andylivi1 Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 31 minutes ago, sureiknow said: Not necessarily. I was at the first game and crusaders were the better team. Reserve team out tonight . Was also at the first game and to say Crusaders where the better team is a bit of nonsense really, there was very little between the teams, granted. But the chances we had in the 2nd half we could've ended up winning that game 3 or 4-1. 7 changes for us tonight also don't forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Yeah only 4 players started this game that started against Brechin, and ironically Lithgow was one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda8 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Probably been asked already but why were Livingston not thrown out cup if played ineligible player. Isn't that the norm ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Cause the SPFL love us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedafc Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 they thought he was only suspended for league games and didn't get told anything different apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liviguy Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Wasps1 said: De vita is cup tied call the polis and the sfa What are you on about ya fanny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin time Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Surely De Vita wasn't eligible to play having been signed after the date of the initial match?? We wouldn't make another eligibility bungle would we??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylivi1 Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 50 minutes ago, justin time said: Surely De Vita wasn't eligible to play having been signed after the date of the initial match?? We wouldn't make another eligibility bungle would we??? Yes he was, no we wouldn't. De vita was a free agent when he signed, the competition isn't like Europe when you have to register a squad for the games. The first tie was nul and void so last night was technically the first time these teams have played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Were the goals scored in the first game struck from the records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiviLion Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Ranaldo Bairn said: Were the goals scored in the first game struck from the records? SPFL website has Buchanan top scorer with 4, so they've not taken the goal he scored in the first game off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin time Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 3 hours ago, andylivi1 said: Yes he was, no we wouldn't. De vita was a free agent when he signed, the competition isn't like Europe when you have to register a squad for the games. The first tie was nul and void so last night was technically the first time these teams have played. No was arguing he wasnt a free agent and no one said we had to register a squad for the games - both points irrelevant. I'm pretty sure though, you have to be registered before the first tie, well thats how the SFA's articles read. Otherwise we've gained an advantage by having a player eligible to play who wouldnt have been in the original tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 58 minutes ago, LiviLion said: SPFL website has Buchanan top scorer with 4, so they've not taken the goal he scored in the first game off. He didn't score in the first game he set it up for Pittman to score, Mullin came on and scored our first with his first touch of the ball. Read articles saying Buch's scored but feck knows why they made that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiviLion Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Just now, LIVIFOREVER said: He didn't score in the first game he set it up for Pittman to score, Mullin came on and scored our first with his first touch of the ball. Read articles saying Buch's scored but feck knows why they made that up. SPFL site put it down as his goal on the match report though so assumed they would have it as his goal on the top scorers, which still has him on 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 54 minutes ago, justin time said: No was arguing he wasnt a free agent and no one said we had to register a squad for the games - both points irrelevant. I'm pretty sure though, you have to be registered before the first tie, well thats how the SFA's articles read. Otherwise we've gained an advantage by having a player eligible to play who wouldnt have been in the original tie. What has the first tie got to do with anything, we were ordered to play it again and he was signed for us by then. Lithgow played again and was eligible for the first tie so by your reckoning he shouldn't have been allowed to because he was eligible for the first tie, but he was ok for the replay after serving his 2 match suspension in another league game. The whole thing is farcical really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Just now, LiviLion said: SPFL site put it down as his goal on the match report though so assumed they would have it as his goal on the top scorers, which still has him on 4. Which one of the actual goal scorers isn't being credited with the goal they scored? The whole thing is farcical so why not just make up goal scorers. *edit. BTW Buchanan has scored 4 goals now, hattrick against Celtic colts and a goal last night against Crusaders, so should have him down as 5 if they've given him Mullin's goal in the first game, or have they now chopped that goal off because it had to be played again? Couldn't follow this shit with a tracker dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 9 hours ago, LIVIFOREVER said: What has the first tie got to do with anything, we were ordered to play it again and he was signed for us by then. Lithgow played again and was eligible for the first tie so by your reckoning he shouldn't have been allowed to because he was eligible for the first tie, but he was ok for the replay after serving his 2 match suspension in another league game. The whole thing is farcical really. In the Scottish Cup you havevto be signed before the original designated "round date" to take part in a replay or postponed match. Thats what he is getting at. However I dont think there is any such rule in either League Cup or Challenge Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 12 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said: wouldIn the Scottish Cup you havevto be signed before the original designated "round date" to take part in a replay or postponed match. Thats what he is getting at. However I dont think there is any such rule in either League Cup or Challenge Cup. What has the Scottish cup got to do with the challenge cup? Just out of interest though, would this game come down as a replay under that Scottish cup rule, ours was a punishment for fielding an eligible player, not sure that would be what that replay or postponed game rule is meant for. Can't remember exactly which but one of the cups has replays and the other two has ET and pens, think the league cup and challenge cup are the latter so the Scottish cup's replay rule prob is meant for tied games having to be replayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 That's not the case, AFAIA: if your Scottish Cup tie is postponed you can't sign players for the rescheduled first tie either not just a replay. In 2008 Spartans and Elgin were ordered to meet again after Spartans fielded an incorrectly registered player and Elgin someone signed after the original date following a postponement, and he wasn't eligible for the new game either. Also happened with East Stirlingshire v Buckie in 2012 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said: That's not the case, AFAIA: if your Scottish Cup tie is postponed you can't sign players for the rescheduled first tie either not just a replay. In 2008 Spartans and Elgin were ordered to meet again after Spartans fielded an incorrectly registered player and Elgin someone signed after the original date following a postponement, and he wasn't eligible for the new game either. Also happened with East Stirlingshire v Buckie in 2012 or so. This. The Crusaders v Livingston tie was a rearrangement of the original match, not a "replay", there are no replays in the Challenge Cup. However the date of the original fixture is irrelevant anyway, the important date is the "Designated Round Date". You have to be signed before that to take part in the Scottish Cup regardless of postponements. I have wondered in the past whether in some cases where a tie is actually brought forward to the Thursday or Friday ahead of the round date, whether if you signed someone the next day they would then be available for the replay having been signed on or before the round date even if after the original draw. However, I've never found anything definitive on that and it's not relevant here anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Scottish Cup rules actually forbid ties on Thu or Fri and I presume that's (at least in part) the reason. Occasionally they do have a Friday for TV but maybe SFA Board "amend" it also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.