Cove? 

 

Hearts haven’t battered teams for a while now. Goal difference will be a lot to overturn. Pre-season we thumped Forfar but other games were tighter. Inverness will be a tough one to win as they’ll just camp in their own half and hit on break. 

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

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.

Yes Scott left thankfully wasn’t sacked. I’m not a lawyer so I would imagine they could argue the case better than I could.