Berwick Rangers 2018/2019 Thread

[Pompey Blue]

9 minutes ago, Fergie1 said:

Forfeiting a match is different to fielding an ineligible player.  

[Clyde01]

Forfeiting a match is different to fielding an ineligible player.  

That’s also UEFA rules so nothing to do with our own domestic rules.

[Fergie1]

8 minutes ago, Pompey Blue said:

Forfeiting a match is different to fielding an ineligible player.  

If the team is sanctioned with the forfeiting of the match due to playing an ineligible player, that above is the outcome. My biggest gripe out of all this is How we have managed to find ourselves praying for this to be overturned when we should have been well out of sight of Albion regardless of what the SPFLs outcome was. But from the article above which  is subtracted from the  official fifa disciplinary code, it shows the team sanctioned with a forfeit for fielding an ineligible player is considered to have lost the match 3-0.  

[Fergie1]

Just now, Clyde01 said:

 

That’s also UEFA rules so nothing to do with our own domestic rules.

 

So the SPFL don’t follow  FIFA’s codes? Genuine question?  

[dougster]

12 minutes ago, Fergie1 said:

So the SPFL don’t follow  FIFA’s codes? Genuine question?  

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/celtic/six-players-that-played-when-ineligible-1-4127301

[Jaggy Snake]

Berwick have not been punished for Clyde's mistake, Albion Rovers have been compensated for it. They were denied the chance to play against a weakened team.

Of the four times we've played Rovers this season we've won 1-0 on three occasions, so it is anything but crazy to suggest the result could have been different if we hadn't played the ineligible player. Not that the winning margin even matters, the result would have been reversed regardless.

It's unfortunate for Berwick but not unfair, and neither the promotion or relegation battle should have any bearing on the SPFL/SFA making their decision. It seems unlikely it will change anyway.

Can't believe a wind up merchant like Muzza is making more sensible posts than half the Berwick fans.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Jaggy Snake

[dougster]

1 minute ago, Jaggy Snake said:

Berwick have not be punished for Clyde's mistake, Albion Rovers have been compensated for it. They were denied the chance to play against a weakened team.

Of the four times we've played Rovers this season we've won 1-0 on three occasions, so it is anything but crazy to suggest the result could have been different if we hadn't played the ineligible player. Not that the winning margin even matters, the result would have been reversed regardless.

It's unfortunate for Berwick but not unfair, and neither the promotion or relegation battle should have any bearing on the SPFL/SFA making their decision. It seems unlikely it will change anyway.

Can't believe a wind up merchant like Muzza is making more sensible posts than half the Berwick fans.

All I'm saying is give me a recorded incident where the fielding of an  ineligible player, not half a team like Sion, where the results have been reversed?  if you can fair enough, if you can't  your input is irrelevant 

[Clyde01]

So the SPFL don’t follow  FIFA’s codes? Genuine question?  

They don’t use the uefa disciplinary guidelines verbatim, no.

[Jaggy Snake]

5 minutes ago, dougster said:

All I'm saying is give me a recorded incident where the fielding of an  ineligible player, not half a team like Sion, where the results have been reversed?  if you can fair enough, if you can't  your input is irrelevant 

The rule we broke only came into effect/changed this season. There are no direct comparisons that can be drawn so other cases are irrelevant anyway.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Jaggy Snake

[Fergie1]

11 minutes ago, dougster said:

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/celtic/six-players-that-played-when-ineligible-1-4127301

I’ve read all these in researching it. And the biggest thing that stands out is all these examples are of suspended players who have been booked sent off. Clyde recruited a player out with the window, could that be why there is a difference? Again just questions. And the biggest thing for me is, regardless of previous examples, it says in black and white in FIFAs disciplinary code, a team sanctioned with a forfeit is considered to have lost the match 3-0.

[Jack Burton]

I’ve read all these in researching it. And the biggest thing that stands out is all these examples are of suspended players who have been booked sent off. Clyde recruited a player out with the window, could that be why there is a difference? Again just questions. And the biggest thing for me is, regardless of previous examples, it says in black and white in FIFAs disciplinary code, a team sanctioned with a forfeit is considered to have lost the match 3-0.

