The FA Cup ruling

Before I start this question is for supporters not for the club who should know.
Did anybody on here know the actual ruling?I always thought a player couldn't play for 2 teams in the FACup.Because Marsh didn't play for York personally I'd have been non the wiser and would have selected him.Anybody elses interpretation or there thoughts.

 

I'd be lying if I said I was aware of the ruling that meant Marsh was ineligible, but with hindsight it makes absolute sense, and the club should definitely have known. It was flagged by at least one supporter replying to the club's team news posting on Twitter/X an hour before kick-off.

 

This guy did. Commented on the twitter post announcing the starting eleven an hour before kick off. So could have been avoided

 

Was aware of the not one more than Club but no clue about this one.
For what it’s worth I wouldn’t expect most Footballers to know that, let alone fans.

 

For me it’s a nonsensical rule. Marsh is OUR player so this technicality shouldn’t exist. If we had borrowed him from somebody then fair enough but having returned to base he should have been ok to play immediately. But common sense has no place in the FA/EFL books

 

My understanding was that a player was "cup-tied" once he had played in the Cup and couldn't play for another club in the same competition. This ruling is quite different and one I had never heard before.

 

Doesn't matter whether it makes any sense to fans it's in the rule book and as such somebody at the club should have been aware of the potential issue when the decision to recall him was made and made the coaching staff aware that while Marsh could be recalled he would not be available for the Cup replay

 

It makes sense because it’s the same round - so it stops someone buying Harry Kane for a replay I guess. It means the same set of players are there for that round.

 

I downloaded the FA Cup rules (twice) to check.

"15 (f) All players must have been eligible to play in the original tie in order to play in a match which is replayed, postponed or ordered to be replayed; however a player who has been suspended according to the disciplinary procedures under the Rules of The Association may play in a match which is replayed, postponed or ordered to be replayed after the term of his suspension has expired. Where a match is replayed, postponed, abandoned or ordered to be replayed, a Club may request dispensation from the Professional Game Board to select a replacement goalkeeper who is a registered player, but was not a registered player prior to the “Registration Deadline” (as defined below). Any such request must be made to The Association in writing (together with evidence substantiating the reasons for the request), and received no later than 24 hours before the scheduled commencement of the relevant match. Dispensation will be at the complete discretion of the Professional Game Board."

and

"16 (b) Subject to (c) below, where a player that is or is found to be ineligible under either the Rules of the Competition and/or the Rules of the Association plays for a club in a Competition match, the Professional Game Board may remove the club from the Competition, and may impose further penalties against the club."

Although Chesterfield v Stockport from the qualifying round in 2019/20 was ordered to be replayed after one of the sides played an ineligible player.

Liverpool have recently done this (League Cup) and Sunderland (League Cup and League). Both got fines. (I read this yesterday on the BBC sport comments and haven't verified it).

 

15 j (ii) A player recalled, at any time prior to the date of the Round, to his original Club from temporary (loan) transfer, in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement, may represent his original Club. Such player may only play in postponed and replayed matches if he had been recalled in time for the first match in accordance with subparagraph (i) above and (iii) below as applicable.

 

Neither of those are under the governance of the FA though, so not really comparable. Plus, as much as it pains me to say, I think a fine would be worse for the club

 

Agreed. But people yesterday in anger were talking about it being a mistake that nobody should make at professional levels. Yet several other clubs have also made the same mistake.

 

That's what a spreadsheet would come in useful.for though, to track players and their eligibility to play in any given games. No it's and buts, the club should have known this.

 

I posted this yesterday, but my theory is that the club requested the end of the loan before the original tie and the paperwork wasn't confirmed until after the deadline for playing in the first round. The lads return was then publicly announced on the Monday.

 

That's presuming the club haven't blocked him previously for making crude comments about a board members genitalia, and could actually see his reply.

 

I can guarantee you 95% of us didn't. But even as someone who is often pegged as a 'happy clapper', you have to question whether someone at the club has the responsibility to check that sort of thing. Surely they do. Us as fans aren't required to know the exact rules of the competition.

 

I agree thus the opening line on my post.

 

Isn't this the job of the club secretary?

So claiming it is a hard rule to understand etc doesn't wash. Someone is paid to know this. Do we even have a club secretary, nobody listed on the official site?