Rumours spreading that Danny Wilson may have been ineligible for Hearts yesterday as he was sent off for Rangers in the last game he played in the competition three years ago. He wasn't on the SFA's published list of players who were ineligible to play in this weekend's games but the same list also says the following:

 

"IT DOES NOT DETAIL THE SUSPENSION OF ANY PLAYER WHO HAS BEEN UNREGISTERED FOR MORE THAN ONE SEASON  – THIS 
INFORMATION MUST BE CHECKED DIRECTLY WITH THE DISCIPLINARY DEPARTMENT."

 

The only other ways that Hearts could be in the right by playing him are if either:

- He was suspended for the next game for Rangers in the league (he obviously wasn't as he played in the next game for them)

Or

- Suspensions cross borders and it was served at his time at Liverpool (not sure of the rule for this)

 

Is this something the club should look at or mere straw clutching? 

Edited January 27, 201313 yr by Guest

The club have updated their statement on the official website to clarify that they are continuing the investigation into the matter.

 

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement

 

After being sent off in the final Wilson played a Scottish Cup game against Dundee United and a SPL game against Hearts (he scored) so why would the suspension be held over till the start of the next season. Also as said by many other posters the ban says "1 Scottish League Cup game".

 

Because the suspension was specific to the Scottish League Cup

 

I undrestand that. The point I am making is that if the people are saying the suspension may have been in the first game of the following season when he was at Liverpool when he played games in Scotland after the final so the ban was for the Scottish League Cup only

 

Ahh, understand you now .... its all getting as confusing as a cake run in Mount Florida ! Who asked for Jam Tarts? Will Jam(my) (ban) Dodgers do instead?

It appears to me that the SFA don't want to appear incompetent after all the crap that went on with The Rangers sage etc.  Too late, they just want this brushed under the carpet, but their appears to be a wrongdoing in there somewhere.

 

A ban should not just disappear into thin air.  No grudge against Hearts, but the SFA appear to be on a cover-up.

The club have updated their statement on the official website to clarify that they are continuing the investigation into the matter.   http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement

That's better. I wonder who the discussions were between this afternoon?

The club have updated their statement on the official website to clarify that they are continuing the investigation into the matter.

 

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/785-league-cup-semi-final-statement

All I want to see is an investigation and explanation from the SFA as to how they managed to make this balls up.

Apparently Ngoo should have been ineligible too, on the grounds that he's just too flipping tall.

Apparently Ngoo should have been ineligible too, on the grounds that he's just too flipping tall.

My missus likened him to Bambi on ice. Legs going all ways.

Apparently Ngoo should have been ineligible too, on the grounds that he's just too flipping tall.

He's like Gregory Tade Mk II

Mrs Dude thought Hearts had signed Lionel Djebi Zadi.  She had had a few right enough

We are criticising the SFA but the organisers are: http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__League_Cup_Rules__1346426034.pdf

 

 

“Board” means the Committee of Management of The Scottish Football 

League which shall organise the Competition;

 

CONTROL OF THE COMPETITION

Subject to the provisions of Rule 23 (Responsibility of Clubs/Behaviour of 

Spectators) hereof the day to day control and administration, organisation 

and management of the Competition shall be vested in the Board.

 

''We have spoken to the SFA Disciplinary Committee who have confirmed that Danny WAS eligible to play on Saturday.'' Surely it is the Board who have to respond? That said, it seems the SFA have a role.

 

I think this has already been posted in part but here is a reminder about eligibility:

 

ELIGIBILITY OF PLAYERS

Players taking part in the Competition must be registered in terms of 

Scottish Football League Rules or Scottish Premier League Rules as 

appropriate.

8.1 No Club shall play, or list as a named substitute, any player who, in the 

same season, has already played or been a named substitute for another 

Club in the Competition.

8.2 It shall be the responsibility of each Club participating in the Competition to 

ensure that its players are eligible to play in any League Cup match.  If a 

player participates in a League Cup match, such player being ineligible to 

play in the Cup match as a result of his suspension by The Scottish Football 

Association or for any other reason, the Club for which the player 

participates in the League Cup match shall be liable to such penalty as the 

Board may decide.

8.3 Any  Club infringing this Rule may be disqualified from the Competition and 

the tie awarded to its opponent.

 

On the face of it the SFA is just burying its head in the sand for fear of more headaches - Levein?

 

''The Scottish FA is responsible for administering disciplinary procedures for its member clubs. This is essential in protecting the integrity and reputation of the game at all levels, while also providing guidelines of acceptable behaviour for clubs.
As part of our new strategic plan, the disciplinary procedures were radically overhauled to provide greater efficiency, accountability and transparency.''

 

We need to ask Stewart Regan to be transparent.

