Challenge Cup 2017-18

[English Wasp]

Thanks, I see that now, p23. Still seems crazy it'll have taken 9 days to do a hearing, leaving just 4 days until the potential replay and in turn only 3 days until R2 tie (winner at home).

It is ridiculous.
I would imagine Linfield have already booked travel arrangements, but not much good for those supporters, who won't know until a few days before the match whether to book a hotel in Edinburgh or Glasgow.

[HibeeJibee]

Particularly in the case of Albion Rovers there will presumably be policing considerations; whilst for Spartans a crowd considerably above their usual average (given the away support and potential of interested Hearts/Hibs fans in an international weekend) will mean extra stewarding and infrastructure considerations. Even mundane stuff like catering, programmes, etc.

Also affects East Stirlingshire - they host Spartans in LL that day, and should otherwise have had 2.5 weeks notice of its cancellation, not potentially 3 days.

[Audaces Fortuna Juvat]

17 hours ago, English Wasp said:

It is ridiculous.
I would imagine Linfield have already booked travel arrangements, but not much good for those supporters, who won't know until a few days before the match whether to book a hotel in Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Not a huge problem for me mate, but I am constantly getting texts from people asking for updates so that they can book a cheap flight to either Embra or the Weege. Every day potentially puts the cost up with the likes of Sleazyjet.

[Chris_the_rover]

Rovers out

Spartans awarded 3-0 win

Rovers also hit 2k suspended fine

[HibeeJibee]

Interesting.

[WeAreElgin]

That seems unnecessarily harsh, is there a precedent for teams being thrown out and fined for an unused sub?

[Skyline Drifter]

13 minutes ago, WeAreElgin said:

That seems unnecessarily harsh, is there a precedent for teams being thrown out and fined for an unused sub?

He wasn't unused, he played for 50 minutes.

I don't think it's particularly harsh in general. Over the last few years there has been a firming up of this sort of thing and clubs are usually thrown out. I do however remain confused as to why Livingston somehow avoided being thrown out for playing a suspended player last season and got a replay. In context of that recent decision it's harsh. I'd contend playing a suspended player is a worse offence. That player was never eligible to play whereas had Albion Rovers actually lodged the paperwork they should have then McGuigan was perfectly eligible to play for them.

[TheScarf]

Presumably the smaller the club, the bigger the punishment.

[Diamond Oracle]

Am I the only one who finds this punishment absolutely crazy?

Admittedly I don't know the difference between the two "offences", however surely fielding the ineligible player deserves the same punishment?

[ATLIS]

58 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

He wasn't unused, he played for 50 minutes.

I don't think it's particularly harsh in general. Over the last few years there has been a firming up of this sort of thing and clubs are usually thrown out. I do however remain confused as to why Livingston somehow avoided being thrown out for playing a suspended player last season and got a replay. In context of that recent decision it's harsh. I'd contend playing a suspended player is a worse offence. That player was never eligible to play whereas had Albion Rovers actually lodged the paperwork they should have then McGuigan was perfectly eligible to play for them.

We left a player out of the squad for a league game which for whatever reasons didn't count as part of his ban, we then informed the SPFL of our intention to play him and nothing was said until after the game.

He was at least registered, and the terms of the ban were iffy at best

We also got a £4,000 fine - double Albion Rovers' and we had to pay for the entire squad to get back over to NI. Mind you, after that Crusaders played their u20s team basically  

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, ATLIS said:

We left a player out of the squad for a league game which for whatever reasons didn't count as part of his ban, we then informed the SPFL of our intention to play him and nothing was said until after the game.

He was at least registered, and the terms of the ban were iffy at best

They weren't remotely iffy. He was banned for the game, It was clear he was banned for the game. He was on the list circulated before the game as being banned. He wasn't eligible to play.

The SPFL is not the responsible body for confirming suspensions, that would be the SFA Disciplinary Department. If you spoke to them and they gave you the wrong information then I accept the point. Otherwise I think your offence was worse.

[ATLIS]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

They weren't remotely iffy. He was banned for the game, It was clear he was banned for the game. He was on the list circulated before the game as being banned. He wasn't eligible to play.

The SPFL is not the responsible body for confirming suspensions, that would be the SFA Disciplinary Department. If you spoke to them and they gave you the wrong information then I accept the point. Otherwise I think your offence was worse.

He was banned for one game, then subsequently left out of the squad for the next game meaning he should have been free to play?

