Should the 'cup tied' rule be scrapped

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

This is not sour grapes because Mehmeti and Cornick cannot play against Manchester City but their absence did bring it to the forefront of my mind again. 

I've never liked the rule. A loan player will usually be prevented from playing as his parent club don't want him 'cup tied'. Why? They currently have no current use for him, which is why he is on loan, and if he was, allowed to play they could get back a player who has experience of the Cup atmosphere if they remain in the competition. 

But even if loan players remain barred why does that extend to permanent signings? If you have signed and registered a player on a permanent contract it is a nonsense that you shouldn't be able to utilise him. 

[BCFC1959]

I agree - I think it's an outdated rule

[Numero Uno]

Disagree. Nothing wrong with the current system as it is imo.

[steviestevieneville]

Heard on the radio the other day , the cup tie rule was brought in under the old transfer system when it used to run from august to the end of March . To stop teams buying or loaning players to bolster their up runs. It’s now out dated& should be changed . 

[italian dave]

I always thought that it was less to do with transfer rules and dates, and more to do with the principle that you shouldn’t be able to continue to play in a tournament (and potentially get a ‘winners’ medal) when you’ve already been knocked out. 

[steviestevieneville]

4 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I always thought that it was less to do with transfer rules and dates, and more to do with the principle that you shouldn’t be able to continue to play in a tournament (and potentially get a ‘winners’ medal) when you’ve already been knocked out. 

No , it was transfer rules . Had a piece about it on talkSPORT the other day . I may of misheard but thought they said it was brought in , in the sixties . 

[Port Said Red]

It does seem a shame, but at the same time there is going to be a huge opportunity for one of our Academy lads to get some time off the bench against possibly the best team in Europe.

[Bar BS3]

I guess themain purpose is /was to stop a club strengthening to win silverware in the later stages.

Somewhat redundant now, with the transfer window limitations - But everyone knows the rules & I don't see any reason or need to change them.

I suppose the "unfair" aspect nowadays is that fringe players will often game time in earlier round cup games & then be moved on.

Perhaps an alteration could be that a player is intelligible for just the next round after they move, having played in the previous round for another club..?

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

No , it was transfer rules . Had a piece about it on talkSPORT the other day . I may of misheard but thought they said it was brought in , in the sixties . 

Might’ve been earlier than that, because the 58 cup final (Bolton beat Man Utd) after the Munich disaster allowed Utd to sign players who’d played in earlier rounds.

[pongo88]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Might’ve been earlier than that, because the 58 cup final (Bolton beat Man Utd) after the Munich disaster allowed Utd to sign players who’d played in earlier rounds.

Man Utd were given special dispensation to play cup tied players, brought in from other clubs, due to their squad being devastated by the Munich air crash 

[The Original OTIB]

The irony of an integrity rule when VAR is used in some ties but not others.

[italian dave]

35 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

The irony of an integrity rule when VAR is used in some ties but not others.

And when rule 15A states:

“Each team participating in a match shall represent the full available strength of each competing club”

[handsofclay]

I think it makes the cup that little bit more special. Each player knows that once they don a shirt and play in that year's competition that that is it. If his team is knocked out he no longer has the opportunity to progress further. 

It would seem all wrong if a player was knocked out playing for Rochdale in Round Two, but got a transfer to Nottingham Forest (who hasn't??), then suddenly found himself back in the cup and playing in the final. 

The only tweak, perhaps, could be if a player had played in an earlier round for one club and transferred to another club and both clubs were still in the competition when the switch was made. Then he could play for his new club because he hadn't played for a team that had been knocked out of the cup

[Red Tel]

14 minutes ago, italian dave said:

And when rule 15A states:

“Each team participating in a match shall represent the full available strength of each competing club”

If a player has previously played in a cup competition for another club, surely they are not 'available'?

[italian dave]

14 minutes ago, Red Tel said:

If a player has previously played in a cup competition for another club, surely they are not 'available'?

Agreed, but that wasn’t really the point I was making. I was talking more generally about the way the rules of the competition are applied. How many ‘big’ clubs put out their genuinely full strength side in early rounds? How many out out patently second string sides? 

[cityexile]

57 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

I think it makes the cup that little bit more special. Each player knows that once they don a shirt and play in that year's competition that that is it. If his team is knocked out he no longer has the opportunity to progress further. 

It would seem all wrong if a player was knocked out playing for Rochdale in Round Two, but got a transfer to Nottingham Forest (who hasn't??), then suddenly found himself back in the cup and playing in the final. 

The only tweak, perhaps, could be if a player had played in an earlier round for one club and transferred to another club and both clubs were still in the competition when the switch was made. Then he could play for his new club because he hadn't played for a team that had been knocked out of the cup

I think it is a bit more of a balanced argument with the transfer window now, but overall agree with the ‘played once that season that is it’ rule. If Semenyo had powered us to this round and we were playing Bournemouth tomorrow, would feel odd to be facing him. I am labouring the point a bit, but it could at an extreme be argued they bought him to increase their chances and reduce ours in that tie.

