This is a good time for Hearts to ask the question

bjorklund-by-the-sea said:
I don’t think it’s the case he was “ineligible” under the rules thats a matter of registration of the player. Bolingoli was however a suspended player under the rules. The sanction for that is a discretionary matter for the Board/Panel.

Rule 17 of the player regulations.

Click to expand...
That's some jump to fit that one in :))

The suspension has to come from the SFA or League and that isn't the case. It is legislation by the SG that prevents him not the SFA/SPFL.

Suspended Players
17. If a Player Plays whilst subject to suspension or other prohibition from Playing by the Scottish FA and/or the League the Club and the Player concerned shall be in breach of these Regulations.
 
das said:
That's some jump to fit that one in :))

The suspension has to come from the SFA or League and that isn't the case. It is legislation by the SG that prevents him not the SFA/SPFL.

Suspended Players
17. If a Player Plays whilst subject to suspension or other prohibition from Playing by the Scottish FA and/or the League the Club and the Player concerned shall be in breach of these Regulations.
Click to expand...
There is no mention of SG rules there.

There needs to be a rule/law that covers it.
 
Any team that complains about the poets will get fined for bringing the game into disrepute. New liewell rule
 
insanicdrunk said:
There is no mention of SG rules there.

There needs to be a rule/law that covers it.
Click to expand...
Yes, the law prevents it and he was punished under the law by a fine. Unless it's covered by those rules I can't see what football can do other a potential disrepute charge
 
das said:
Yes, the law prevents it and he was punished under the law by a fine. Unless it's covered by those rules I can't see what football can do other a potential disrepute charge
Click to expand...
Sorry I meant football law. But there should be a disrepute charge. He has caused 2 games to be called off.
 
I am surprised Kilmarnock have been silent on this.

Say he cleared a last minute shot from Killie off the line or scored a last minute goal - what then? Should it matter he did neither of those things and that being prohibited meant he was not eligble to play?
 
I can't understand why the SFA/SPFL do not already have in place sanctions to cover this very issue. They knew before the season kicked off what the Covid situation is and they also knew that the scottish government only allowed them to play under a strict testing system.

Players are human, so to assume that all players would follow the guidelines all of the time is frankly unrealistic.

So why not have a rule that if you are caught breaking the Covid rules you get an automatic 4 game ban so that the offending player suffers more than the rest of his team-mates.

If the result of the breach is that games are called off, then the club employing the offending player should forfeit any games called off due to isolating. The SPFL knew they had only one free date to re-schedule games. Aberdeen will now miss three (?) and Celtc 2 games. When will these be played?

If two clubs both in breach of Covid rules are set to play each other like Celtc and Aberdeen then forfeiting doesn't work, so a 3 point deduction for each should apply.
 
The Dude said:
He wasn't ineligible.
Click to expand...

Mate, have you seen the rules that the BBC refer to in this article:

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus: Six St Mirren staff get all-clear as Rangers face probe

Seven coaches and backroom staff at the football club initially tested positive for coronavirus.
www.bbc.co.uk

Namely the quote here " Current rules state players cannot take part in any matches unless they have negative test results from weekly screenings. ". That suggests there are new SFA rules for Covid , therefore there must be rules out there that determine a players eligibility if they have are prohibited from playing due to self isolation measures.

The Scotsman then suggest in a headline that we have breached protocol - again, a suggestion that there are new rules out there.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/foot...iker-scottish-premiership-rumour-mill-2922817

Glasgow times reporting we face an SFA probe - again, a probe into a covid rule break.

www.glasgowtimes.co.uk

Rangers 'face SFA probe' after potential coronavirus testing breach

RANGERS are reportedly facing an SFA probe after fears were raised that the club had broken coronavirus testing protocols.
www.glasgowtimes.co.uk www.glasgowtimes.co.uk
 
AnglianBear said:
Mate, have you seen the rules that the BBC refer to in this article:

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus: Six St Mirren staff get all-clear as Rangers face probe

Seven coaches and backroom staff at the football club initially tested positive for coronavirus.
www.bbc.co.uk

Namely the quote here " Current rules state players cannot take part in any matches unless they have negative test results from weekly screenings. ". That suggests there are new SFA rules for Covid , therefore there must be rules out there that determine a players eligibility if they have are prohibited from playing due to self isolation measures.

The Scotsman then suggest in a headline that we have breached protocol - again, a suggestion that there are new rules out there.


Glasgow times reporting we face an SFA probe - again, a probe into a covid rule break.

Click to expand...

There are, but it doesn't affect their eligibility in terms of the rules. For a player to be ineligible he's got to not be registered or named on a suspension list. Neither was the case - even if he strictly shouldn't have been playing. If he/celtic were to be cited for breaching the rules on player eligibility, they walk away without any sanctions.
 
AnglianBear said:
We don't know if he was inelligble because the SPFL havent published any amendments to the rules for 20/21 and covid. They are no where to be seen.
Click to expand...
Making new rules as we speak ensuring no punishment to celtic,but guaranteed to hammer any other team who plays a player ineligibly in the future.
 
