Rael Rover Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 10 minutes ago, Pizzo said: Demand a replay. Motherwell is a shite day out. Stv news reporting you have asked that the match be replayed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictorOnopko Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 6 minutes ago, Fuctifano said: It's good to have our old friend Club Statement back. What we've probably done here: is ensure Ricco Diack doesn't score another goal all season. This does look a bit desperate but least we've moved on from the bad old days of Jacqui Low using statements to gaslight the fans while referring to herself in the third person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Desperate or not, your club has to take a stance here. They've been shafted out of at least £36,000 if Doolan believed he could make a difference to the game whether that's by assisting or scoring himself or furthering your momentum. The game will never, ever be replayed but teams have been papped out the competition for fielding an ineligible player so in the other instance, the book or the app in this case should be thrown at the officials. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) Ireland got 5 million quid out of FIFA for whining about Thierry Henry so f**k it, worth a shot. Edit: Also, objectively speaking, us getting the game replayed and Motherwell then just sticking 4 or 5 past us would be very funny. Edited July 29 by oneteaminglasgow 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mediocre Pundit Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 If we’ve potentially lost out on £36k prize money for being papped out in the next round by Killie then they should just give us £36k and we’ll call it quits. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagsfan57 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Was this the 1st time we had to use this app. If not, did it work ok in the other games or was it just this lot of officials that screwed up ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claudia Gentile Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, Rael Rover said: Stv news reporting you have asked that the match be replayed. We haven't. The BBC and STV havering shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagsCG Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 42 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said: Was this the 1st time we had to use this app. If not, did it work ok in the other games or was it just this lot of officials that screwed up ? Is it not the official who screenshotted and somehow cut out a name that has screwed up rather than the actual app? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMadMental Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 minute ago, JagsCG said: Is it not the official who screenshotted and somehow cut out a name that has screwed up rather than the actual app? That’s correct the officials are presumably cowboying the process by screenshotting team lines instead of doing whatever it is they are meant to do, and this time it’s went wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike the Magyar Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 The officials obviously used the app correctly in Motherwell’s case because their last listed sub ( who was on page two or however you want to describe it) was allowed onto the field of play after Diack was refused. A pretty good assumption would be that the official realised that he had screwed up with our sub and realising his mistake checked the app properly for M’Well’s sub. The SPFL have to explain how/why when using the same app, one club was refused a sub and the other allowed. Just another reason which highlights how poorly run our game is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Sky also reporting we've asked for a replay. Have we done that and just left it out of the statement or are all the media outlets just hitting ctrl-c and ctrl-v? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagsCG Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 26 minutes ago, Fuctifano said: Sky also reporting we've asked for a replay. Have we done that and just left it out of the statement or are all the media outlets just hitting ctrl-c and ctrl-v? Sky will definitely just have copied STV and BBC, but I’d be a bit surprised at Raman Bhardwaj (who was first to mention a replay) getting it considerably wrong which makes me wonder if we suggested that privately to the SFA/SPFL and either a club source or an SFA source leaked it to him. Why we then wouldn’t say it in the detailed public statement though I’m not sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 I'm going to do something I never thought I'd do in recent years and congratulate Partick Thistle FC for an entirely measured, accurate and reasonable statement on a truly ridiculous scenario. I hope you havent asked for a replay because thats not really realistic and I hope the media suggestions of it are just adding two and two to get five. But what happened on Sunday is pretty inexcusable and entirely forseeable. The potential for this to happen because Comet puts the 20th player on a 2nd page was nighlighted at a Club Secretary meeting on Thursday. The fundamental error here is entirely on the referee or 4th official, whichever one it was operate a screenshot wrongly. The bizarre thing being allowing Motherwell to put their 9th sub on. You physically cant have seen a page with one team's 9th sub and not the other. However the SFA have also some blame here for allowing a situation where their new system cant fit 20 names on one page. Thats amateur stuff and entirely foreseeable. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said: The fundamental error here is entirely on the referee or 4th official, whichever one it was operate a screenshot wrongly. The bizarre thing being allowing Motherwell to put their 9th sub on. You physically cant have seen a page with one team's 9th sub and not the other. Could it be the case that they’ve used two different screenshots, one focused on each team’s lineup? Or does the layout of this Comet application mean that officials only see the lineups side by side on one page once both teams have submitted them? If the latter, I agree with you that it seems inconceivable that the officials could somehow see/allow one team’s 9th player and miss the other. It makes no sense. Which is why I’m trying to think of another possible explanation, such as them using two separate screenshots, where Ricco Diack’s name was somehow cropped out of ours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 minute ago, Nightmare said: Could it be the case that they’ve used two different screenshots, one focused on each team’s lineup? Or does the layout of this Comet application mean that officials only see the lineups side by side on one page once both teams have submitted them? If the latter, I agree with you that it seems inconceivable that the officials could somehow see/allow one team’s 9th player and miss the other. It makes no sense. Which is why I’m trying to think of another possible explanation, such as them using two separate screenshots, where Ricco Diack’s name was somehow cropped out of ours. The issue here is that the two teams and the referees access Comet on matchday using an app (home team may be using the desktop version I suppose). Once both teams have pressed 'Confirm' on their line up then both and the officials can see both line ups on different pages of the app. At the same time everybody receives an email with a pdf of the line ups. If you use the pdf version it puts the 20th player on p2 because it can only fit 19 on the front page. It puts both teams 20th player on p2 side by side. You could NOT see one and not the other. If you use the app then the respective line ups are on different pages but these scroll. They are not split by page. You can screenshot it but the page is more than big enough to let the whole subs bench be screenshotted at once. It is possible whichever official screenshotted this somehow had the page sitting in a position that he could only see 8 Thistle subs but thats on him and would be ridiculously careless. Its not a system failure. The irony presumably is if you dont have a 4th official at the game nobody stops it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacky1990 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 The roll out of the whole comet system has been a bit of a farce. Ive just signed for a new amateur team and no team in the division has been given a log in yet to register players. Start of the season likely to be delayed until its sorted. Pretty confident this wont be the only registration balls up this season. Scottish football is certainly never dull. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeodhasXD Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said: I'm going to do something I never thought I'd do in recent years and congratulate Partick Thistle FC for an entirely measured, accurate and reasonable statement on a truly ridiculous scenario. I hope you havent asked for a replay because thats not really realistic and I hope the media suggestions of it are just adding two and two to get five. But what happened on Sunday is pretty inexcusable and entirely forseeable. The potential for this to happen because Comet puts the 20th player on a 2nd page was nighlighted at a Club Secretary meeting on Thursday. The fundamental error here is entirely on the referee or 4th official, whichever one it was operate a screenshot wrongly. The bizarre thing being allowing Motherwell to put their 9th sub on. You physically cant have seen a page with one team's 9th sub and not the other. However the SFA have also some blame here for allowing a situation where their new system cant fit 20 names on one page. Thats amateur stuff and entirely foreseeable. I agree the formatting is incredibly stupid but why is the referee not working off the official teamsheet PDF? It's 100% the fourth official or refereeing team cocking it up. Why don't the partick thistle bench get sent a copy of the team lines so they can see if the players are there? That would've mitigated this whole situation. I've got our comet emails set up to instantly forward them to me, the manager and whoever else needs them. Screenshots instead of using a master copy is amateur hour. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cilitbang Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Whatever the club would have made from getting as far as like the quarter final of the competition should be our compensation. Not our fault, so may aswell aim a bit higher for compensation so a bit less can still get us a new player. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 3 hours ago, Mike the Magyar said: The SPFL have to explain how/why when using the same app, one club was refused a sub and the other allowed. The SPFL have very little to do with this, it's an SFA system being operated by SFA-appointed referees, even if it's in an SPFL competition. 2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said: I'm going to do something I never thought I'd do in recent years and congratulate Partick Thistle FC for an entirely measured, accurate and reasonable statement on a truly ridiculous scenario. I hope you havent asked for a replay because thats not really realistic and I hope the media suggestions of it are just adding two and two to get five. But what happened on Sunday is pretty inexcusable and entirely forseeable. The potential for this to happen because Comet puts the 20th player on a 2nd page was nighlighted at a Club Secretary meeting on Thursday. Why is it not realistic? I'd argue there's plenty of global precedent for it when the correct procedures have not been followed by the match officials, and this has materially affected the game - in this case by not allowing a listed player to be fielded. I'd argue it would be on a par with things like allowing a team to make too many substitutes, or blowing the full-time whistle after 85 minutes - in all three cases I think there's a perfectly valid case that replaying the match is the fair thing to do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 Partick Thistle should have demanded the player go on. The refs messed up but Thistle backed down rather than force the ref to come over and hash out the situation there and then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.