[Archived] Burnley's Route To The League Cup Final!

[brightonrover]

Anyone else heard the rumour that Bumley are trying to get Spuds disqualified for fielding Defoe in the second leg?

[longsiders1882]

Not entirely true.

We have I believe asked for clarification on the rules as they state a player has to be registered before the tie starts - as the two games are part of one tie then it seems there is some doubt that he should have played in the second leg.

As it is a premier league club, more notably a large one from London we clearly have no chance regardless of what the rules say.

The article in the Mirror says:

Burnley are writing to the Football League to ask if Jermain Defoe was eligible to play for Tottenham against them in the Carling Cup semi.

The puzzled Championship outfit want a ruling on whether striker Defoe should have appeared in the second leg - when he was not eligible for the first.

Clarets chiefs have checked rule books and believe they state players must be signed before the 'tie' starts. And as both legs are part of the one result - with aggregate scores and away goals included - they may have a case.

Owen Coyle's heroes were two minutes from Wembley last week after dragging Spurs level 4-4 on aggregate before losing in extra-time - and they were then alerted to a possible breach of the rules.

Defoe was NOT registered as a Spurs player before the first leg, waving to the fans prior to that game, but he had not put pen to paper on the transfer from Portsmouth.

And he played in the second leg at Turf Moor and also chipped in with a late goal - leaving Burnley insiders to study the rule books.

[brightonrover]

You're probably right Longsider, if it wasn't a 'big' team (i.e. a London one that half the press support) you might have half a chance of turning it over.

[longsiders1882]

To be honest it is a bit hypocritical.

Firstly if we were concerned then why didn't we bring it up at the time. Secondly we (Burnley fans) were hoping to sign a defender from Celtic in time to play for us in the second leg......

I believe the football league have announced that he was elligible, which at least clears it up for future reference

[nicko]

The Football League say that no rule was broken...probably because they forgot to put a rule in place for this.

I can't think of any other proper tournament where a second leg is NOT related to the first leg.

Defoe was allowed to play after an 'interpretation' by the Football League.

It's not what you know, etc.

[modes98]

When Defoe signed Sky Sports News asked for clarification and they stated that even though he wasn't registered in time for the first game, that he would be available for the second leg. Although I had previously thought that you had to be registered prior to the start of the first leg.

[Kelbo]

Then this is a different rule to other cup competitions, Nelson beat Colne 1 - 0 in a cup replay and were fine and expelled from the competion as the player was not eligable for the first match

And to complicate matters, Defoe was on the bench for Pompy, he didnt come on yet the ref could still, as a member of the bench, give him a yellow or red card!!!!!

Funny one isnt it?

[LeftWinger]

Defoe was allowed to play after an 'interpretation' by the Football League.

Does that mean that Spurs checked before playing him? If they did check and they were told it was ok, then there is no case to answer surely.

[Gav]

More complaints

First it was:

"Shouldn't have gone to extra time, we should have gone through on away goals after 90 mins"

and now:

"Shouldn't have played Defoe, he's ineligible"

Just get over it, you're out

[gumboots]

More complaints

First it was:

"Shouldn't have gone to extra time, we should have gone through on away goals after 90 mins"

and now:

"Shouldn't have played Defoe, he's ineligible"

Just get over it, you're out

But it would be great to see someone put one over on Spurs, even if it is Burnley.

[nicko]

Does that mean that Spurs checked before playing him? If they did check and they were told it was ok, then there is no case to answer surely.

Spurs checked, got a 'silent ruling' - whatever that means' - and played Defoe.

However, as it was 'silent' and not in the rule book Burnley were totally entitled to check.

Now they know the decision was taken by one man, who interpreted it this way because the rule book is not specific.

I think they were totally correct to ask.

Rovers did the same when they were cheated out of a place in Europe about a decade ago...they were right to ask then too.

[Blue n White Rover]

Spurs checked, got a 'silent ruling' - whatever that means' - and played Defoe.

However, as it was 'silent' and not in the rule book Burnley were totally entitled to check.

Now they know the decision was taken by one man, who interpreted it this way because the rule book is not specific.

I think they were totally correct to ask.

Rovers did the same when they were cheated out of a place in Europe about a decade ago...they were right to ask then too.

