Jump to content

Hearts field ineligible player against Cove


Scotty

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, PumpFake said:

Finding a way to criticise other fans over something that hasn't actually happened is probably a new level of condescension for this site.

Really??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2018 at 5:41 PM, Glover said:

Wouldn’t Cove feel cheated?  Hearts did not have that player at their disposal but used him for 25 mins in a tight game.  Could Cove not realistically have drawn/got a bonus point  had Hearts had to field an inferior player on the pitch.  Surely Cove have to be given the replay or three points for there to be equity; that was their right and opportunity to get 1,2 or 3 points but was spoiled, sullied or distorted.  If it’s akin to being cheated out of a contractual obligation , a retrial/replay is needed with Hearts bearing full costs and more. 

The player may have been put on the bench and then brought on as a sub to give him a bit of game time and so that the management team could assess the player a bit more in a competitive environment.  Had he not been available another player of similar ability would likely have been available if required.  It is not going to make a significant difference to the side in the way that starting with a big name signing whose registration  is not complete might do.

It is also worth noting a comparison to a situation where a player is retrospectively cited for a red card offence missed by the officials on the day.  In these cases, a team inappropriately has an extra player on the park for part of the game which clearly is of advantage to that player's team.  Whilst the player may face a ban, no sanction is taken against the club even though the benefit to the club is significantly greater than that of bringing on an ineligible player as a sub.

I therefore feel that anything other than a fine for fielding an illegible player would be unduly harsh where there is no evidence to suggest it was no more than a honest mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ferben1994 said:

Exactly when will we find out what punishment hearts get.

Tomorrow is when SFA are deciding on the punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it was an innocent mistake, but if they let Hearts off lightly then the other teams will, probably, rightly shout...."Foul. Guilty as charged M'Lud, what's the  verdict? "

There is no point in having rules if a senior-placed team does not ensure they comply. They must comply and have to set an example to all other teams, especially aspiring teams climbing up the  ladder behind them. 

The rules are the Jooles, M'Lud.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has a club ever previously broken the rules and had 2 points removed from a win worth 3 points? Smacks of the SPFL doing just enough to keep Hearts in the competition so Sunday's televised game is not a dead rubber. Joke decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PumpFake said:

Has a club ever previously broken the rules and had 2 points removed from a win worth 3 points? Smacks of the SPFL doing just enough to keep Hearts in the competition so Sunday's televised game is not a dead rubber. Joke decision.

Couldn't have put it better myself.  Mate at work who's a Jambo season ticket holder has just come through and apologised for this decision which he agreed is a disgrace. He actually predicted a similar scenario this morning whereby the SPFL throw them a lifeline.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing missing from the decision is awarding the deducted points to Cove, IMO.  Mistakes happen and I don't think this was of such magnitude to warrant killing off their chances in the group stages.  Only thing that is of concern is that every case such as this that comes up seems to be dealt with differently, and that inconsistency will ultimately lead to claims of favourable treatment...or otherwise.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

The only thing missing from the decision is awarding the deducted points to Cove, IMO.  Mistakes happen and I don't think this was of such magnitude to warrant killing off their chances in the group stages.  Only thing that is of concern is that every case such as this that comes up seems to be dealt with differently, and that inconsistency will ultimately lead to claims of favourable treatment...or otherwise.

I agree that Cove should have been awarded the points deducted from Hearts. As I said before, deducting the points gained in the match is a fair and proportionate response to an administrative error.

However, Hearts gained three points from that match and I utterly fail to see the logic in deducting only two, nor do I see the merit in not awarded the points improperly gained to the opponents. If it had been a knock out situation, precedent would have seen Hearts eliminated and Cove progress in their place. Trust the Scottish football authorities to get it wrong even when, by and large, getting it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I am now really confused .... you deduct 0 points or 3 points, not 2 out of 3 points !!!  .... If you are effectively calling the game an administrative draw and letting Hearts keep 1 point then surely Cove should get the other point for the 'draw' !!! This decision makes no sense almost any way you slice and dice it. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely people must understand the logic - Hearts won 2-1 and got 3 points. Irving only came on in the 65th minute - approximately into the last 1/3rd of the game. Hearts were leading 2-0 at the time of the substitution. Therefore Hearts should be allowed to keep those two goals as Irving was not an influence. However he was on the pitch at the time of the Cove equalizer so that does not stand. So Hearts should have won 2-0 BUT as a punishment the Cove goal was allowed to stand. As for the points - SIMPLES - 2/3rd of the game had been played before the incident - therefore two points should have been awarded but as a punishment a second point was taken off them. So one point and a 2-1 win makes total sense.

  • Agree 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

Surely people must understand the logic - Hearts won 2-1 and got 3 points. Irving only came on in the 65th minute - approximately into the last 1/3rd of the game. Hearts were leading 2-0 at the time of the substitution. Therefore Hearts should be allowed to keep those two goals as Irving was not an influence. However he was on the pitch at the time of the Cove equalizer so that does not stand. So Hearts should have won 2-0 BUT as a punishment the Cove goal was allowed to stand. As for the points - SIMPLES - 2/3rd of the game had been played before the incident - therefore two points should have been awarded but as a punishment a second point was taken off them. So one point and a 2-1 win makes total sense.

Actually ... that might make sense to the SPFL !!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's move on. Bring on Raith Rovers.

Then if we are playing a team who start with Mulraney (who was not even one of our starting 11) let's go to the Capital and kick their soft southern ar##s!! 

We beat them in this competition before with 9 men. 

Edited by Guest
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kingsmills said:

With this evening's results, the SPFL and BT Sport get the conclusion to the group they bizarrely contrived.

Are you suggesting that the SPFL conspired to ensure the match on TV gains a big an audience and revenue as possible at the expense of the integrity of the game? Surely not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy