Jump to content
IGNORED

The FA Cup 2023/24 Season


phantom

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Reprieve, got to play Scarborough again.

Not sure why they’ve got away with it.  Does it suggest the FA might’ve cocked up somewhere in this too?

image.thumb.png.eae4eb9940189c8cb35e4cd4388c3ade.png

Yep. There seems to be suggestion at FGR’s end that it might actually refer to Callum Jones, who is on loan from Hull. 
If we look at rule 109, this is the rule around loan players being able to play having been given written permission by the parent club. 

The fact FGR haven’t been kicked out suggests to me that the fault may not be at their end. I wonder if the paperwork wasn’t correctly completed at Hull’s end and they didn’t put it in writing to the FA that Jones was eligible for the cup. It would be the parent clubs responsibility to write to the FA to allow this. 
So FGR played him, assuming they’d signed him on loan for the season and was eligible to play in all competitions, but maybe Hull didn’t fill the paperwork in correctly at their end. 
 

For me it’s the only explanation. Otherwise, if it was FGR’s fault, then it would be an open and shut case and they’d be kicked out of the cup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yep. There seems to be suggestion at FGR’s end that it might actually refer to Callum Jones, who is on loan from Hull. 
If we look at rule 109, this is the rule around loan players being able to play having been given written permission by the parent club. 

The fact FGR haven’t been kicked out suggests to me that the fault may not be at their end. I wonder if the paperwork wasn’t correctly completed at Hull’s end and they didn’t put it in writing to the FA that Jones was eligible for the cup. It would be the parent clubs responsibility to write to the FA to allow this. 
So FGR played him, assuming they’d signed him on loan for the season and was eligible to play in all competitions, but maybe Hull didn’t fill the paperwork in correctly at their end. 
 

For me it’s the only explanation. Otherwise, if it was FGR’s fault, then it would be an open and shut case and they’d be kicked out of the cup. 

Ta, I googled the rule and couldn’t find it 🤣🤣🤣

That makes sense though, especially seeing as Barnsley got booted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule 102 would also appear to be somewhat relevant in this case. 

Fielding an Ineligible Player

101. Subject to Rule 102, where a Player is determined to be ineligible under these Competition Rules or The Association’s Rules and has played for a Club in a Competition Match, the Professional 
Game Board may remove that Club from the Competition and may impose other penalties against 
that Club. This excludes a situation where a Player is named as a substitute but does not play in 
the Competition Match, in accordance with Rule 96.

102. Where a Club satisfies the Professional Game Board that it (or any of its Club Officials) did not 
know, and could not reasonably have known even had it made every reasonable enquiry (with 
the exercise of utmost caution), that the Player was ineligible, the Club shall not be removed from 
the Competition but may still be subject to any other penalty imposed by the Professional Game 
Board (including but not limited to a fine or an order that the Competition Match be replayed, 
without the ineligible Player).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Reprieve, got to play Scarborough again.

Not sure why they’ve got away with it.  Does it suggest the FA might’ve cocked up somewhere in this too?

image.thumb.png.eae4eb9940189c8cb35e4cd4388c3ade.png

The FA Cup 1st Round tie between Scarborough Athletic & Forest Green will be replayed following an FA investigation into the eligibility of a Forest Green player. 

The tie will take place on Tuesday, December 12 with the winners facing Blackpool in the 2nd Round on December 19.

20231207_072811.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Markthehorn said:

Apparently it’s because the illegible player was just in the squad for FGR but didn’t actually play ?

I don’t think that’s the case. The rule 109 refers to loan players and there were no loan players on the bench who didn’t come on. I’m sure it must refer to Jones. 
Of course it could still be Belshaw (loaned from gas), but someone itk at FGR’s end seems to think Jones. 

1 hour ago, phantom said:

The FA Cup 1st Round tie between Scarborough Athletic & Forest Green will be replayed following an FA investigation into the eligibility of a Forest Green player. 

The tie will take place on Tuesday, December 12 with the winners facing Blackpool in the 2nd Round on December 19.

20231207_072811.jpg

Yep. And it’s the wording under (c) that makes me think FGR did everything ok at their end and maybe it was the paperwork from Hull’s end that wasn’t correctly completed. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dale Vince has provided some context now. Still not clear which player it was but it’s likely to be Jones (loan from Hull). 

They broke rule 109, but specifically part  109.2. Seems Hull did complete the relevant paperwork to allow him to be registered for the Cup, but seems FGR didn’t pass that on to the FA in writing. So he was technically eligible to play, but just hadn’t told the FA. 
You could argue both ways on this - rules broken and kick them out, or player was eligible but only a paperwork technicality so game replayed. 

Rule 109:
A Player that has been domestically temporarily transferred to another Club (including to or from
a Welsh Club that competes in the Competition) or a Scholar on work experience at a Club in
accordance with Rule C of The Association’s Rules shall be ineligible to participate in the
Competition unless:
  • 109.1. written permission has been provided by the Parent Club for the Player to play in the
    Competition;
  • 109.2. a copy of the written permission is received by The Association no later than 75 minutes
    before the first Competition Match in which the Club intends to field the Player; and
    provided that
  • 109.3. the Parent Club has not withdrawn that permission (in order for any such withdrawal to
    be valid, it must be made by the Parent Club to the Club and The Association no later
    than 75 minutes before the Club’s next Competition Match).
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Sunderland Newcastle 👍🏻

Arsenal Liverpool 👍🏻

Cant argue with either of those.  The rest are boring selections.

Definitely expected those 2. 
The rest are nonsense. 
12 teams featured. 9 of them Prem. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calvert Lewin sent off, I was kind of hoping for some common sense Reffing but as soon as VAR recommend a look you know he's under pressure. It is studs up, but no intent and not much momentum if any. In fact I've probably seen 3/4 worse tackles ignored over the previous month or so. 
VAR doing nothing to improve the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Markthehorn said:

Pretty predictable result really.

Red card was harsh .

Some how the league game finished 3/2!

Must have been a few set play goals or bit of magiic from Eze etc .

A risk they continually run when they choose games that already happen twice a year, and in a competition they rarely prioritise . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/01/2024 at 21:02, redkev said:

My bad , I do believe though the old bill can have there two penneth worth if they feel there’s gonna be a problem ,

so if we did draw them at there dump we would probably get no more than 1100k

1.1 million would seem a fair allocation 😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

It still wouldn`t be enough, they`d sell them on the first morning.

 

On 07/12/2023 at 15:30, Harry said:

Wow!! 
so they’ve picked the 3 all prem ties plus predictably Man Utd. 
shocking 

The only decent one their worthy of showing is the toon / mackems - possibly Boro / villa the rest are shite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, redkev said:

 

The only decent one their worthy of showing is the toon / mackems - possibly Boro / villa the rest are shite

Yep, hope the Mackems smackem!

That'll calm Pants and Dick down a bit!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 years ago in the 3rd round; Rover 1 Villa 3. City 6 Derby 2. Both at home for a 3.0-0pm ko.

Odd thing about the City result, Derby had visited AG in the league just a few weeks before and won 2-0.

Also that day Halifax v  Man C on a pitch that would be deemed unplayable these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sweeneys Penalties said:

I hope so. I'm surprised (as a person with colour blindness) that both teams are in stripes. It doesn't make it easy to distinguish the teams

Same here. Didn’t realise it was a Newcastle player with the header. Looking at the shorts is the saviour for me

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...