Therefore, Spurs have done nothing wrong. They asked about Defoe, got a "silent" yes, and played him. So Spurs shouldn't get punished. Right or wrong?

[nicko]

Therefore, Spurs have done nothing wrong. They asked about Defoe, got a "silent" yes, and played him. So Spurs shouldn't get punished. Right or wrong?

Spurs checked...were told he could play and played him...so they have done nothing wrong.

The League need to sort out their rule book.

[Blue n White Rover]

Spurs checked...were told he could play and played him...so they have done nothing wrong.

The League need to sort out their rule book.

Matter closed then. Spurs will be playing in the final. However, will Burnley be entitled to any sort of compensation?

[nicko]

Matter closed then. Spurs will be playing in the final. However, will Burnley be entitled to any sort of compensation?

The only consolation will be that the rule book may get re-written.

Strange that clubs can be penalised in the FA Cup and the Champions League for similar registration issues.

[Kelbo]

Spurs checked...were told he could play and played him...so they have done nothing wrong.

The League need to sort out their rule book.

Nicko,

Agree entirely, though I am Rovers through and through, the rule book should have had this covered, it should not be down to one man, god, it only takes one corrupt bugger to take a bung and its sorted!! Get the rule covered and quickly to avoid any happenings again!!

Reminds me, years ago the rulebook for the Irish Gillette cup (cricket and off topic but funny) stated, In the event of a tie, the side scoring the most runs wins!!! That is true.

[longsiders1882]

More complaints

First it was:

"Shouldn't have gone to extra time, we should have gone through on away goals after 90 mins"

and now:

"Shouldn't have played Defoe, he's ineligible"

Just get over it, you're out

To be honest I think the away goals rule is a joke - its either away goals after 180 minutes or its not - otherwise one team potentially gets an extra 30 minutes to get the away goal. of course that was the rule so no complaints re our result but I do think they should either forget away goals and go extra time and penalties or they have it at the end of 180 minutes.

In terms of this rule - again it should be tightened up for the future but I don't think it would have been right to overturn the result. We lost fair and square, simple as that.

[herbergeehh]

I agree, it's not a fair rule as it stands at the moment. The side playing the first game at home will get the advantage, why they don't limit the rule to 180 minutes is beyond me.

[T4E]

To be honest I think the away goals rule is a joke - its either away goals after 180 minutes or its not - otherwise one team potentially gets an extra 30 minutes to get the away goal. of course that was the rule so no complaints re our result but I do think they should either forget away goals and go extra time and penalties or they have it at the end of 180 minutes.

In terms of this rule - again it should be tightened up for the future but I don't think it would have been right to overturn the result. We lost fair and square, simple as that.

It's a bloody ridiculous rule, the Spurs fans I was with in the ground on Weds night couldn't believe their luck when it became apparent to them.

[Gav]

But it would be great to see someone put one over on Spurs, even if it is Burnley.

Wash your mouth out

[philipl]

The way the League Cup semi-finals are set up with how away goals and extra time interact and the permissibility of added players in the second leg is so ridiculous that the Football League surely must act to tidy it up.

Having said that, the current set-up helped gerrymander Chelsea into last year's final and far more blatantly, Spurs into this year's final. So the FL probably think they've got a result!

[snatchymcsnatch]

But it would be great to see someone put one over on Spurs, even if it is Burnley.

Thought I was on my own on that one

Nothing worse these days than seeing a bunch of jubilant cockneys at a northern away ground waving their posh camera phones about and hugging each other in their sensible sweaters - all giving it the big I am

They can stick their Wembley and shove their Jermaine Defoe and his stupid little hat and playdoh moptop haircut where the sun don't shine. Might as well throw Eastenders, Redknapp (and his stupid grey suited son), and the credit crunch (which they started) into the pot as well.

Up the blue and whites.

[LeftWinger]

They can stick their Wembley and shove their Jermaine Defoe and his stupid little hat and playdoh moptop haircut where the sun don't shine. Might as well throw Eastenders, Redknapp (and his stupid grey suited son), and the credit crunch (which they started) into the pot as well.

Brilliant!

[brightonrover]

Yes, very much with SnatchyMcSnatch on that one!

[cruz]

Right or wrong the league cup away goal rule has been in place for years. Time to get over it Dingles