FA Cup 2023-24

[TinFoilHat]

Maybe Tele thinks Wigan could beat the scum?

 

[East Level 2]

It seems the difference was that the Forest Green player was actually registered as their player and eligible as long as they had individual permission from the club he was on loan from, Huddersfield, to play in the cup. Which it appears they didn’t.

Whist the Barnsley player simply wasn’t a Barnsley player at the time of the original tie. He was out on loan and registered to play for York. So there was never any question that he would have been eligible for a replay.

Cheers for that.

 

[Stephen230]

Cheers for that.

Also, reading between the lines of the FA statement, there may be a suggestion that Forest Green actually asked the FA for clarification before the game and were given unclear/ incorrect direction.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Also, reading between the lines of the FA statement, there may be a suggestion that Forest Green actually asked the FA for clarification before the game and were given unclear/ incorrect direction.

Grounds for an appeal surely?

 

[Stephen230]

Grounds for an appeal surely?

At the end of the day they played an ineligible player, so the result can’t possibly stand, irrespective of the advice they received.

A replay seems a fair outcome for all concerned to me.

 

[bluesmith]

At the end of the day they played an ineligible player, so the result can’t possibly stand, irrespective of the advice they received.

A replay seems a fair outcome for all concerned to me.

I think they did have permission from Huddersfield to play him, what they didn't do was inform the FA they had permission to play him, which they should of done, a replay seems fair enough.