I know it’s becoming a tad boring and the go to line, but let’s imagine it was a Rangers player.
Maybe not a points deduction but it certainly would have been a disciplinary matter for the club.
Plus can you imagine the amount of ex.celtic players putting their tuppence worth in and driving the narrative.
 
The Dude said:
There are, but it doesn't affect their eligibility in terms of the rules. For a player to be ineligible he's got to not be registered or named on a suspension list. Neither was the case - even if he strictly shouldn't have been playing. If he/celtic were to be cited for breaching the rules on player eligibility, they walk away without any sanctions.
Click to expand...

The BBC suggest there is a rule that if you don't have a negative result then you cannot play - you are surely then inellgible.

Self-isolation is a procedure where a person is deemed to be positive - that is surely why they self-isolate.

Therefore , in my opinion, if a player is ineligible because he has a positive test result, he is also ineligible because of his "assumed positive" quarantine.

Definition here of self isolation:

Self-isolation is when you stay at home because you have or might have coronavirus (COVID-19).

The self isolation period is 14 days because that person may not test positive on day one. He might not even test positive until day 13.
 
AnglianBear said:
The BBC suggest there is a rule that if you don't have a negative result then you cannot play - you are surely then inellgible.

Self-isolation is a procedure where a person is deemed to be positive - that is surely why they self-isolate.

Therefore , in my opinion, if a player is ineligible because he has a positive test result, he is also ineligible because of his "assumed positive" quarantine.

Definition here of self isolation:

Self-isolation is when you stay at home because you have or might have coronavirus (COVID-19).

The self isolation period is 14 days because that person may not test positive on day one. He might not even test positive until day 13.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence goes back to the most important question that everyone seems to have brushed over in their rush to say he was ineligible because he should have been self-isolating (and I've sent emails to ask with no response).

Was the player tested in line with the SPFL/SFA rules and results submitted 48 hours before kickoff.

If he did then he was, strictly within the football rules, fine to play as, to the best of anyone's knowledge, he'd complied with all the guidelines.

Celtic played an eligible player and that would be all fine.

If Celtic KNEW he'd been out of the country, tested him and played him regardless of being out the country, then they're fucked and there becomes a serious argument that they should be seriously punished.

Either way, the player should be hammered (both by his club and the SPFL/SFA)
 
AnglianBear said:
The BBC suggest there is a rule that if you don't have a negative result then you cannot play - you are surely then inellgible.

Self-isolation is a procedure where a person is deemed to be positive - that is surely why they self-isolate.

Therefore , in my opinion, if a player is ineligible because he has a positive test result, he is also ineligible because of his "assumed positive" quarantine.

Definition here of self isolation:

Self-isolation is when you stay at home because you have or might have coronavirus (COVID-19).

The self isolation period is 14 days because that person may not test positive on day one. He might not even test positive until day 13.
Click to expand...
But the rule states that he must have had a negative result prior to the game and apparently he did so you can't use that one.

Do you have the rule that says that you are deemed positive or is that your interpretation?
 
I don't want them deducted points. When we win our next title I don't want to leave them any wriggle room.

They'll be forever haunted by the fact that their last title was never won on the park. Their first titles of their run were won in the absense of any valid competition but you can only beat what's put in front of you. Last season will always be questionable especially as history shows that their bottle can go when in a commanding position.

I would of course manage a wee guffaw if they were chucked out of the CL. :)
 
das said:
But the rule states that he must have had a negative result prior to the game and apparently he did so you can't use that one.

Do you have the rule that says that you are deemed positive or is that your interpretation?
Click to expand...

It isnt my interpretation because Ive yet to see the 2020/21 revised rules. Its common sense.

Self isolation is deemed positive. Celtic played a player who was deemed positive. Doesnt matter that he was tested two days before - he may have it two days later.
 
AnglianBear said:
It isnt my interpretation because Ive yet to see the 2020/21 revised rules. Its common sense.

Self isolation is deemed positive. Celtic played a player who was deemed positive. Doesnt matter that he was tested two days before - he may have it two days later.
Click to expand...
We social distance by 2m to reduce the likely spread but we aren't deemed to be positive. It's a preventative measure not a presumption of being positive.

And the football rules only say 2 days before
 
The Dude said:
Your first sentence goes back to the most important question that everyone seems to have brushed over in their rush to say he was ineligible because he should have been self-isolating (and I've sent emails to ask with no response).

Was the player tested in line with the SPFL/SFA rules and results submitted 48 hours before kickoff.

If he did then he was, strictly within the football rules, fine to play as, to the best of anyone's knowledge, he'd complied with all the guidelines.

Celtic played an eligible player and that would be all fine.

If Celtic KNEW he'd been out of the country, tested him and played him regardless of being out the country, then they're fucked and there becomes a serious argument that they should be seriously punished.

Either way, the player should be hammered (both by his club and the SPFL/SFA)
Click to expand...
To the best of anyone’s knowledge? What about the players knowledge? he knew he was supposed to be self isolating or does he not count? So someone at the club knew he should not be there.
 
das said:
We social distance by 2m to reduce the likely spread but we aren't deemed to be positive. It's a preventative measure not a presumption of being positive.

And the football rules only say 2 days before
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about social distancing or reducing spread though, we're talking about a player that has travelled to a country that is on the Scottish governments list of countries where upon return you must self isolate for 14 days because there is a high risk of you bringing the disease back to the UK with you.

Again , NHS define self isolation as:

Self-isolation is when you stay at home because you have or might have coronavirus (COVID-19).

Celtic have therefore played a player who has or may have coronavirus by the NHS definition at the point he takes the field of play.


 
theytriedtokillus said:
To the best of anyone’s knowledge? What about the players knowledge? he knew he was supposed to be self isolating or does he not count? So someone at the club knew he should not be there.
Click to expand...

The Dude said:
If Celtic KNEW he'd been out of the country, tested him and played him regardless of being out the country, then they're fucked and there becomes a serious argument that they should be seriously punished.
Click to expand...

Celtic did know though. Bolingoli IS Celtic.

I dont think it makes any difference at all whether Lennon knew or not. The player knew and that is what matters.

Legia Warsaw missed out on millions due to ONE staff members admin error.
 
AnglianBear said:
Celtic did know though. Bolingoli IS Celtic.

I dont think it makes any difference at all whether Lennon knew or not. The player knew and that is what matters.

Legia Warsaw missed out on millions due to ONE staff members admin error.
Click to expand...
It makes a MASSIVE difference if others knew.
 
AnglianBear said:
We aren't talking about social distancing or reducing spread though, we're talking about a player that has travelled to a country that is on the Scottish governments list of countries where upon return you must self isolate for 14 days because there is a high risk of you bringing the disease back to the UK with you.

Again , NHS define self isolation as:

Self-isolation is when you stay at home because you have or might have coronavirus (COVID-19).

Celtic have therefore played a player who has or may have coronavirus by the NHS definition at the point he takes the field of play.
Click to expand...
OK then, here's the legislation. Can you point out the part that says you are deemed to be positive?

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (revoked)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
Wee Anne's catching up with the soaps then gawn for her afternoon nap. Leave her alone.
 
W*A*T*P said:
And here was me thinking anyone who should be self isolating should automatically become
ineligible. You can’t isolate and play so he must be ineligible
Click to expand...
Correct.
It‘s idiotic to suggest, even by inference, that a player can be both in quarantine and eligible to play at the same time.
It therefore stands to reason that he was ineligible to play, even without a rule to specifically say so.
The absence of a rule has not stopped the SPFL acting in the past.
There may be a stumbling block to this, can you guess what it is children?
 
AnglianBear said:
No one at Legia knew mate. Look what happened there. Having no knowledge that your player should have been in self isolation is not an excuse.

Lennons players are out of control.
Click to expand...

They get sent the same UEFA circular every club gets listing the players suspended. The guy in question was named on it and Legia even whined that Celtic and the UEFA delegate knew ahead of kickoff the player was suspended.

So they should be punished because a player went to Spain with, as far as anyone can say, nobody from his club knowing?
 
Hearts will do nothing. Because just like every other diddy mob in Scotland, they are terrified to upset the mentally challenged.
 
How many times to be people need to be told, he wasn't ineligible under the sporting rules! So nothing will be done by anyone, they would only embarrass themselves.
 
The Dude said:
They get sent the same UEFA circular every club gets listing the players suspended. The guy in question was named on it and Legia even whined that Celtic and the UEFA delegate knew ahead of kickoff the player was suspended.

So they should be punished because a player went to Spain with, as far as anyone can say, nobody from his club knowing?
Click to expand...
They should be punished for lennon keeping stum in the zoom conversation with Leitch, who happens to also think that they and Aberdeen should be punished.

This ain't a Rangers thing its health and safety in failing to control their players

This is also the 2nd Boli has flaunted the rules they kept it quiet the first time and would have done so again if it wasn't for the pesky Internet finding out on Sunday
 
Beanyrfc79 said:
They should be punished for lennon keeping stum in the zoom conversation with Leitch, who happens to also think that they and Aberdeen should be punished.

This ain't a Rangers thing its health and safety in failing to control their players

This is also the 2nd Boli has flaunted the rules they kept it quiet the first time and would have done so again if it wasn't for the pesky Internet finding out on Sunday
Click to expand...
is it? Because if that's true, it's a pretty massive story. I'm sure there's something credible to back it up...
 
Beanyrfc79 said:
This is also the 2nd Boli has flaunted the rules they kept it quiet the first time and would have done so again if it wasn't for the pesky Internet finding out on Sunday
Click to expand...
Yet one of our talented journalists on Radio C**** (hugh knew) insisted that nobody had found out until Monday, lying auld scrote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top