Edited February 26, 2023 by cityexile

[cidered abroad]

2 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

Heard on the radio the other day , the cup tie rule was brought in under the old transfer system when it used to run from august to the end of March . To stop teams buying or loaning players to bolster their up runs. It’s now out dated& should be changed . 

Goes back further than post war in 1945 as it's been in existence since I first started watching City in 1950.

As for the Man U in 1958 if my memory is correct the players brought in were Stan Crowther from Villa and Albert Quixall of Sheff Wednesday.  Harry Gregg and Bobby Charlton, survivors of the crash, played in the rearranged Cup tie about a week after the crash.

How could either of them perform up to normal quality a few days after getting people and possibly bodiesl out of the aircraft.

[joe jordans teeth]

Maybe is outdated a bit but gives the players that got us this far a chance to savour the moment 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

4 hours ago, The Original OTIB said:

The irony of an integrity rule when VAR is used in some ties but not others.

Yes did I not hear that we have no VAR option at present at the gate but if/when we beat Man city and if We get a home tie next round VAR will have to be installed.

Now you either have VAR for all games or none surely 

[Sleepy1968]

6 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

It does seem a shame, but at the same time there is going to be a huge opportunity for one of our Academy lads to get some time off the bench against possibly the best team in Europe.

Agreed, but since we can name nine subs for the fa cup, we'll be struggling to fill it with anyone who has a remote change of playing, whilst Man City could have a bench full of a team of international players. If you thought it couldn't be stacked any further in favour of the big boys ...

Edited February 26, 2023 by Sleepy1968

[Silvio Dante]

Just to add in here, in the Champions League, you can play for a side in the group stages and then for a different team in the knockouts - as long as you’re registered in the new clubs 25 man squad (they can register 3 new players pre knockouts)

Example here is Mudryk. Played all the group games for Shaktar. Signed for Chelsea and is in their squad for the knockouts. Nothing to do with dispensation for Ukrainian clubs, is a general rule.

As clubs in the EFL also have to name squads at the end of January (I.e post transfer window) there is no reason the UEFA rule couldn’t also be adopted domestically.

[italian dave]

6 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Just to add in here, in the Champions League, you can play for a side in the group stages and then for a different team in the knockouts - as long as you’re registered in the new clubs 25 man squad (they can register 3 new players pre knockouts)

Example here is Mudryk. Played all the group games for Shaktar. Signed for Chelsea and is in their squad for the knockouts. Nothing to do with dispensation for Ukrainian clubs, is a general rule.

As clubs in the EFL also have to name squads at the end of January (I.e post transfer window) there is no reason the UEFA rule couldn’t also be adopted domestically.

League as against Cup, I suppose - even though the Champions League blurs those distinctions fundamentally!

[Lanterne Rouge]

How about you`re cup tied up to and including the third round and then it is stopped? 

[handsofclay]

3 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

Goes back further than post war in 1945 as it's been in existence since I first started watching City in 1950.

As for the Man U in 1958 if my memory is correct the players brought in were Stan Crowther from Villa and Albert Quixall of Sheff Wednesday.  Harry Gregg and Bobby Charlton, survivors of the crash, played in the rearranged Cup tie about a week after the crash.

How could either of them perform up to normal quality a few days after getting people and possibly bodiesl out of the aircraft.

The next match v Sheffield Wednesday was 13 days after the crash. Harry Gregg played but not Bobby Charlton. Still a short amount of time after such a tragedy and in Gregg's case he was definitely hauling survivors, and possibly bodies, from the wreckage.

I had the 1958 cup final on DVD a few years ago (Bolton v Man United) and what surprised me was that although the crash occurred just three months earlier it wasn't mentioned once by Kenneth Wolstenholme in the commentary.

Maybe just 13 years after the horrors of the second world war the stiff upper lip and not pandering to those in grief mentality still prevailed.

[Unan]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Might’ve been earlier than that, because the 58 cup final (Bolton beat Man Utd) after the Munich disaster allowed Utd to sign players who’d played in earlier rounds.

 

10 hours ago, pongo88 said:

Man Utd were given special dispensation to play cup tied players, brought in from other clubs, due to their squad being devastated by the Munich air crash 

Which implies the rule was around before that 

[CotswoldRed]

Yep, stupid rule. 

It serves no meaningful purpose at all. 

[TBW]

No.

If so you'd have had Dubravka playing for Newcastle against Manchester United and be guaranteed a medal either way. Bit weird.

[LondonBristolian]

I’d scrap it. I think it is outdated now the transfer window closes at the end of January. 

[BigTone]

No it shouldn't.  Cup games are a knockout tournament so when a team and its participating players are knocked out then that should mean exactly that.