East Kilbride boss Kevin Rutkiewicz is ‘perplexed’ by Auchinleck Talbot winning an appeal that saw Kilby booted out of the South Challenge Cup.
And while Rutkiewicz says it’s unlikely that the K-Park club will counter-appeal, he says there must be ‘clarity and transparency’ from the powers that be, as to the competition rules.
West of Scotland Premier League giants Talbot beat Kilby 1-0 at Beechwood Park on March 4 to move into the quarter-finals against Caledonian Braves on April 1.
East Kilbride appealed, because Talbot fielded goalkeeper Joshua Bradley-Hurst, who they had signed on an emergency loan from League One club Clyde, and who had played for Clydebank against Pollok in an earlier round.
Talbot say they signed Bradley-Hurst because they knew Marc Fisher, who played for Troon in an earlier round, was cup-tied, but were told that the Clyde shot-stopper wasn’t.
Rutkiewicz said: “On the day, fair and square, Talbot beat us and I have absolutely no objection to the game itself. They were the better team on the day.
“But rules are rules, and I’m a wee bit perplexed as to how they’ve arrived at the decision, because whatever has happened doesn’t make the player any more eligible than what he was.
“ I’m not going to sit here and gripe about it. It’s not how I wanted to progress in the cup, and if that’s the decision I wish Talbot all the very best in the cup, going forward.
“But it’s a wee bit perplexing to know that however many teams entered the competition have abided by the rules, and they seem to have, on the face of it, just been bent a wee bit.
“It had no major impact on the game on the day, I need to emphasise that, but at the end of the day we were without five players on that day, two of whom had played every game- leading into it for the last three, four or five weeks.
“It did have an impact on our squad on the day, but it is what it is. I don’t like to get too involved in the politics, I haven’t had any time to speak to my own board and committed, and find out the reasons why it was overturned.
“What has happened between the game and now that has made the player more eligible?
“It’s my only question mark, because i think we have to look at the rules of the cup, as a whole. now.”
Rutkiewicz added: “Regardless of how far you go up the chain with this, he was ineligible, and it’s an unfortunate admin error – whether that belongs to Auchinleck, or the powers that be that run the cup, it really doesn’t matter – I don’t want to boil this down, or narrow this down to finger one person for the blame, here.
“I’m certainly not going to open a vendetta about this.
“I’ll accept the decision, if there is a full explanation of why that player all of a sudden becomes eligible.
“We put young players out on loan who we dragged back to play, and it would have been great to have them, to be honest, but we didn’t. You have to adjust and adapt.
“Talbot signed a keeper from Troon a week before, who had played in the cup, but he was ineligible. Why is he ineligible but Bradley-Hurst wasn’t?
“I don’t doubt for a minute that Talbot did their diligence and have that piece of paper, but the powers that be now have to answer a question why one keeper they signed a week before is ineligible, and one keeper they brought in for the game – under the same circumstances – becomes eligible.”
On an appeal, Rutkiewicz said: “We raised the incident, they appealed it, and I don’t know where that stops. The game is next week, as well.
“But what if Braves field an ineligible player and they win the game. What does that mean?
“It creates a lot of greyness for the competition, going forward, and if there’s going to be a rule change, the fair thing to do would be to do it at the start of the cup next season.
“I can’t imagine there will be a counter-appeal, but what we have to do is get a it of clarity and transparency from the competition runners on why it has been judged to be fair and equal.”
Follow Lanarkshire Live Sport on Twitter via @LanLiveSport, like us on Facebook or find us on Instagram for the latest sports news, pictures and video.
