Same game abandoned twice

Scottish Football Answers to Questions
Post Reply
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:34 pm
Location: Bathgate

Same game abandoned twice

Post by LLD » Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:45 pm

Tricky one this but just back from Broadwood where Clyde v Livingston was abandoned for a second time tonight. :cry:

Question - has the one match ever been abandoned, rearranged and abandoned again before?

I have no recollection of any other ones but I'm prepared to be corrected :)

Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:36 pm

Post by HibeeJibee » Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:31 am

Only way I could think of checking it quickly was to run a scan down this:

In 1887-88 R1 tie Thornhill v Vale of Nith was abandoned at 2-2, then the replay declared void after 0-1. Any information on why it was made void?

I found no other examples of double abandonments, though in early days ties were often just allowed to stand as score was it at the time (or even, both clubs given a bye to the next round).... I also only found a couple of instances of 2 or more ties abandoned on the same day - 1 in 1931, other some time earlier (didn't note year!!). No club twice in one edition either...

Although not comprehensive, this might indicate Clyde v Livi as a "first"... short of trawling Breedon and/or Alex Graham's book, no better answer!!

Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm

Post by Scottish » Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:35 am

The early days of the Scottish Cup were littered with withdrawals, protests, teams not turning up etc that it would be an absolute nightmare to try and trawl through the records to see if there has been anything similar to Clyde v Livingston. BTW the match you mention between Thornhill & Vale of Nith was in 1888-89 I believe, not 1887-88 - an indication in itself of just how difficult it is to keep track.

That said I think one thing is fairly certain. I can't think of another ground which has had three scheduled matches in nine days and seen the first and third abandoned due to fog and the second played in its entirety.

Looks like this is one of those 'records' that can be claimed until/unless someone proves otherwise.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests