The Partick Thistle thread

[baba douche]

15 minutes ago, Claudia Gentile said:

 

...until it happens to Rangers or Celtic.

[LiviLion]

“SPFL does not replay matches as a result of errors by Match Officials”

Big fan of them making it sound like it's on the same level as missing a foul.

[Braesoyetts]

20 hours ago, Claudia Gentile said:

That's a line drawn under Comet-gate now. Hopefully Kris can use a bit of psychology to fire up the players that extra % for the coming league games.

Right.  Use it to your advantage.  If Fergie had been on the receiving end of something like this, he’d have printed the story and put it on the wall to remind the players that everyone is against them.

 

(Like at East Stirling, where he motivated players by telling them that the local paper was ignoring them to focus on reporting the Bairns instead….)

[Ad Lib]

Must admit I think any calls for a replay or compensation are wide of the mark and totally unrealistic in the context of any professional sport.

A replay:

(a) Unfair on Motherwell who did nothing wrong - why should they have to play an extra game because of a mistake by the officials?

(b) Not provided for in the competition rules (which everyone signs-up to when they participate)

(c) Logistically impractical - with fixture congestion there's a reason we've phased-out replays in domestic cup competitions in preference for extra time and penalties at the first time of asking

(d) Could, paradoxically, lead to Thistle losing the replayed match, finishing 3rd, and getting less prize-money

And as for compensation:

(a) Has to be funded from somewhere - so who pays?

(b) Not provided for in the competition rules (which everyone signs-up to when they participate)

(c) In practice would reduce the resources available to the governing bodies to support their administrative function, potentially increasing the risk of administrative errors!

The whataboutery of "they'd have kicked us out and fined us if we'd fielded an ineligible player" is a total red herring. That's a compliance failure by a club resulting in an unearned sporting advantage. These punishments exist as a form of deterrence against ignoring the rules, by making the consequences deliberately harsh and disproportionate to the sporting advantage that can be gained from flouting and hoping no one notices.

These rules have the macro effect of making Clubs do their homework and admin properly, creating a system of player registration that all of the clubs can trust. It helps to maintain a predictable rules-based order: a pre-requisite for fairness.

By comparison, compensation for mistakes by governing officials or referees are a terrible idea if you want greater consistency. Firstly, officials and administrators aren't participants in the competition; their role is fundamentally different. In the absence of evidence of deliberate malice, the competition only works if we trust that they're not setting out to put their thumb on the scales. No one is seriously suggesting this was a deliberate attempt to disadvantage Thistle. It was a f**k-up, not a conspiracy.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the quality of administrators/officials is responsive to punitive sanctions, let alone financial redress for wronged participant teams. So it's not supporting consistency in decision-making. The biggest deterrent against this being repeated is the attention it has gathered and it being incredibly tinpot and embarrassing.

If the Clubs agree to a set of rules that makes provision for compensation for administrative or officiating errors, and are willing to fund it, fair enough. But their incentives in aggregate will always be against this. They want to maximise the amount of SPFL/SFA resources that go back to the Clubs in general and that only happens if they minimise the governing bodies' operating costs. A scheme of compensation is robbing Peter to pay Paul, except you've got 41 Peters and 1 Paul in every dispute.

I think it's incredibly telling that there isn't a single professional sport in existence that has a system of financial compensation for participants adversely impacted by administrative errors or officiating mistakes. This isn't football circling the wagons: it's baked-into the incentives in any organised sport.

Edit: to tidy up bold font.

Edited August 5 by Ad Lib

[baba douche]

12 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Must admit I think any calls for a replay or compensation are wide of the mark and totally unrealistic in the context of any professional sport.

A replay:

(a) Unfair on Motherwell who did nothing wrong - why should they have to play an extra game because of a mistake by the officials?

(b) Not provided for in the competition rules (which everyone signs-up to when they participate)

(c) Logistically impractical - with fixture congestion there's a reason we've phased-out replays in domestic cup competitions in preference for extra time and penalties at the first time of asking

(d) Could, paradoxically, lead to Thistle losing the replayed match, finishing 3rd, and getting less prize-money

And as for compensation:

(a) Has to be funded from somewhere - so who pays?

(b) Not provided for in the competition rules (which everyone signs-up to when they participate)

(c) In practice would reduce the resources available to the governing bodies to support their administrative function, potentially increasing the risk of administrative errors!

The whataboutery of "they'd have kicked us out and fined us if we'd fielded an ineligible player" is a total red herring. That's a compliance failure by a club resulting in an unearned sporting advantage. These punishments exist as a form of deterrence against ignoring the rules, by making the consequences deliberately harsh and disproportionate to the sporting advantage that can be gained from flouting and hoping no one notices.

These rules have the macro effect of making Clubs do their homework and admin properly, creating a system of player registration that all of the clubs can trust. It helps to maintain a predictable rules-based order: a pre-requisite for fairness.

By comparison, compensation for mistakes by governing officials or referees are a terrible idea if you want greater consistency. Firstly, officials and administrators aren't participants in the competition; their role is fundamentally different. In the absence of evidence of deliberate malice, the competition only works if we trust that they're not setting out to put their thumb on the scales. No one is seriously suggesting this was a deliberate attempt to disadvantage Thistle. It was a f**k-up, not a conspiracy.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the quality of administrators/officials is responsive to punitive sanctions, let alone financial redress for wronged participant teams. So it's not supporting consistency in decision-making. The biggest deterrent against this being repeated is the attention it has gathered and it being incredibly tinpot and embarrassing.

If the Clubs agree to a set of rules that makes provision for compensation for administrative or officiating errors, and are willing to fund it, fair enough. But their incentives in aggregate will always be against this. They want to maximise the amount of SPFL/SFA resources that go back to the Clubs in general and that only happens if they minimise the governing bodies' operating costs. A scheme of compensation is robbing Peter to pay Paul, except you've got 41 Peters and 1 Paul in every dispute.

I think it's incredibly telling that there isn't a single professional sport in existence that has a system of financial compensation for participants adversely impacted by administrative errors or officiating mistakes. This isn't football circling the wagons: it's baked-into the incentives in any organised sport.

Too long, to many sections in bold, not agreeing with my viewpoint - pass.

[Arnold Layne]

1 hour ago, Ad Lib said:

Must admit I think any calls for a replay or compensation are wide of the mark and totally unrealistic in the context of any professional sport.

A replay:

(a) Unfair on Motherwell who did nothing wrong - why should they have to play an extra game because of a mistake by the officials?

(b) Not provided for in the competition rules (which everyone signs-up to when they participate)

(c) Logistically impractical - with fixture congestion there's a reason we've phased-out replays in domestic cup competitions in preference for extra time and penalties at the first time of asking

(d) Could, paradoxically, lead to Thistle losing the replayed match, finishing 3rd, and getting less prize-money

And as for compensation:

(a) Has to be funded from somewhere - so who pays?

(b) Not provided for in the competition rules (which everyone signs-up to when they participate)

(c) In practice would reduce the resources available to the governing bodies to support their administrative function, potentially increasing the risk of administrative errors!

The whataboutery of "they'd have kicked us out and fined us if we'd fielded an ineligible player" is a total red herring. That's a compliance failure by a club resulting in an unearned sporting advantage. These punishments exist as a form of deterrence against ignoring the rules, by making the consequences deliberately harsh and disproportionate to the sporting advantage that can be gained from flouting and hoping no one notices.

These rules have the macro effect of making Clubs do their homework and admin properly, creating a system of player registration that all of the clubs can trust. It helps to maintain a predictable rules-based order: a pre-requisite for fairness.

By comparison, compensation for mistakes by governing officials or referees are a terrible idea if you want greater consistency. Firstly, officials and administrators aren't participants in the competition; their role is fundamentally different. In the absence of evidence of deliberate malice, the competition only works if we trust that they're not setting out to put their thumb on the scales. No one is seriously suggesting this was a deliberate attempt to disadvantage Thistle. It was a f**k-up, not a conspiracy.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the quality of administrators/officials is responsive to punitive sanctions, let alone financial redress for wronged participant teams. So it's not supporting consistency in decision-making. The biggest deterrent against this being repeated is the attention it has gathered and it being incredibly tinpot and embarrassing.

If the Clubs agree to a set of rules that makes provision for compensation for administrative or officiating errors, and are willing to fund it, fair enough. But their incentives in aggregate will always be against this. They want to maximise the amount of SPFL/SFA resources that go back to the Clubs in general and that only happens if they minimise the governing bodies' operating costs. A scheme of compensation is robbing Peter to pay Paul, except you've got 41 Peters and 1 Paul in every dispute.

I think it's incredibly telling that there isn't a single professional sport in existence that has a system of financial compensation for participants adversely impacted by administrative errors or officiating mistakes. This isn't football circling the wagons: it's baked-into the incentives in any organised sport.

Yet FIFA paid the Irish FA five million euros

[Ad Lib]

34 minutes ago, Arnold Layne said:

Yet FIFA paid the Irish FA five million euros

I'm not sure that a hush-money loan made on a no-fault basis, which one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet made and then wrote-off, is the example of sporting integrity you're looking for here!

[RandomGuy.]