I think that argument was the only thing that saved us being thrown out by a massive cock up either way

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, ATLIS said:

He was banned for one game, then subsequently left out of the squad for the next game meaning he should have been free to play?

Possibly. I don't know the background.  I know he was sent off in the last minute two games before but not what for and that he didn't then play in the game in between. I don't know what he was sent off for and whether it would have seen a two match violent conduct suspension that crosses competition boundaries? I do however know that he was on the suspension list published by the SFA the day before the game as still being due to serve a one match suspension in your next first team game. Presumably that wasn't an error since you were found guilty of playing a suspended player at the resulting enquiry.

[Chris_the_rover]

In my mind it's purely down to the fact linfield are due to come to coatbridge and all the baggage that would bring with it

Easier for the spfl to put us out.

Less of a headache

[Skyline Drifter]

24 minutes ago, Chris_the_rover said:

In my mind it's purely down to the fact linfield are due to come to coatbridge and all the baggage that would bring with it

Easier for the spfl to put us out.

Less of a headache

Less of a headache than sending Livingston back across the Irish Sea to replay a game?

Like I say, in the past few years, expulsion for this sort of offence has become the norm in cups. I'm more puzzled about the Livingston one.

[English Wasp]

Less of a headache than sending Livingston back across the Irish Sea to replay a game?
Like I say, in the past few years, expulsion for this sort of offence has become the norm in cups. I'm more puzzled about the Livingston one.

I was surprised with last year's decision as well. The only surprising thing about the latest ruling is the lack of consistency. I don't think it's fair for the other team (Spartans in the case/ Crusaders last year) to force them to replay the game when they did nothing wrong.

[craigkillie]

Last year's one was more down to them not wanting to have Crusaders v TNS in a Scottish competition, I suspect.

Having said that, it seems as though Livingston's offence was slightly lesser, given that they had an registered player who happened to be suspended, rather than a player who was not even registered with the club.  It's hard to know without any insider knowledge of the hearings, but perhaps Livingston were able to produce documentation of communications with the SPFL/SFA which erroneously indicated that the player was eligible to play.

[HibeeJibee]

37 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Last year's one was more down to them not wanting to have Crusaders v TNS in a Scottish competition, I suspect.

Having said that, it seems as though Livingston's offence was slightly lesser, given that they had an registered player who happened to be suspended, rather than a player who was not even registered with the club.  It's hard to know without any insider knowledge of the hearings, but perhaps Livingston were able to produce documentation of communications with the SPFL/SFA which erroneously indicated that the player was eligible to play.

You could look at it the other way, and consider Livingston's player could never have been eligible to play given he was banned, whereas Albion's would have if he'd been registered, tbf.

[Audaces Fortuna Juvat]

1 hour ago, Chris_the_rover said:

In my mind it's purely down to the fact linfield are due to come to coatbridge and all the baggage that would bring with it

Easier for the spfl to put us out.

Less of a headache

No conspiracies theories at all sir, no, none whatsoever.

We went to Parkhead FFS, so a much smaller away support at Coatbridge would surely be manageable, or did you mean Coatbridge's baggage?

That said, I have every sympathy as Livi got a second bite last time. I know the players were ineligible for different reasons, but BOTH were ineligible.

[Skyline Drifter]

59 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Last year's one was more down to them not wanting to have Crusaders v TNS in a Scottish competition, I suspect.

Having said that, it seems as though Livingston's offence was slightly lesser, given that they had an registered player who happened to be suspended, rather than a player who was not even registered with the club.  It's hard to know without any insider knowledge of the hearings, but perhaps Livingston were able to produce documentation of communications with the SPFL/SFA which erroneously indicated that the player was eligible to play.

 

19 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

You could look at it the other way, and consider Livingston's player could never have been eligible to play given he was banned, whereas Albion's would have if he'd been registered, tbf.

I agree with HJ. I think playing a suspended player is a more significant offence. He was full stop not able to play in the game but did. It's not a paperwork issue. The Rovers boy was eligible to play they just had overlooked submitting his registration docs (or had submitted them but hadn't confirmed them as accepted, not sure which).

As I said earlier though, if Livi had some guidance that showed Lithgow to have been eligible to play then they had a fair excuse although in that case they shouldn't have been made to replay at all to be honest.

Crusaders v TNS was still a perfectly possible tie even with ordering a replay. And it's still a possibility for the last 8 every year once the draws stop compulsorily keeping the foreign sides apart. I don't think that's a reason to over-ride the usual precedent. I expect Livi were able to show some evidence of mitigation.