Jump to content

Andy_P

Season 2020’21: St Mirren (A)

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, numpty said:

The SPFL currently have no power to award a 3-0 win.  Fine and/or docked points seems more likely, and probably fairer to everyone else.

Correct re the SPFL, but now its a disciplinary case the board hearing the case have various sanctions open to them for a guilty outcome, which include forfeiting the game, and awarding a 3-0 win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

Correct re the SPFL, but now its a disciplinary case the board hearing the case have various sanctions open to them for a guilty outcome, which include forfeiting the game, and awarding a 3-0 win.

Fair enough, still doesn't seem like the right outcome to me, though. There's already enough to be worrying about this season without the risk of something coming down to goal difference being decided on who happened to be awarded a random 3-0 forfeit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, numpty said:

Fair enough, still doesn't seem like the right outcome to me, though. There's already enough to be worrying about this season without the risk of something coming down to goal difference being decided on who happened to be awarded a random 3-0 forfeit.

This is my thinking also. Fines or point deductions fair enough (if it's proven that clubs have been negligent in their responsibilities) but anything that impacts clubs other than the guilty party is a very dangerous precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stu92 said:

This is my thinking also. Fines or point deductions fair enough (if it's proven that clubs have been negligent in their responsibilities) but anything that impacts clubs other than the guilty party is a very dangerous precedent.

Agree 100%. However we're now going to have a wee fixture pile-up which will out strain on our squad. We'll also be out of pocket for the games cancelled. Affected clubs should get some financial compensation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, numpty said:

The SPFL currently have no power to award a 3-0 win.  Fine and/or docked points seems more likely, and probably fairer to everyone else.

A 3 - 0 can be awarded, although that’s not immediately clear. However your suggested outcome would not be fair to us. We had to suffer disruption, financial loss and also a fixture backlog. Apart from Accies no other team suffered as a result of this call off. Even then Accies were given more warning than us and therefore less disruption. A lot of course depends on what St Mirren’s failures actually were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it turns out St Mirren were at it - although that would be difficult to prove - then I think a 3 - 0 forfeit would be fair under these specific circumstances. That has to come from the SFA, however, which is another process that needs to run its course.

I can't imagine it would be possible to prove they were at it, however, so I imagine that the SPFL being the SPFL will just hand out some token punishment, and suspend even that.

Meanwhile, the inevitable chaotic end-of-season comes another week closer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-covid-forfeit-plans-rejected-22947400

SPFL Covid forfeit plans rejected as clubs take stand against call-off plans

The governing body had hoped to be allowed to dish out punishments for postponements but clubs have refused to allow them that power.

Scotland's clubs have joined together to boot out a controversial proposal to impose mandatory 3-0 defeats for coronavirus call-offs.

But they can’t agree on how to end the season if the pandemic forces another lockdown.

Record Sport understand a sizeable majority of clubs from all four senior divisions have rejected the SPFL’s plan to dish out standard “walk-over” punishments to any side unable to fulfil league fixtures because of a Covid-19 outbreak.

The move had been tabled in a bid to streamline procedures which have led to league bosses launching disciplinary probes into potential protocol breaches at both Kilmarnock and St Mirren that led to call-offs.

A “no vote” is expected to be confirmed this week but it’s understood no such consensus has been reached regarding a raft 
of additional suggested contingency measures should the season face further disruption.

Speaking when the clubs were sent a letter and questionnaire last month, Neil Doncaster said: “When the SPFL rules were drawn up many years ago, no- one could have foreseen the impact which Covid-19 would have on our game.

“The fact that our rules did not expressly cover the situation where a season must be curtailed with a number of matches remaining to be played, caused a great deal of uncertainty and delay in reaching a resolution last season. No-one wants to see that repeated.

“Many of our clubs support the principle of drawing up a set of protocols long before we get to the situation where league positions understandably influence the individual approach of clubs to these difficult situations. However, the proposal to allow the board a clearly specified and limited degree of authority to take action if we are unable to complete the season did not have sufficient support in the summer.

“Given the ongoing challenges caused to sport worldwide by Covid-19, several clubs have now indicated they have changed their position.

"The board wishes to establish if a sufficient number of clubs now wish to revisit this issue, so we can significantly reduce the uncertainty and division that arose towards the end of last season.

“Those circumstances were caused by the need to curtail the season, make promotions and relegations and cancel the play-offs, all in a written resolution. As we know, this effectively meant asking members to vote for the relegation of their club and other clubs in circumstances where the season could not be completed, with all the issues this prompted. If there is sufficient support to secure an amendment to the SPFL Rules, then all clubs will know well in advance of any need to curtail the season what the outcome will be – so far as it concerns league positions, promotion, relegation, play-offs, fees and qualification for UEFA competitions.

“The questionnaire is designed to assist the Board in recommending a resolution to member clubs as a means of giving the SPFL Board the express power to deal with any further Covid-19 related disruption to Season 2020/21.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-covid-forfeit-plans-rejected-22947400

SPFL Covid forfeit plans rejected as clubs take stand against call-off plans

The governing body had hoped to be allowed to dish out punishments for postponements but clubs have refused to allow them that power.

Scotland's clubs have joined together to boot out a controversial proposal to impose mandatory 3-0 defeats for coronavirus call-offs.

But they can’t agree on how to end the season if the pandemic forces another lockdown.

Record Sport understand a sizeable majority of clubs from all four senior divisions have rejected the SPFL’s plan to dish out standard “walk-over” punishments to any side unable to fulfil league fixtures because of a Covid-19 outbreak.

The move had been tabled in a bid to streamline procedures which have led to league bosses launching disciplinary probes into potential protocol breaches at both Kilmarnock and St Mirren that led to call-offs.

A “no vote” is expected to be confirmed this week but it’s understood no such consensus has been reached regarding a raft 
of additional suggested contingency measures should the season face further disruption.

Speaking when the clubs were sent a letter and questionnaire last month, Neil Doncaster said: “When the SPFL rules were drawn up many years ago, no- one could have foreseen the impact which Covid-19 would have on our game.

“The fact that our rules did not expressly cover the situation where a season must be curtailed with a number of matches remaining to be played, caused a great deal of uncertainty and delay in reaching a resolution last season. No-one wants to see that repeated.

“Many of our clubs support the principle of drawing up a set of protocols long before we get to the situation where league positions understandably influence the individual approach of clubs to these difficult situations. However, the proposal to allow the board a clearly specified and limited degree of authority to take action if we are unable to complete the season did not have sufficient support in the summer.

“Given the ongoing challenges caused to sport worldwide by Covid-19, several clubs have now indicated they have changed their position.

"The board wishes to establish if a sufficient number of clubs now wish to revisit this issue, so we can significantly reduce the uncertainty and division that arose towards the end of last season.

“Those circumstances were caused by the need to curtail the season, make promotions and relegations and cancel the play-offs, all in a written resolution. As we know, this effectively meant asking members to vote for the relegation of their club and other clubs in circumstances where the season could not be completed, with all the issues this prompted. If there is sufficient support to secure an amendment to the SPFL Rules, then all clubs will know well in advance of any need to curtail the season what the outcome will be – so far as it concerns league positions, promotion, relegation, play-offs, fees and qualification for UEFA competitions.

“The questionnaire is designed to assist the Board in recommending a resolution to member clubs as a means of giving the SPFL Board the express power to deal with any further Covid-19 related disruption to Season 2020/21.”

The disciplinary board hearing the Killie and St Mirren  cases still have the forfeit option open to them if its a guilty verdict, but  there is no chance of it being used, a fine is the likely outcome, which in reality is no deterrent to clubs, to use the current situation to their advantage.

The whole set up is a shambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, the vote was to allow Doncaster to dish out the punishments, call the league etc. That was rejected (and no surprise there). The disciplinary procedures still exist though - they are just executed by an independent panel who have the full range of SPFL punishments available (as defined in the current rule book) .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno why they are voting on anything when there's already a full set of rules that have been in place for years.

Original game goes ahead regardless. If the other team only has 6 available players then their keeper can come out, any man save and we can't shoot from our own half.

Don't mess about with an established system.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood the concept of a backie keeper when we were weans in the school playground:

-- "We've one guy less than you on our team, so we'll have a backie."

"You mean your keeper can come out of the box and kick the ball?"

-- "Aye"

"Like any keeper can do, in any game, at any time?"

-- "Aye, but oors is a backie..."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, weeyin said:

I never understood the concept of a backie keeper when we were weans in the school playground:

-- "We've one guy less than you on our team, so we'll have a backie."

"You mean your keeper can come out of the box and kick the ball?"

-- "Aye"

"Like any keeper can do, in any game, at any time?"

-- "Aye, but oors is a backie..."

Was like school playground when picking teams,  'right...tit for tat and nae fancies '....ahhhhh memories 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, weeyin said:

I never understood the concept of a backie keeper when we were weans in the school playground:

-- "We've one guy less than you on our team, so we'll have a backie."

"You mean your keeper can come out of the box and kick the ball?"

-- "Aye"

"Like any keeper can do, in any game, at any time?"

-- "Aye, but oors is a backie..."

The variation was any man can save.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, grizzlyg said:

Was like school playground when picking teams,  'right...tit for tat and nae fancies '....ahhhhh memories 

I often what number a 'poacher' wore.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ropy said:

The variation was any man can save.

The worst rule in the history of fitba. I'd rather be a man down than in the team with any man save. Fifa should step in. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CoF said:

The worst rule in the history of fitba. I'd rather be a man down than in the team with any man save. Fifa should step in. 

I'm pretty sure this was the reason FIFA gave for the new "any time the ball hits you on the hand/arm and you have zero chance of getting out the way, the referee will immediately give a penalty that nobody understands" rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CoF said:

The worst rule in the history of fitba. I'd rather be a man down than in the team with any man save. Fifa should step in. 

What about 3 corners a penalty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries on time wasting or stoppage time when it was 12 half time 24 the winner.  Or if it was getting dark, next goal the winner. Never seen as many disallowed goals in my puff as during those games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ropy said:

What about 3 corners a penalty?

Disgusting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CoF said:

Disgusting. 

If the goal was a specific garage door in a row of garages there was little room to take a corner so the rule came into play.  Choice of specific garage door was based mainly on the size of the owner.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking ahead... why are there no fixtures scheduled for Saturday 28/11 - am I missing something? Might that date be used for the St Mirren or Kilmarnock games?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ohwulliewullie said:

Looking ahead... why are there no fixtures scheduled for Saturday 28/11 - am I missing something? Might that date be used for the St Mirren or Kilmarnock games?  

League cup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2020 at 4:12 PM, ropy said:

If the goal was a specific garage door in a row of garages there was little room to take a corner so the rule came into play.  Choice of specific garage door was based mainly on the size of the owner.

Very true! Did you live in Coltness in the sixties by any chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Winning by Name said:

Very true! Did you live in Coltness in the sixties by any chance?

Muirhouse 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 4:12 PM, ropy said:

If the goal was a specific garage door in a row of garages there was little room to take a corner so the rule came into play.  Choice of specific garage door was based mainly on the size of the owner.

Magic.....we had same rules in scheme I grew up in Hamilton,  6 garages but always used no.3 as the owners house was round the corner so he couldn't see us...lol

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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.

Loading...

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×