We are criticising the SFA but the organisers are: http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__League_Cup_Rules__1346426034.pdf     “Board” means the Committee of Management of The Scottish Football  League which shall organise the Competition;   CONTROL OF THE COMPETITION Subject to the provisions of Rule 23 (Responsibility of Clubs/Behaviour of  Spectators) hereof the day to day control and administration, organisation  and management of the Competition shall be vested in the Board.   ''We have spoken to the SFA Disciplinary Committee who have confirmed that Danny WAS eligible to play on Saturday.'' Surely it is the Board who have to respond? That said, it seems the SFA have a role.   I think this has already been posted in part but here is a reminder about eligibility:   ELIGIBILITY OF PLAYERS Players taking part in the Competition must be registered in terms of  Scottish Football League Rules or Scottish Premier League Rules as  appropriate. 8.1 No Club shall play, or list as a named substitute, any player who, in the  same season, has already played or been a named substitute for another  Club in the Competition. 8.2 It shall be the responsibility of each Club participating in the Competition to  ensure that its players are eligible to play in any League Cup match.  If a  player participates in a League Cup match, such player being ineligible to  play in the Cup match as a result of his suspension by The Scottish Football  Association or for any other reason, the Club for which the player  participates in the League Cup match shall be liable to such penalty as the  Board may decide. 8.3 Any  Club infringing this Rule may be disqualified from the Competition and  the tie awarded to its opponent.   On the face of it the SFA is just burying its head in the sand for fear of more headaches - Levein?   ''The Scottish FA is responsible for administering disciplinary procedures for its member clubs. This is essential in protecting the integrity and reputation of the game at all levels, while also providing guidelines of acceptable behaviour for clubs.
As part of our new strategic plan, the disciplinary procedures were radically overhauled to provide greater efficiency, accountability and transparency.''   We need to ask Stewart Regan to be transparent.

Yeah but the SFA are the ones who registered Danny Wilson's loan.

Brechin  http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_cups/7215487.stm 

 

 East Stirling  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1351100/SFA-throw-East-Stirling-Scottish-Cup-fielding-ineligible-player-Buckie-Thistle.html

 

Dunfermline http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/d/dunfermline_athletic/8470094.stm

 

Rules tighten after Dunfermline win appeal    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_cups/8707362.stm

 

Spartans http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375

 

The SFA have blamed all of the above clubs  for not following their rules to the letter,  now it looks like it could be the SFA at fault,  If the SFA wont lay blame on Hearts when their own rules state  they should be expelled  then at least have a replay.  (In Perth at a cheap price)

 

You have strict rules  but fail to follow your own rules, if you cant  arrange a replay do the honorable thing and resign.

Hypothetically, could we do the same thing Rangers did with regards their transfer ban?

What?  Call ourselves "The Caley Thistle" and get boycott everything?

We could get our fans to not turn up at games.................wait, we already do

What?  Call ourselves "The Caley Thistle" and get boycott everything?

No I mean taking it to the court, if the FA say he never served the ban in England.

So if the SFA decide he was ineligible does that mean we'll have to have a replay or will we get straight through?

What?  Call ourselves "The Caley Thistle" and get boycott everything?

No I mean taking it to the court, if the FA say he never served the ban in England.

Yeah, I wasn't serious you know!

Get all the ICT fans to march on Hampden

I'd rather a replay than us going straight through.

 

We'd win 5-0

Or we could wait for the response that ICT deserve, from the appropriate governing body.  Let them dig a deeper hole first.

So let me get this straight.  Hearts thought there might be a problem in the eligibility of one Daniel Wilson.  The cup organisers gave the go-ahead to play him in the game, because they "couldn't find the piece of paper where it said he was banned".  Why did Hearts just end it there?  There was nothing to stop them from looking at every possible avenue to find out whether or not what the SFL had told them was correct.  They could even have gone back after finding that he had a suspension to serve and shouldn't be played, upon which the SFL would discover their mistake, announce him as suspended and no-one would have batted an eyelid.  Instead they've waltzed on and left this huge mess behind them that could be fatal for their cup hopes.

 

There must be something done and a replay of the game is the minimum we should settle for.

The only governing body that can make or break this situation is the FA. Hearts are banking on the suspension being served on the first league game of 2010/2011.

The only governing body that can make or break this situation is the FA. Hearts are banking on the suspension being served on the first league game of 2010/2011.

Is there documentary evidence available online that suggest that it wasn't (e.g. a list of suspended players for that weekend)?

Edited January 28, 201313 yr by Guest

The only governing body that can make or break this situation is the FA. Hearts are banking on the suspension being served on the first league game of 2010/2011.

Is there documentary evidence available online that suggest that it wasn't (e.g. a list of suspended players for that weekend)?

 

I know it's just a newspaper preview, but.....http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/aug/13/squad-sheets-liverpool-arsenal