Don't think anything will change from the appeal but there hasn't been any consistency in how games featuring ineligible players has been handled.

Peterhead had to replay their game. Dundee Utd were docked the 3 points but ICT were not awarded a 3-0. Hearts were docked 2 points but Cove Rangers didn't get anything.

[peternapper]

As far as I,m aware the guy was a signed player for Clyde but had been loaned out to a junior team, Clyde found themselves a bit short & decided to take him back outwith the allowed transfer window which is not allowed. If they had taken him back during the window for the rest of the season it would have been ok. If that's not the case sorry.

[Fergie1]

The long and short of it is regardless of what has happened/will happen, it looks like it will all be down to what looks like it might well be essentially a decider on the 27th. Ofcourse a draw would have done us had the Albion not been awarded 3 points, but like somebody else posted, the way I see is we are unfortunate for us not unfair if the rules I have posted are correct. And at the end of the day when Albion where awarded there 3-0 victory on the Friday night we were still 4 points clear of them. So probably more down to our own performances on the field rather than anything else. Tough to say but unfortunately it’s the truth. 

[David W]

43 minutes ago, peternapper said:

As far as I,m aware the guy was a signed player for Clyde but had been loaned out to a junior team, Clyde found themselves a bit short & decided to take him back outwith the allowed transfer window which is not allowed. If they had taken him back during the window for the rest of the season it would have been ok. If that's not the case sorry.

That's all that anyone is aware of and even then it's all came from second-hand comment; Clyde/the SPFL have not actually said anything about the situation. They haven't explained what the mistake was, why it was made, who made it, why it wasn't picked up by the second match. There's been no explanation of the sanction. 

From my point of view, it's hard to feel anything other than rage at the error being made, this season of all seasons. The punishment doesn't bother me at all.

[A Believer]

The long and short of it is regardless of what has happened/will happen, it looks like it will all be down to what looks like it might well be essentially a decider on the 27th. Ofcourse a draw would have done us had the Albion not been awarded 3 points, but like somebody else posted, the way I see is we are unfortunate for us not unfair if the rules I have posted are correct. And at the end of the day when Albion where awarded there 3-0 victory on the Friday night we were still 4 points clear of them. So probably more down to our own performances on the field rather than anything else. Tough to say but unfortunately it’s the truth. 

I agree; I think. Few sherberts tonight Fergie boy? Good on ya; me too.
Best
Johnny.[emoji106][emoji4]

[PELE]

Albion are playing a bit better just now, but they are still mince. Although you do get some funny results at the tail end of the season, I still think they will lose the matches against Peterhead, Edinburgh and Annan. I think it's down to how much the Berwick team want to succeed. 

[sammyreidloyal]

If Clyde were affected by say Peterhead getting three points awarded and it meant they lost the league, there would be holy hell to pay..being Berwick however, just saying.
It is not unfortunate Mr snake, it IS unfair AND unprecedented.

[Redcar]

Let us suppose that Albion had won that game 3-0. Is it right that Clyde would (apart from a measly fine) go unpunished for that game  but lose a point for the game v QP for exactly the same misdemeanour? 

That would also mean that QP get 2 points awarded , but Albion get nowt despite the same crime being committed against both. 

The discipline should affect Clyde and nobody else. 

[Muzza81]

1 hour ago, Redcar said:

Let us suppose that Albion had won that game 3-0. Is it right that Clyde would (apart from a measly fine) go unpunished for that game  but lose a point for the game v QP for exactly the same misdemeanour? 

That would also mean that QP get 2 points awarded , but Albion get nowt despite the same crime being committed against both. 

The discipline should affect Clyde and nobody else. 

Massively missing the point. If an ineligible player scores 3 goals in a 3-0 win should the team on the end of defeat be rewarded? Yes or no. They have, in effect, been cheated out of a fair crack at a result. 

[Fergie1]

1 hour ago, Redcar said:

Let us suppose that Albion had won that game 3-0. Is it right that Clyde would (apart from a measly fine) go unpunished for that game  but lose a point for the game v QP for exactly the same misdemeanour? 

That would also mean that QP get 2 points awarded , but Albion get nowt despite the same crime being committed against both. 

The discipline should affect Clyde and nobody else. 

That’s a crazy post that mate, sorry.