Courier reporting you're "looking into" loaning Ross Sinclair from us. Apparently a few clubs looking but you're the only one named.

[Pie Of The Month]

I'm not really sure that the governing bodies didn't really think about making any rules about an adminstrative error on their part impacting teams is really the argument against a replay or compensation you think it is. Nor is fixture congestion for 2 teams who aren't involved in European competition and have a grand total of 2 scheduled midweek games each and none in the midweek before the next round.

I don't think who pays for it should be our concern either. It's a different situation but should Rangers have been concerned about the other 41 clubs having to pay their legal costs when they took legal action against the SPFL when they disagreed with their interpretation of the sponsorship conflict rules? Of course not.

 

Edited August 1 by Pie Of The Month

[Nightmare]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Courier reporting you're "looking into" loaning Ross Sinclair from us. Apparently a few clubs looking but you're the only one named.

If true, this is pretty worrying news for us.

Because it either means Doolan has taken one look at Myles Roberts at training and thought "nope", or David Mitchell's injury is worse than originally thought and we're going to need to carry two loan keepers for a significant amount of time.

[CalumDMoore]

On August 25th, An Albion Rovers Fans XI will take on JagsForGood (Partick Thistle Fans team) at Maryhill FC’s stadium in a match in memory of former Albion Rovers player and Boxing Champion Willie Limond, with all proceeds going to Scottish Autism and Shelter Scotland
We’ll have more information out soon, including some former players that will be taking part. 

 

We hope to see as many people there as possible all for a good cause and remembering Willie Limond. 

A go fund me has also been set up for anyone who wants to donate to the charities. 

https://www.justgiving.com/team/arffc

 

[Arnold Layne]

15 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

I'm not sure that a hush-money loan made on a no-fault basis, which one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet made and then wrote-off, is the example of sporting integrity you're looking for here!

I didn't mention sporting integrity, obviously.

[VictorOnopko]

17 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Must admit I think any calls for a replay or compensation are wide of the mark and totally unrealistic in the context of any professional sport.

A replay:

(a) Unfair on Motherwell who did nothing wrong - why should they have to play an extra game because of a mistake by the officials?

(b) Not provided for in the competition rules (which everyone signs-up to when they participate)

(c) Logistically impractical - with fixture congestion there's a reason we've phased-out replays in domestic cup competitions in preference for extra time and penalties at the first time of asking

(d) Could, paradoxically, lead to Thistle losing the replayed match, finishing 3rd, and getting less prize-money

And as for compensation:

(a) Has to be funded from somewhere - so who pays?

(b) Not provided for in the competition rules (which everyone signs-up to when they participate)

(c) In practice would reduce the resources available to the governing bodies to support their administrative function, potentially increasing the risk of administrative errors!

The whataboutery of "they'd have kicked us out and fined us if we'd fielded an ineligible player" is a total red herring. That's a compliance failure by a club resulting in an unearned sporting advantage. These punishments exist as a form of deterrence against ignoring the rules, by making the consequences deliberately harsh and disproportionate to the sporting advantage that can be gained from flouting and hoping no one notices.

These rules have the macro effect of making Clubs do their homework and admin properly, creating a system of player registration that all of the clubs can trust. It helps to maintain a predictable rules-based order: a pre-requisite for fairness.

By comparison, compensation for mistakes by governing officials or referees are a terrible idea if you want greater consistency. Firstly, officials and administrators aren't participants in the competition; their role is fundamentally different. In the absence of evidence of deliberate malice, the competition only works if we trust that they're not setting out to put their thumb on the scales. No one is seriously suggesting this was a deliberate attempt to disadvantage Thistle. It was a f**k-up, not a conspiracy.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the quality of administrators/officials is responsive to punitive sanctions, let alone financial redress for wronged participant teams. So it's not supporting consistency in decision-making. The biggest deterrent against this being repeated is the attention it has gathered and it being incredibly tinpot and embarrassing.

If the Clubs agree to a set of rules that makes provision for compensation for administrative or officiating errors, and are willing to fund it, fair enough. But their incentives in aggregate will always be against this. They want to maximise the amount of SPFL/SFA resources that go back to the Clubs in general and that only happens if they minimise the governing bodies' operating costs. A scheme of compensation is robbing Peter to pay Paul, except you've got 41 Peters and 1 Paul in every dispute.

I think it's incredibly telling that there isn't a single professional sport in existence that has a system of financial compensation for participants adversely impacted by administrative errors or officiating mistakes. This isn't football circling the wagons: it's baked-into the incentives in any organised sport.

Agree with most of this, especially the replay chat, but my own view FWIW is that they should probably have bunged us a small comp of a few grand, because we were clearly disadvantaged (a little) by their moronic, tinpot mistake, so it'd be a goodwill gesture if nothing else.

It may be true that professional sporting bodies have no compensation policy for admin errors, presumably as admin (as opposed to officiating) is very, very easy and only idiots would f*ck it up, but they must have a contingency fund for small unforeseen expenditures - including issues like this. It's a grey area but I think some financial acknowledgement would have been fine and probably not questioned by other member clubs.

[oneteaminglasgow]

5 hours ago, Nightmare said:

If true, this is pretty worrying news for us.

Because it either means Doolan has taken one look at Myles Roberts at training and thought "nope", or David Mitchell's injury is worse than originally thought and we're going to need to carry two loan keepers for a significant amount of time.

Pretty sure Ross Sinclair was out injured for almost the entirety of last season too, which (if Mitchell is out long term) would mean our options are a) a guy who’s played almost exclusively in the English sixth tier b) a guy coming back from a serious injury with almost no experience above league one level and c) a guy we were apparently all set to send to the West of Scotland League.

None of those sound ideal, if I’m honest. 

[Braesoyetts]

51 minutes ago, VictorOnopko said:

Agree with most of this, especially the replay chat, but my own view FWIW is that they should probably have bunged us a small comp of a few grand, because we were clearly disadvantaged (a little) by their moronic, tinpot mistake, so it'd be a goodwill gesture if nothing else.

It may be true that professional sporting bodies have no compensation policy for admin errors, presumably as admin (as opposed to officiating) is very, very easy and only idiots would f*ck it up, but they must have a contingency fund for small unforeseen expenditures - including issues like this. It's a grey area but I think some financial acknowledgement would have been fine and probably not questioned by other member clubs.

I don’t know what business you work in, but in my experience administrative details are commonly and frequently messed up.  Seems like sometimes more often than they are gotten right.  
 

I’d say it doesn’t really matter in this case except that I have little faith that the SFA will learn from the mistake.  If they had to pay out they would learn the lesson a lot quicker!

[colliedug]

Hypothetical situation the 2 ar#e cheeks play each other near the end of the season & things are close with points on the board & the same scenario happens scoreline, time of attempted sub, the other team puts on theirs on  everything the same with the exception of pens.

How do you honestly think this would have played out ?????

Edited August 1 by colliedug

[Ad Lib]

10 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

I'm not really sure that the governing bodies didn't really think about making any rules about an adminstrative error on their part impacting teams is really the argument against a replay or compensation you think it is.

It's not that they didn't think about it. It's that they didn't do it. If we changed the rules of sporting competitions mid-way through every time they threw up an injustice you'd have people howling with derision.

Indeed, that's exactly what happened when the member clubs decided to end the 2019-20 season early, relegating us, Hearts and Stranraer based on a new rule about points per game.

You can't have it both ways!

10 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

Nor is fixture congestion for 2 teams who aren't involved in European competition and have a grand total of 2 scheduled midweek games each and none in the midweek before the next round.

It's irrelevant that they specifically didn't have games. The rules against replays, across the competitions, is founded on that rationale. We don't just change the rules mid-competition because of a f**k-up.

10 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

I don't think who pays for it should be our concern either. It's a different situation but should Rangers have been concerned about the other 41 clubs having to pay their legal costs when they took legal action against the SPFL when they disagreed with their interpretation of the sponsorship conflict rules? Of course not.

It's a completely different situation but it's still not an "of course not". Clubs should generally be concerned if the governing body is wasting their money on administrative or legal matters instead of pumping it into prize-money and youth development grants.

[Ad Lib]

47 minutes ago, colliedug said:

Hypothetical situation the 2 ar#e cheeks play each other near the end of the season & things are close with points on the board & the same scenario happens scoreline, time of attempted sub, the other team puts on theirs on  everything the same with the exception of pens.

How do you honestly think this would have played out ?????

Lots of loud statements, probably a public apology, and no replay or compensation.

[Ad Lib]

On 30/07/2024 at 20:42, Barney Rubble said:

Hypothetical situation.

Wonder what would have happened had Mark Ferrie (Motherwell's number 20 on the team lines) who came on after Ricco Diack was denied, had similarly been denied entry as a sub because Ricco had been denied before him. And then BBG (or anyone) had scored for Thistle to win the game.

Kettlewell would have been fizzing, and quite rightly so.

Does anyone think we wouldn't have been facing a replay in that scenario???

Yes, I think we wouldn't be facing a replay in that scenario.

[BigMadMental]

The SFA are dead against setting a precedent of replaying a game due to a referee error because it will open the door for it to constantly happen